CAR_Public/060926.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 191

                            Headlines

AMERICAN HOME: La. Federal Court Certifies Suit Over Norplant
ASPEON INC: Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settlement in N.Y. Litigation Opposed
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Faces Stock Lawsuits in Del., N.Y.
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit

CANADA: Regina Court Hears CA$1.9B Residential School Suit Deal
COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Shareholders Drop Del. Suits Over SSG Merger
DIRECTV INC: Refused Arbitration in Subscriber Suit Over HDTV
DYNABAZAAR INC: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Okay
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Recalls Sweatshirts Posing Strangulation Risk

ILLINOIS: Will County Enters $2.15M Strip Search Suit Settlement
LOWE'S HOME: Reaches Settlement in Kans. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
MEDIACOM LLC: Appeals Relief Granted to Mo. Rights-of-Way Suit
PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: Sued Over Endorsement of Westpoint Fund
PUERTO RICO: Motion to Delay Reply to Subscribers' Suit Opposed

REDBACK NETWORKS: Officials Continue to Face Calif. Stock Suit
RODEN INDUSTRIES: Recalls Kids' Bathrobes that Fail Flame Test
SEIPLE LITHOGRAPH: Former Workers File Suit Over Misuse of Funds
SFBC INT'L: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated in N.J. Court
SLAVERY REPARATIONS LITIGATION: Ill. Court to Hear Case Sept. 27

SONY BMG: Ontario Court Okays XCP, MediaMax Lawsuit Settlement
SONY BMG: Tech. Advocacy Group Challenges Rootkit Settlement
STONEPATH GROUP: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal of Securities Suit
TAG-IT PACIFIC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Certifies $200B "Lights" Lawsuit

TRAVEL COMPANIES: Fla. Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remittances
TRAVEL COMPANIES: City Government in Ken. Sues Over Tax Remits
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Okay
TYSON FOODS: Del. Court Hears Motion to Junk Executive Pay Suit
VOLUME SERVICES: Calif. Court Gives Final Okay to "Holden" Deal

VOLUME SERVICES: Resolves All Claims in "Perez" Litigation
WASHINGTON REDSKINS: Advocates for Deaf File Suit in Md. Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Spencer C. Demetros Announces Conn. Securities Filing
CONNETICS CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AMERICAN HOME: La. Federal Court Certifies Suit Over Norplant
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana granted class-action certification to the lawsuit
"Davis, et al., v. American Home Products Corp., d/b/a Wyeth-
Ayerst Laboratories, Case No. 94-11684."

The lawsuit is about whether Norplant(R) is a defective product,
and whether the maker, American Home Products Corp., doing
business as Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (Wyeth), is liable.

The Norplant(R) contraceptive device was a prescription birth
control implant in the form of "timed-release" rods that were
surgically implanted below the skin of a woman's upper arm to
provide birth control for up to five years.

The Plaintiffs allege that women suffered adverse effects
because the dosage was too high during the first 12-18 months,
and that the Norplant(R) contraceptive device is a defective
product as a result.

The court has decided that this lawsuit is a class action, and
may go ahead to a trial, because it meets the requirements of
the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, articles 591-92, which
govern class actions in Louisiana.

The class involves a group of people, that includes women who
claim to be suffering, or have suffered from, adverse effects as
a result of the Norplant(R) contraceptive implant, including
changes or irregularities in menstrual bleeding, pain or itching
at the implant site, infection at the implant site, removal
difficulties, headaches, nervousness, nausea, dizziness,
swelling near implant site, dermatitis, acne, change of
appetite, breast pain, weight gain, or excessive body or facial
hair and/or scalp hair loss.

Class members must also either have had the implant surgically
implanted or removed in Louisiana, or have been a Louisiana
resident at the time it was implanted.

Wyeth denies the claims and allegations in the lawsuit that the
Norplant(R) contraceptive implant was defective or that it did
anything wrong.

Deadline to file for exclusion from the class is Dec. 15, 2006.  
A trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 16, 2007.

Norplant Litigation on the Net:

http://www.norplantcase.com./lawyers.html

A copy of the detailed notice is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1247

The suit is "Davis, et al., v. American Home Products Corp.,
d/b/a Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Case No. 94-11684," filed in
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana under Judge Piper D. Griffin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darleen M. Jacobs of Jacobs & Sarrat, PLC, 823 St.
         Louis Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: (504) 522-
         3287;

     (2) Roy F. Amedee, Jr. of Law Offices of Roy F. Amedee,
         Jr., 1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 735, Metairie, LA 70001-
         7522, Phone: (504)-799-3232;

     (3) Richard J. Arsenault of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, PO
         Box 1190, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: (800)-256-
         1050;

     (4) J. Robert Ates of Ates & Associates, 13726 River Road,
         Destrehan, LA 70047, Phone: (985)-764-9911;

     (5) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the Law Offices of Daniel E.
         Becnel, Jr., 106 West Seventh Street, PO Drawer
         Reserve, LA 70084-2095, Phone: (985)-536-1186,

     (6) Allan Berger of Allan Berger & Associates, PLC, 4173
         Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70119-5972, Phone: (877)-
         820-3198;

     (7) Terrill W. Boykin of Bordenave Boykin & Ehret, PC, 400
         Poydras Street, Suite 2450, New Orleans, LA 70130,
         Phone: (504)-527-5450;   

     (8) Calvin C. Fayard of Fayard & Honeycutt, APC, 519
         Florida Avenue Southwest, Denham Springs, LA 70726,
         Phone: (225)-664-0304; and

     (9) Bruce C. Dean of Bruce C. Dean, LLC, 3500 North Hullen
         Street, Metairie, LA 70002, Phone: (504)-456-8633.


ASPEON INC: Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated securities fraud
class action against Aspeon, Inc.

In October and November 2000, eight purported class actions were
filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and its
former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for alleged violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the defendants moved to dismiss each of the actions, the
lawsuits were consolidated under a single action, "In re Aspeon
Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 00-995 AHS (ANx)," and the
appointed lead plaintiff voluntarily filed an amended and
consolidated complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint and on April 23, 2001
the court entered an order dismissing the complaint without
prejudice.  

On May 21, 2001 the appointed lead plaintiff filed a third
complaint, styled as a "First Amended Consolidated Complaint."

On June 4, 2001 the defendants moved to dismiss this complaint
and on Sept. 17, 2001, the U.S. District Court dismissed the
suit with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the company
and the company's officers.

On Sept. 20, 2001, the lead plaintiff in the class action
appealed against the dismissal of the case.

On Jan. 21, 2003 the decision to dismiss the case was upheld,
but the lead plaintiff was given the opportunity to remedy the
deficiencies in the complaint that had been filed.

Accordingly on May 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed its "Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint" which again was subsequently
dismissed by the District Court.  

On Nov. 26, 2003 the lead plaintiff filed its "Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint" which was again dismissed with prejudice
in March 2004.

The lead plaintiff once again appealed against the dismissal and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.

The suit is "Jay Spechler, et al. v. Aspeon Inc, et al., Case
No. 8:00-cv-00995-AHS-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, under Judge Alicemarie H.
Stotler.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas C. Bright, Solomon B.
Cera, Steven Orrin Sidener, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, 595
Market St, Ste 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105-2835, Phone: 415-
777-2230, Fax: 415-777-5189.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Donald A. Daucher, Jay C. Gandhi, Colleen Elizabeth
         Hushke, Peter M. Stone, Paul Hastings Janofsky and
         Walker, 3579 Valley Centre Dr., San Diego, CA 92130,
         Phone: 858-720-2500, E-mail:
         dondaucher@paulhastings.com; and

     (2) Eric J. Belfi, Murray Frank and Sailer, 275 Madison
         Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-
         1818.  


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settlement in N.Y. Litigation Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana has objected to the
proposed settlement in the shareholder class action against
Cablevision Systems Corp. and its individual directors relation
to the Dolan family group proposal to acquire the outstanding,
publicly held interests in the company following a pro rata
distribution of Rainbow Media Holdings.  The suit was filed in
the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County.

On Oct. 24, 2005, the company received a letter from the Dolan
family group withdrawing that proposal and recommending the
consideration of a special dividend.  

On Nov. 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the New York Supreme Court action to relate to the
special dividend proposed by the Dolan family group.  

The amended complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
payment of the special dividend proposed by the Dolan family
group.  

On Feb. 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding allegations related to the Dec. 19, 2005 announcement
that the board had decided not to proceed with the proposed
special dividend, and the Jan. 31, 2006 announcement that the
Board is expected to begin reconsideration of a possible special
dividend at its regularly scheduled meeting in March 2006.

The amended complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
payment of the special dividend proposed by the Dolan family
group.

On March 27, 2006, Cablevision entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to the settlement of the actions
pending in the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County relating
to a proposed special dividend.

On April 7, 2006, Cablevision's Board of Directors declared a
special cash dividend of $10.00 per share, which was paid on
April 24, 2006 to holders of record at the close of business on
April 18, 2006.

The proposed settlement of these actions is subject to court
approval and a hearing on the proposed settlement was scheduled
for Sept. 25, 2006.  

On Aug. 21, 2006, The Teachers Retirement System submitted a
letter to the court stating that, in light of the company's
disclosure on Aug. 8, 2006 of its expectation of the need to
restate previously issued financial statements in connection
with grants of stock options and Stock Appreciation Rights, it
is unclear whether the company had sufficient surplus or net
profits to pay the special dividend and that The Teachers
Retirement System objected to the proposed settlement on that
ground.

Bethpage, New York-based Cablevision Systems, Corp. (NYSE: CVC)
-- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable operator in the  
U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies.  Cablevision owns
all of the outstanding common stock of CSC Holdings.  

Cablevision has no operations independent of its CSC Holdings
subsidiary.  Through wholly owned subsidiary, Rainbow Media
Holdings LLC, the company owns interests in and manages national
and regional programming networks, the Madison Square Garden
sports and entertainment business, and cable television
advertising sales companies.  Through wholly owned subsidiary
Cablevision Lightpath, Inc. (Lightpath), the company provides
telephone services and Internet access to the business market.  
The company classifies its business interests into three
segments: Telecommunications Services, Rainbow and Madison
Square Garden.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Faces Stock Lawsuits in Del., N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems, Corp. remains a defendant in two purported
tracking stock class actions filed in the Delaware and New York
state courts.

                         Delaware Action

In August 2002, purported class actions naming as defendants the
company and each of its directors were filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court.  

The actions, which allege breach of fiduciary duties and breach
of contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media
Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, were
purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of publicly traded
shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock.  The actions
sought to:

      -- enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock;

      -- enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages;

      -- if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages;

      -- award compensatory damages; and

      -- award costs and disbursements.

The actions were consolidated into one action on Sept. 17, 2002,
and on Oct. 3, 2002, Cablevision filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.

The action was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
resolution of a related action brought by one of the plaintiffs
to compel the inspection of certain books and records of
Cablevision.

On Oct. 26, 2004, the parties entered into a stipulation
dismissing the related action, and providing for Cablevision's
production of certain documents.  

On Dec. 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Cablevision filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 19, 2005, the court granted that motion in part,
dismissing the breach of contract claim but declining to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty claim on the pleadings.

                         New York Action

In August 2003, a purported class action naming as defendants
the company, directors and officers of Cablevision and certain
current and former officers and employees of the company's
Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics subsidiaries
was filed in New York Supreme Court by the Teachers Retirement
System of Louisiana (TRSL).

The actions relate to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings.

The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of
fiduciary duties.  It also alleges breaches of contract and
unjust enrichment by Cablevision.  Thus, the complaint seeks
monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems just
and proper.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Cablevision and other defendants moved to stay
the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending in
Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state
a claim.

On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on the basis of
the previously filed action in Delaware.  TRSL subsequently
filed a motion to vacate the stay in the New York action, and
simultaneously filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware
action and to stay that action.  Cablevision opposed both
motions.

On April 19, 2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the
motion to stay the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to
intervene in it.  On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York
action denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action.

Bethpage, New York-based Cablevision Systems, Corp. (NYSE: CVC)
-- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable operator in the  
U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies.  Cablevision owns
all of the outstanding common stock of CSC Holdings.  

Cablevision has no operations independent of its CSC Holdings
subsidiary.  Through wholly owned subsidiary, Rainbow Media
Holdings LLC, the company owns interests in and manages national
and regional programming networks, the Madison Square Garden
sports and entertainment business, and cable television
advertising sales companies.  Through wholly owned subsidiary
Cablevision Lightpath, Inc., the company provides telephone
services and Internet access to the business market.  The
company classifies its business interests into three segments:
Telecommunications Services, Rainbow and Madison Square Garden.


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present and former
executives and directors.

In July 2004, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its present and former
executives and directors.

The suit originally alleged that the company and the executives
and directors made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions in violation of federal securities laws.  

It sought damages on behalf of a purported class of individuals
who purchased company stock during the period from Nov. 19, 2003
through June 23, 2004.

In October 2004, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On Nov. 29, 2004, plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  

The complaint alleged that the company and certain individual
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions in violation of the federal securities laws during the
period of Jan. 22, 2004 through June 23, 2004.  

The complaint sought to recover damages on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock during the
class period.

Following the company's motion to dismiss, the complaint was
initially dismissed with leave to amend in 2005 and, after
plaintiffs' acknowledgement that they could not amend; the
action was dismissed with prejudice on July 5, 2005.

The suit is "In Re: Callidus Software, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2707," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP, 235 Pine Street,
         15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104 Phone:
         415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710, E-mail:
         gw@classcounsel.com; and

     (2) David Kessler, Michael K. Yarnoff and Christopher
         Nelson of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E,
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.  

Representing the company are James N. Kramer, William F.
Alderman, M. Todd Scott of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe,
LLP, 405 Howard St., San Francisco CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-
5992, Fax: 415-773-5759.


CANADA: Regina Court Hears CA$1.9B Residential School Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Queen's Bench Justice Dennis Ball in Regina reviewed on Sept. 18
to 20 a CA$1.9 billion compensation package for residential
school survivors, reports say.

The settlement plan, which was reached November 2005, provides:

     -- at least CA$1.9 billion available for "common
        experience" payments to former students who lived at one
        of the schools.  Payments will be CA$10,000 for the
        first school year (or part of a school year) plus
        CA$3,000 for each school year (or part of a school year)
        after that;

     -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious
        physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious
        psychological effects, to get between CA$5,000 and
        CA$275,000 each.  Students could get more money if they
        also show a loss of income; and

     -- money for programs for former students and their
        families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and
        commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses
        suffered: CA$125 million to the Aboriginal Healing
        Foundation, CA$60 million to research, document, and
        preserve the experiences of the survivors, and CA$20
        million for national and community commemorative
        projects.

The government will pay lawyers representing former students up
to approximately CA$100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes.

In May, the federal government agreed to pay CA$80 million to
Regina-based Merchant Law Group and a national consortium of 20
law firms.  Survivors, meanwhile, are to get an average of
CA$30,000.
                   
Canada and churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian,
Anglican and United Church operated residential schools in
Canada from 1848 until the 1970s.  Their objectives included
separating aboriginal children from their traditional languages
and cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society.
The Merchant Law Group represents 9,000 survivors, which the
firm's Web site says is half of all those who sought justice by
means of class action (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).

                   Deadline to File Objection

Deadline to file objection to the settlement was Aug. 25, 2006.  

                        Upcoming Hearings

Hearing       Location                 Hearing date         Time


Northwest    Court House             Oct 3-4, 2006  10:00 a.m.
              Territories   
              4903 - 49th Street
              Yellowknife,
              Northwest Territories
              X1A 2N4

Manitoba      Court of Queen's        Oct 5-6, 2006  10:00 a.m.
              Bench
              Law Courts Building
              408 York Avenue
              Winnipeg, MB  R3C 0P9

Nunavut       Nunavut Court           Oct 10-11, 2006  9:30 a.m.
              of Justice
              Arnakallak Building
              (Building #224)
              Iqaluit, Nunavut
              X0A 0H0

British       The Supreme Court       Oct 10-12, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              Columbia
              of British Columbia
              The Law Courts
              800 Smithe Street
              Vancouver, B.C.
              V6Z 2E1

Alberta       Court of Queen's        Oct 12-13, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              Bench
              Court House
              611 - 4 St. S.W.
              Calgary, AB  T2P 1T5

Yukon         Supreme Court of        Oct 16-17, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              the Yukon Territory
              2134 Second Avenue
              Whitehorse, Yukon
              Y1A 5H6

With the exception of those who attended the Mohawk Institute in
Brantford, Ontario, former students and their families are
advised to attend the hearing in the Province/Territory in which
they now reside.  Those living in Labrador, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or outside
Canada, are affected by, and may attend, the Ontario hearing.  
Former Mohawk Institute students are affected by the Ontario
hearing regardless of where they now live.

The compensation will only be paid out to former students who
were still living on May 30, 2005, and who have attended
recognized Indian residential schools.  Students who are
eligible can apply for an advance payment of $8,000 by filling
out a form available on the Indian Residential Schools
Resolution Web site (http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/)or by calling  
1-800-816-7293.   Applications for advance payment will be
accepted until Dec. 31.

For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement
Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247.


COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Shareholders Drop Del. Suits Over SSG Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two class actions against Collegiate Pacific, Inc.
in connection with the merger plan with Sport Supply Group, Inc.
voluntarily dismissed their cases.

On Oct. 5, 2005, two stockholders of Sport Supply, Martin
Kleinbart and William Stahl, each filed a separate lawsuit in
the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County against the company, including the company's
chairman and chief executive officer, Michael J. Blumenfeld,
Sport Supply and certain former members of the firm's board of
directors.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuits as a class action on behalf of
the public stockholders of Sport Supply in connection with the
Sept. 8, 2005 Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the
company was to have acquired the remaining 46.8% of the
outstanding capital stock of SSG that it does not already own.

On Nov. 22, 2005, for reasons unrelated to the pending lawsuit,
the company and Sport Supply entered into a Termination
Agreement, dated Nov. 22, 2005, which terminated the Agreement
and Plan of Merger.

The lawsuits alleged the consideration to be paid to the public
shareholders of Sport Supply was inadequate and that the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed to the Sport
Supply public stockholders.  On July 2, 2006, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuits.

Dallas, Texas-based Collegiate Pacific Inc. (AMEX: BOO) --
http://www.cpacsports.com/-- is a marketer, manufacturer and  
distributor of sporting goods and equipment, soft good athletic
apparel and footwear products (soft goods), and physical
education, recreational and leisure products to the
institutional market in the U.S.  The company's products are
sold to non-retail institutional customers, such as colleges,
high schools, Young Men's Catholic Associations, Young Women's
Christian Associations and recreational organizations, municipal
recreation departments and governmental agencies. It offers
approximately 4,500 sports-related equipment products and soft
goods to approximately 80,000 customers.  During the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2005, the company acquired Dixie Sporting Goods
Co., Inc., Orlando Team Sports and Salkeld & Sons, Inc. In July
2005, CPI acquired 53.2% interest in Sport Supply Group, Inc.
and in August 2005, it acquired Team Print.


DIRECTV INC: Refused Arbitration in Subscriber Suit Over HDTV
-------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman ruled against
DirecTV, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a class action
filed by a subscriber.

Peter Cohen, a DirecTV subscriber, filed the lawsuit in November
2004.  He alleges that DirecTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent
business practices by lowering its High-Definition TV picture
resolution in September 2004 after he signed up for the service.

Mr. Cohen first signed up for DirecTV 's $10.99 monthly HDTV
programming package in 2003.  He says DirecTV at that time
promised that HDTV would provide "astonishing picture quality."  
However, he claims that DirecTV broke that promise by lowering
the picture quality in 2004.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Cohen said that two months after he signed
up for HDTV, DirecTV sent him an amended customer agreement
containing an arbitration clause.  After he filed his lawsuit,
DirecTV filed the motion for arbitration.

DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer said the lawsuit was without
merit.

"We believe the plaintiff's underlying claims are completely
without merit because DirecTV's High Definition service is high
quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for
satellite TV," Mr. Mercer said.  "If it were otherwise, we doubt
the plaintiff would continue to subscribe to and pay for DirecTV
HD programming."

Whether DirecTV purposely squeezes the HD picture quality to
create room for more channels has been a hot topic on Internet
message boards for two years.  The alleged practice has been
dubbed DirecTV's 'HD Lite.'

However, DirecTV has consistently maintained that its high-def
picture is comparable to or better than any other TV provider.


DYNABAZAAR INC: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Dynabazaar, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 14,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

Several purported class actions were filed by individual
shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against:

     -- the company;

     -- Scott Randall, former president, chief executive officer
        and chairman of the board of Dynabazaar;

     -- John Belchers, former chief financial officer of
        Dynabazaar;

     -- U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.;

     -- DB Alex. Brown, as successor-in-interest to Deutsche
        Bank Securities, Inc.;

     -- Robertson Stephens, Inc., formerly known as FleetBoston
        Robertson Stephens, Inc.;

     -- Banc of America Securities, LLC;

     -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc.;

     -- Merrill Lynch;

     -- Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;

     -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., as successor-in-interest
        to Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.; and

     -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., as successor-in-interest
        to Hambrecht & Quist, LLC.

The lawsuits have been filed by individual shareholders who
purport to seek class-action status on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons who purchased the common stock of
Dynabazaar between March 14, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.  

The lawsuits allege that certain underwriters of Dynabazaar's
initial public offering solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed fees and commissions in connection with that
offering.

It further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Dynabazaar's initial public
offering which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On or about Oct. 8, 2002, the court entered an Order dismissing
the claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions, including the claims against Mr. Randall
and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or
the company.

On or about Feb. 19, 2003, the court entered an Order dismissing
with prejudice the claims asserted against the company under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

As a result, the only claims that remain against the company are
those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
the remaining claims in the litigation.  The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the company and its present and former
directors and officers.

It is anticipated that the company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance will fund any payment to the plaintiff class
and their counsel.  The company will make no direct payment.

The parties have negotiated and executed a definitive settlement
agreement.  The proposed settlement provides that the class
members in the class action cases brought against the
participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of
$1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.

In addition, Dynabazaar and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPO's.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.

If ultimately approved by the court, the proposed settlement
would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Dynabazaar and all of the other issuer
defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims
against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  Consummation of the
proposed settlement remains conditioned upon obtaining approval
by the court.

On Sept. 1, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and directed that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be provided to class members.

Thereafter, the court held a fairness hearing, on April 24,
2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.
After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Recalls Sweatshirts Posing Strangulation Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gildan Activewear SRL, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 114,000 units of
Youth hooded sweatshirts.

The company said these sweatshirts have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The fleece sweatshirts were sold in youth sizes Extra Small to
Extra Large, and have a "Gildan Activewear" neck label.  The
sweatshirts were manufactured in 12 different colors.  These
sweatshirts are often used by local print shops to add logos and
sportswear decals.

Pictures of the recalled hooded sweatshirts:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06264a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06264b.jpg

The recalled hooded sweatshirts were manufactured in Honduras
and are being sold by wholesale distributors and applicable
sportswear programs nationwide from January 2006 through
September 2006.  Retail cost between $13 and $20.

Consumers are advised to remove the drawstrings to eliminate the
hazard.

For more information, contact Gildan toll-free at (877) 445-3265
Ext. 4090 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


ILLINOIS: Will County Enters $2.15M Strip Search Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Kendall gave preliminary
approval on Sept. 20 to a $2.15 million settlement on a suit
over strip-searching at Will County, reports say.

On Dec. 16, 2005, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ruled
that Will County jail officials violated the constitutional
rights of thousands of defendants arrested for minor offenses by
strip-searching them upon incarceration and release (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

The class action was filed in May 2003, initially on behalf of
three former inmates, all arrested in cases of mistaken identity
on warrants for failure to appear in court on misdemeanor or
traffic charges.  Back then inmates arrested on misdemeanor and
traffic offenses were not strip searched upon incarceration, in
keeping with federal case precedent.  However, Will County
policy dictated that similar defendants picked up on failure-to-
appear warrants were strip-searched.

The searches were stopped in September 2003.

Judge Gettleman ruled that strip-searching inmates upon
incarceration on failure-to-appear warrants for minor offenses,
without cause to believe they were carrying contraband, violated
the constitution.  However, according to him, when jail
personnel have reasonable suspicion to believe an inmate is
carrying contraband, strip searches could be allowed.

As part of the settlement, the county would drop its appeal of
the December 2005 federal court ruling.  Plaintiffs' attorney,
Kenneth Flaxman, estimated that there are 6,500 people who could
qualify for awards of $400 to $700 each.

A Nov. 17 fairness hearing has been set.

A toll-free number for claimants to leave new address and
contact information is (866) 623-7617.

The original suit is "Calvin, et al. v. Sheriff of Will Co., et
al. Case No. 1:03-cv-03086," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Robert W.
Gettleman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth N. Flaxman of Kenneth N.
Flaxman, P.C., 200 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1240, Chicago, IL
60604-6107, Phone: (312) 427-3200, E-mail: knf@kenlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are, Martin W. McManaman and Gerald
Haberkorn of Lowis & Gellen, 200 West Adams, Suite 1900,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 364-2500, E-mail: martym@lowis-
gellen.com and geraldh@lowis-gellen.com; and Marsha K. Ross of
Haskell & Perrin, 200 West Adams St., Suite 2005, Chicago, IL
60606-5284, Phone: (312) 781-9393.


LOWE'S HOME: Reaches Settlement in Kans. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lowe's Home Centers reached a tentative settlement for a 2002
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas over alleged claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Sections 201-219 of the U.S. Labor Code, WIBW-TV Topeka reports.

Parties to the suit jointly seek permission to file under seal
an executed copy of their Confidential Stipulation of
Settlement, which includes as attachments a proposed Court-
Ordered Notice and a Consent-to-Join and Release and Waiver.

As more fully discussed in their Memorandum in Support, the
parties respectfully request that the Settlement Agreement
remain under seal.  A proposed Order will be submitted.

Parties say requiring the details to become public could spawn
copycat lawsuits and reduce payments made to plaintiffs.

Up to 75,000 current and former employees of the nation's
second-largest home-improvement chain could be involved, the
report said.

Originally filed in October 2002 and amended in November 2003,
the suit alleged that Lowe's Home Center stores in Shawnee and
Olathe:

     (1) switched employees' method of payment from salaried to
         hourly;

     (2) failed to pay for "off the clock" work;

     (3) failed to pay overtime when employees' pay mode was
         converted from salaried to hourly;

     (4) maintained an improper sick leave policy; and

     (5) failed to pay for "comp time."

In 2005, U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia certified the
employees as a class, thus expanding a lawsuit with about 30
plaintiffs into a class action with potentially thousands of
plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 21, 2005).

The company though continues to maintain that it did not violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act and argues that Lowe's had abided
by agreements it made with plaintiffs regarding the terms of
their payment.

The suit is "Hammond, et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers, Case
No. 2:02-cv-02509-CM-GLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James R. Becker, Jr. and Alan G. Crone of Crone &
         Mason, PLC, 5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3200, Memphis, TN
         38137, Phone: 901-683-1850, Fax: 901-683-1963, E-mail:
         jbecker@cronemason.com or acrone@cronemason.com;

     (2) Michael F. Brady, 5350 College Blvd.-Ste. 118, Overland
         Park, KS 66211- 1621, Phone: 913-696-0925, Fax: 913-
         696-0468, E-mail: mbrady@kc.rr.com;

     (3) Thomas H. Brill of The Office of Thomas H. Brill, 6552
         Sagamore Road, Mission Hills, KS 66208-3712, Phone:
         913-677-2004, Fax: 913-677-2152, E-mail:
         brillkc@aol.com;

     (4) Stephen J. Dennis or Dennis E. Egan of The Popham Law
         Firm, P.C., 323 West 8th St.-Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO
         64105-1679, Phone: 816-221-2288, Fax: 816-221-3999, E-
         mail: sdennis@pophamlaw.com or degan@pophamlaw.com;

     (5) James Nelson Thomas of Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP,
         693 East Ave., Rochester, NY 14607, Phone: 585-272-
         0540, Fax: 585-272-0574, E-mail:
         thomas@theemploymentattorneys.com; and

     (6) James J. Webb, Jr. Crone & Mason, PLC, 5100 Poplar
         Ave., Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 38137, Phone: 901-683-
         1850, Fax: 901-683-1963, E-mail: jwebb@cronemason.com

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard R. Fritz or Anthony J. Romano of Polsinelli
         Shalton Welte Suelthaus, P.C. -- KC, 700 West 47th
         Street, Suite 1000, Kansas City, MO 64112-1802, Phone:
         816-753-1000, Fax: 816-753-1536, E- mail:
         rfritz@pswslaw.com or aromano@pswslaw.com;

     (2) Keith Hult, Marko J. Mrkonich or John A. Ybarra of
         Littler Mendelson, PC -- Chicago, 200 North LaSalle,
         Suite 2900, Chicago, IL 60601-1014, Phone: 312-795-3206
         or 312-372-5520, Fax: 312-372-7880 or 312-372-7880, E-
         mail: khult@littler.com or mmrkonich@littler.com or
         JYbarra@Littler.com;

     (3) Andrew J Voss of Littler Mendelson, PC -- Minneapolis,
         33 South 6th St., Suite 3110, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
         Phone: 612-313-7605, Fax: 512-630-9626, E-mail:
         avoss@littler.com; and

     (4) Matthew R. O'Connor of Cosentio's Service Corp.,
         8700 E. 63rd St., Kansas City, MO 64133, Phone: 816-
         358-6511, E-mail: moconnor@pswslaw.com.


MEDIACOM LLC: Appeals Relief Granted to Mo. Rights-of-Way Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mediacom
Communications Corp., is appealing a court order declaring that
class relief in the putative class action pending in the Circuit
Court of Clay County, Missouri, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v.
Mediacom, LLC, Case No. CV101-2809CC," is appropriate.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-based damages for an alleged
trespassing by the company in private properties in Missouri.  
The suit was originally filed on April 24, 2001.  

Pursuant to license agreements with the relevant state and
county authorities and utility companies, Mediacom LLC placed
interconnect fiber optic cable within state and county highway
rights-of-way and on existing utility easements in areas of
Missouri not presently served by a cable franchise.  

The suit alleges that Mediacom LLC was required but failed to
obtain permission from the adjoining landowners to place the
cable.  It has not made a claim for specified damages.  

An order declaring that this action is appropriate for class
relief was entered on April 14, 2006, and Mediacom LLC is
currently pursuing its appellate remedies with respect to that
order.  

Middletown, New York-based Mediacom Communications Corp.
(NASDAQ: MCCC) -- http://www.mediacomllc.com/-- is engaged in  
the acquisition and development of cable systems serving smaller
cities and towns in the U.S.  Through these cable systems, MCC
provides entertainment, information and telecommunications
services to its subscribers.  The company's products and
services include analog and digital video services, advanced
video services, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition
television (HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR), high-speed
data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or cable
modem service and phone service.  As of December 31, 2005, the
company was operating cable systems in 23 states, principally
Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and
South Dakota.  MCC served approximately 1.42 million basic
subscribers, 494,000 digital customers, 478,000 HSD customers
and 22,000 telephone customers.


PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: Sued Over Endorsement of Westpoint Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Slater & Gordon filed a class action against
Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd., a Queensland,
Australia-based company that promoted several "mezzanine"
schemes of collapsed firm Westpoint Corp. Pty Ltd., reports say.

The suit was lodged in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on
behalf of 22 investors who invested $2.2 million in the funds.  
IMF (Australia) Ltd. is funding the case.  

The suit accuses Professional Investment Services of failing to
give appropriate advice to investors and of misleading them
about Westpoint's mezzanine fund.  Professional Investment
invested $19.2 million of client money in Westpoint, Slater &
Gordon director Ken Fowlie said.

Investors, led by Bruce Jameson, are claiming damages for
anxiety and stress and a return of their money.

Headquartered in Perth, Western Australia, the Westpoint Group  
-- http://westpoint.com.au/-- is engaged in property  
development and owns or manages retail and commercial properties
with a total value of over AU$300 million.  The group's troubles
began in 2005 when the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission commenced a series of legal proceedings in relation
to a number of companies within the Westpoint Group.  

ASIC contends that Westpoint projects are suffering from
significant shortfall of assets over liabilities so that
hundreds of investors are at serious risk of not receiving
repayment of their investments.  These investigations were then
followed by the winding up of a number of Westpoint's mezzanine
companies.  ASIC also sought wind-up orders after the Westpoint
companies failed to comply with ASIC's requirement to lodge
accounts for certain financial years.  

The most recent development in the Westpoint battle is the wind-
up order issued by the Federal Court in Perth against Westpoint  
Corp. Pty Ltd.  ASIC applied to wind up the company on grounds
of insolvency.  ASIC believes that Westpoint Corp. is
responsible for arranging, managing and coordinating  Westpoint
Group's property projects as well as holding money for other
group companies.  ASIC was concerned that Westpoint Corp. was
unable to pay its debts, including its obligations under the
guarantees given to the mezzanine companies to make good
expected shortfalls in the repayment of amounts owed to
investors.

The Westpoint Group's collapse is considered by many as the
largest of its type in recent years, with small investors being
the biggest group affected.

Slater & Gordon on the Net: http://www.slatergordon.com.au/.


PUERTO RICO: Motion to Delay Reply to Subscribers' Suit Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are opposing a request by Puerto Rico Telephone Co.,
Inc., a fixed-line subsidiary of Telecomunicaciones de Puerto
Rico, Inc., for additional time to respond in a purported class
action filed against it in the court of First Instance of Puerto
Rico.

On Nov. 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight business
service subscribers filed a class action with the court of First
Instance of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.

Plaintiffs claimed that the company's charges for touchtone
service are not based on cost, and therefore violate the Act.
Thus, they requested that the court to:

      -- issue an order certifying the case as a class action;
      
      -- designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class;

      -- find that the charges are illegal; and

      -- order the company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On Nov. 1, 2004 Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion for summary
judgment requesting the dismissal of plaintiff's claim due to
plaintiff's failure to follow the procedure to object to
charges, established by Law 33.

Law 33 establishes that a telecommunication services user has 20
days from the receipt of the telecommunications service company
invoice to object to charges in the invoice.  

In the motion, Puerto Rico Telephone has argued that since
plaintiffs admittedly failed to comply with said procedure their
claims are time-barred.  The motion is still under the
consideration by the court.

On May 10, 2005 the court issued an order certifying the case as
a class action.  Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of
that decision and a hearing was held on June 20, 2005 to discuss
the merits of Puerto Rico Telephone's position.

On June 22, 2005 the court issued an order confirming its
previous decision.  As a consequence, a certiorari writ was
filed on June 22, 2005.

On Sept. 19, 2005 the P.R. Appeals Court denied the same.  
Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of that decision on
Oct. 4, 2005.

The reconsideration request was denied on Oct. 11, 2005.
Therefore Puerto Rico Telephone filed a certiorari writ with the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court on Nov. 10, 2005.  The certiorari writ
was denied on Jan. 18, 2006.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion to
dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on
the enactment of Law No. 138 of Nov. 4, 2005.  This new law
grants the TRB exclusive primary jurisdiction to entertain class
actions related to telecommunication services.

The hearing scheduled for Jan. 24, 2006 was rescheduled for May
16, 2006 in response to plaintiff's request for time to oppose
Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.  

The court granted the plaintiffs until March 24, 2006 to submit
their motions opposing Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to
dismiss.  In addition the court granted Puerto Rico Telephone
until April 24, 2006 to submit its reply.  

On March 24, 2006 plaintiffs filed a request for sixty
additional days to submit their opposing motion.  On March 29,
2006 PRTC opposed this request and asked the court to rule on
the jurisdictional matter brought by PRTC.

On April 3, 2006, the court denied plaintiff's request for
extension of time, but did not rule on PRTC's motion to dismiss.
On April 12, 2006, plaintiff's filed for reconsideration, which
was not considered by the court.

Consequently, on April 28, 2006, plaintiff's filed an opposition
to PRTC's motion to dismiss arguing that Law 138 is
unconstitutional.  PRTC filed an urgent motion, arguing that the
opposition was untimely filed, and as a result the court has
lost jurisdiction of said motion under the Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In the alternative, and due to the fact that this is an
interlocutory proceeding, PRTC requested additional time to file
a reply and a new date for the argumentative hearing.  On May 9,
2006, plaintiffs filed opposition to PRTC's request, according
to the company's Aug. 14, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico-based Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico,
Inc. -- http://www.telefonicapr.com/-- is a telecommunications  
services provider in Puerto Rico, the company's fixed-line
subsidiary, Puerto Rico Telephone Co. (PRT), is the island
nation's incumbent local-exchange carrier with more than 1
million residential and business access lines in services.  The
company also offers wireless communications services under the
Verizon Wireless brand, as well as long-distance, Internet
access, and directory services.  Verizon Communications owns 52%
of Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico through its purchase of GTE
Corp.'s GTE Holdings (Puerto Rico); the government of Puerto
Rico owns 28% through its Government Development Bank.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Officials Continue to Face Calif. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain officers and directors of Redback Networks, Inc. remain
defendants in a consolidated securities class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 15, 2003, the first of several putative class action
complaints, "Robert W. Baker, Jr., et al. v. Joel M. Arnold, et
al., No. C-03-5642 JF," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  

At least 10 nearly identical complaints were filed in the same
court.  All of the complaints eventually were consolidated into
a single consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs have amended the
consolidated complaint several times.  

Two of plaintiffs' amendments of the consolidated complaint came
in response to orders by the court granting defendants' motions
to dismiss earlier versions of the consolidated complaint and
allowing plaintiffs leave to amend.

The current version of the consolidated complaint is the Fourth
Amended Consolidated Complaint, which was filed on May 19, 2006.
The Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint names 12 of the
company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants.  The company is not named as a defendant.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's shares of common stock from Nov. 27, 1999 through Oct.
10, 2003.

The complaint purports to allege violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely
disclose information primarily relating to certain alleged
transactions between the company and Qwest Communications
International, Inc.  It seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On July 10, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The plaintiff's filed
their opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss Aug. 4,
2006, and a hearing on this motion was set for Sept. 15, 2006.

The suit is "In re Redback Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-05642," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com; and

     (2) Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, 400 S. El
         Camino Real, San Mateo, CA, 94402, Phone: 650-348-010,
         Fax: 650-348-096, E-mail: Info@Afelaw.com

     (3) Eric J. Belfi of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0878,
         Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com;

     (4) Robert A. Jigarjian of Green Welling, LLP, 235 Pine
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
         415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
         cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com.


RODEN INDUSTRIES: Recalls Kids' Bathrobes that Fail Flame Test
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roden Industries Inc., Hollywood, Florida, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
740 units of "Que Cute" children's bathrobes.

The company said these bathrobes fail to meet the children's
sleepwear flammability standard, and pose a burn hazard.  No
incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled bathrobes are made of 100 percent cotton
terrycloth.  The bathrobes were sold in several color
combinations including: white with pink pockets and a green
collar; dark blue with yellow pockets and an orange collar; and
light pink with a hood with pig ears, eyes, and nose.  The
recalled robes were infant and toddler sizes.  A label on the
inside of the garment reads, "Que Cute."

Picture of recalled bathrobe:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06260.jpg

These recalled bathrobes were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Ross Stores nationwide during February 2006 for
about $4.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop wearing these
bathrobes and return them to any Ross Store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Ross Stores toll-free at
(877) 455-7677 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.rossstores.com.


SEIPLE LITHOGRAPH: Former Workers File Suit Over Misuse of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Seiple Lithograph Co. filed class actions in
Stark County Common Pleas Court and U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the company and two top
executives over alleged misappropriation of business funds, the
Akron Beacon Journal reports.

The lawsuits allege that Mark and Robert Schumacher, who began
managing Seiple in 2001, took expensive vacations, bought new
cars and used the company jet "to further their own personal
lifestyles" including shopping trips to New York City even as
the company was claiming declining profits and higher costs.

According to the lawsuits, company money was used to pay for
personal moving expenses and for the long-term care of the
Schumachers' grandmother, Jeanne Seiple.  The documents claim
company money was used for other personal expenses as well.

The complaints said that in October 2005, Seiple employees were
given, without notice, a retroactive pay cut that cost some as
much as a third of their hourly wages.

When the plant was closed on Aug. 3, employees were told their
health insurance would end on Aug. 11 even though they had paid
premiums through the end of the month, the lawsuits said.
Employees were also denied accrued vacation pay and other
benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuits ask that employees be reimbursed for back pay, an
amount which includes the amount of 60 days back pay, and
expenses and also seek punitive damages and legal fees from the
company and the Schumachers.

The plaintiffs also seek:

     -- the enforcement of benefit provisions of the plan up to
        and including August 31, 2006, and for plaintiffs who
        participated in the 2001 and 2003 Early Retirement
        Proposals;

     -- judgment against defendants enforcing the benefit
        provisions of the plan until each plaintiff reaches the
        age of 65; and

     -- for an order disregarding and piercing the corporate
        entity and veil of defendant Seiple thus making the
        Schumachers transferring company property or proceeds
        from the sale of company property during the pendency of
        this action.

Efforts to sell the company, which closed down in August after
66 years in business, failed.  At that time, Seiple President
Mark Schumacher said the company had experienced "consistent
large declines in sales over the last five years" that led to
"consistent and increasing financial losses."

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1228

The suit is "Dickerhoof et al. v. Seiple Lithograph Co. et al.,
Case No. 5:06-cv-02259-JG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under Judge James S. Gwin.

Representing plaintiffs are Amanda M. Paar of Tzangas, Plakas,
Mannos & Raies, 8th Floor, 220 Market Avenue, S Canton, OH
44702, Phone: 330-455-6112, Fax: 330-455-2108, E-mail:
apaar@lawlion.com; and Lee E. Plakas and Elizabeth A. Raies,
Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos & Recupero, 110 Central Plaza South, 454
Citizens Bldg., Canton, OH 44702, Phone: 330-455-6112, Fax: 330-
455-2108, E-mail: lplakas@lawlion.com and braies@lawlion.com.


SFBC INT'L: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated in N.J. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation transferred for
pre-trial proceedings all purported securities fraud class
actions against SFBC International, Inc. to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Beginning in late December 2005, a number of class actions have
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida and the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey alleging that SFBC and certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The company was served notice of these lawsuits in early January
2006.  The suits allege that the defendants misrepresented the
company's business conditions, prospects and financial results
and failed to disclose the company's allegedly improper and
reckless business practices, such as improper recruiting
practices and mismanagement of clinical trials.

They purport to have been brought by one of two proposed
classes: those who purchased the company's common stock from
Aug. 4, 2003 through Dec. 15, 2005 or from Feb. 17, 2004 through
Dec. 15, 2005.

On June 21, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all of the suits for pre-trial
proceedings in the District of New Jersey.  

SFBC International, Inc. -- http://www.sfbci.com-- provides  
early and late stage clinical drug development services to
branded pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical
device companies around the world.  SFBC has more than 30
offices located in North America, Europe (including Central and
Eastern Europe), South America, Asia, and Australia. In early
clinical development services, SFBC specializes primarily in the
areas of Phase I and early Phase II clinical trials and
bioanalytical laboratory services, including early clinical
pharmacology.  SFBC also provides late stage clinical
development services globally that focus on Phase II through IV
clinical trials.  SFBC also offers a range of complementary
services, including data management and biostatistics, central
laboratory services, medical and scientific affairs, regulatory
affairs and submissions, and clinical IT solutions.


SLAVERY REPARATIONS LITIGATION: Ill. Court to Hear Case Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago,
Illinois will hear on Sept. 27 at 9:30 a.m. oral arguments in a
slavery reparations class action filed by the African American
Slave Descendants.

Hearing on the case, "Farmer-Paellmann, et al. v. Brown &
Williamson, et al.," will be at 219 South Dearborn St.

Advocacy group The Southern Christian Leadership Conference said
in a statement it is supporting a national class action to
secure reparations for African-Americans.  It said the suit is a
consolidation of cases from around the nation filed in 2002
against corporations complicit in slavery.  

The lawsuits, filed between March 2002 and January 2003,
targeted 18 corporations for causing injuries plaintiffs suffer
as a result of the enslavement of their ancestors, and for
consumer fraud injuries they recently incurred as a result of
defendants making false statements about their roles in slavery.   

On July 6, 2005, nine slavery reparations class actions against
corporations being heard in the Northern District  
Federal Court of Illinois were dismissed by Judge Charles R.  
Norgle (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).  The suit is "In
Re: African American Slave Descendants, CV-02-7764 (CRN)."

The court stated, as a key basis for the dismissals, that none
of the plaintiffs had any links to the defendants in the
actions.  

Deadria Farmer-Paellmann is lead plaintiff in the cases.

The defendants in her case are Aetna, FleetBoston (Bank of
America), and the railroad company CSX.    

Mrs. Farmer-Paellmann claims that Aetna wrote a life insurance
policy on her ancestor Abel who was enslaved in South Carolina.  
She obtained evidence of the policy from the California Slavery
Era Insurance Registry published in 2002 originating from a law
introduced by California Senator Tom Hayden.  She also claims
that she was a consumer of FleetBoston and CSX and lost money as
a result of being mislead about their roles in slavery which, in
her opinion, constitute recent consumer fraud.  


SONY BMG: Ontario Court Okays XCP, MediaMax Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court in Ontario, Canada approved on Sept. 21 a
settlement in a class action filed against Sony BMG Music
(Canada) Inc. on behalf of a certain class of persons in Canada,
who purchased a music CD SONY BMG that carried XCP or MediaMax
software.

The suit commenced in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec in
late 2005 and early 2006, also names as defendants SunnComm
International Inc., and First 4 Internet, Ltd.

These actions allege that the Media Max and XCP software fails
to disclose limits on use of the CDs, violates the privacy
rights of users, creates security vulnerabilities, and is
difficult to uninstall.  

The Ontario class proceeding includes the claims of all
settlement class members who reside outside the provinces of
British Columbia and Quebec.  The Quebec and British Columbia
class proceeding includes all of the class members who reside in
the province of Quebec and British Columbia respectively.

The proposed class includes: "all natural persons in Canada who
purchased, received, came into possession of or otherwise used
one or more MediaMax CDs and/or XCP CDs from Aug. 1, 2003
through Aug. 10, 2006 excluding the employees of Released
Parties, SONY BMG resellers or distributors of the XCP CDs and
MediaMax CDs, and any persons or entities that have previously
executed releases discharging SONY BMG from liability concerning
or encompassing any or all claims" against the product.

Sony has reached a settlement in the class action (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).  Under an agreement:

     -- all XCP class members who return their CD to SONY BMG or  
        provide SONY BMG with a receipt indicating the return or  
        exchange of their CD to its place of purchase will  
        receive a replacement hard copy CD of the same title  
        without the software, and will be able to download from  
        the SONY BMG website free MP3 digital music files of the  
        same album.  XCP class members can then choose either of  
        two additional compensation  options:   

        * a cheque for $8.40 and a promotional code exchangeable  
          for one free album download from among a list of  
          approximately 200 available albums, or  

        * a promotional code exchangeable for three of the  
          free album downloads;
  
     -- MediaMax 3.0 class members who provide proof of purchase  
        will be able to download free MP3 digital files of the  
        tracks on the MediaMax CD;

     -- MediaMax 5.0 class members who provide proof of purchase  
        will be able to download free MP3 digital files of the  
        tracks on the MediaMax CD, and will receive a  
        promotional code for one free album download.

Remedial undertakings by SONY BMG include:

     -- an agreement not to manufacture audio CDs with XCP or
        MediaMax Software in Canada, or to distribute CDs with
        XCP Software in Canada;

     -- an agreement to advise the courts if and when it uses
        Content Protection Software on CDs sold in Canada that  
        has not been reviewed under the U.S. Settlement
        Agreement;

     -- an affirmation, which an independent auditor has
        confirmed, that it has not collected any personally
        identifiable information from consumers without consent,
        and it will agree to take commercially reasonable steps
        to destroy, at least every 10 business days, all IP
        addresses logged from hits made to its servers; and

     -- waive of certain provisions of the EULA associated with
        the XCP and MediaMax CDs.

SONY BMG denies any wrongdoing or liability associated with the  
XCP and MediaMax Software.   
  
Class counsel's fees and disbursements, and taxes thereon in an
amount to be fixed by the court, will be paid by SONY BMG in
addition to the other settlement terms.

Other hearings to decide whether to approve the settlement will
be held in:

Quebec                   Sept. 28, 2006, at 9:00a.m.  
                         1 Rue Notre Dame East, Montreal

British Columbia         Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.  
                         850 Burdett Avenue, Victoria
  
Objections were due on Sept. 18, 2006.  Compensation will be
paid to the class until Dec. 31, 2006:

                  Contact Information


Quebec class members          KUGLER, KANDESTIN  
                              (Attention; Pierre Boivin)
                              1 Place Ville-Marie, Suite 2101,  
                              Montreal Quebec H3B 2C6
                              Phone: 514-878-2861   
                              Fax: 514-875-8424   
                              Email: info@kugler-kandestin.com  
                          

Other provinces, territories  SUTTS, STROSBERG   
                              600-251 Goyeau Street,
                              Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
                              Phone: 1-519-561-6248    
                              Fax: 519-561-6203
   
                              MERCHANT LAW GROUP  
                              340-251 3rd Avenue S. W.              
                              203-895 Belville Street
                              Calgary, Alberta T2P 3T3               
                              Victoria, B.C.  V8V 1W9
                              Phone: 866-225-7777   
                              Fax: 403-237-9775

                              HOTZ LAWYERS   
                              203-100 Upper Madison Avenue,
                              Toronto, Ontario M2N 6M4
                              Phone: 416-590-7823   
                              Fax: 647-430-8269

On the Net: http://cdtechsettlement.sonybmg.ca.


SONY BMG: Tech. Advocacy Group Challenges Rootkit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic filed
complaints against Sony BMG with regulatory agencies across
Canada on Sept. 21.  

The complaints, filed with consumer protection authorities,
privacy commissioners, and the federal Competition Bureau, focus
on Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies on music CDs
manufactured and distributed by Sony BMG, including Sony BMG's
notorious "rootkit" DRM.

CIPPIC filed these complaints on the same day that an Ontario
court accepted a proposed settlement to a Canadian class action
in respect of the Sony BMG DRM.  The complaints stem from Sony
BMG's negotiating position in efforts to settle the class
action.  

Philippa Lawson, Executive Director of CIPPIC, said: "The U.S.
litigation settled in early 2006, and included important
consumer protection provisions.  Sony BMG has offered to settle
the Canadian litigation, but has obstinately refused to include
those same consumer protection provisions in the Canadian
settlement.  It's bad enough that Canadians get less money in
the settlement, but the exclusion of the consumer protections is
completely unacceptable: Canadian consumers deserve the same
consideration as American consumers."

Sony BMG in part points to the absence of Canadian regulatory
action as justifying its treatment of Canadians.  In an
affidavit accounting for the absence of the consumer protection
provisions in the proposed Canadian settlement, Christine
Prudham, VP Legal Affairs for Sony BMG Music (Canada) Inc.,
stated: "In response to the U.S. Government Inquiries and the
unique U.S. legislation on which they were based, the U.S.
Settlement also contained a conditional injunctive provision
tied to the U.S. Government Inquiries."

David Fewer, staff counsel, responds: "I suspect that Sony BMG's
willingness to modify its behaviour through the U.S. Settlement
Agreement played a role in Canadian regulators' decisions not to
investigate Sony BMG.  Why start an investigation when the
company has voluntarily agreed to clean up its act? Sony BMG's
position on the Canadian settlement, however, shows its true
colours: it will only respect consumer rights if forced to.  
It's time for Canadian authorities to step in."

The privacy complaints stem from Sony BMG 's efforts to carve
out of the settlement certain key information -- IP addresses --
from its undertaking not to collect "personal data".  "Sony BMG
regularly sues consumers in the U.S. on the basis of this
information, and in the past has tried to do so in Canada,"
explains Ms. Lawson.  "We want the privacy commissioners to step
in and clarify Sony BMG 's obligations with respect to this
personal information, because it is obvious that Sony BMG
doesn't understand its privacy obligations."

CIPPIC has filed complaints with:
  
     -- The Commissioner of Competition;

     -- Director of the Consumer Services Bureau, Consumer
        Protection Branch, Ministry of Government Services,
        Ontario;

     -- Director, Business Practices and Consumer Protection
        Authority, British Columbia;

     -- President, Office de la Protection du Consommateur,
        Province of Quebec; and

     -- The Privacy Commissioners of Canada, British Columbia,
        and Alberta.


STONEPATH GROUP: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal by plaintiffs in the consolidated securities fraud
class action against Stonepath Group, Inc., which is pending in
the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company was named as a defendant in eight purported class
action complaints filed between Sept. 24, 2004 and Nov. 19,
2004.  Also named as defendants in these lawsuits were officers
Dennis L. Pelino and former officers Bohn H. Crain and Thomas L.
Scully.

These cases were consolidated for all purposes in that Court
under the caption, "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-4515."  

Lead plaintiff, Globis Capital Partners, LP, filed an amended
complaint in February 2005, which was dismissed on April 3,
2006.

Globis sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's shares between March 29, 2002, and Sept. 20, 2004, and
alleged claims for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These claims were based upon allegations that certain public
statements made during the period from March 29, 2002 through
Sept. 20, 2004 were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the company's Domestic Services
operations had improperly accounted for accrued purchased
transportation costs.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and further relief and filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 1, 2006.

The suit is "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04515-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart
Dalzell.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige, U. Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York,
         NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414;

     (2) Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross, Law Offices Bernard
         M. Gross, PC 100 Penn Square West, Juniper & Market St.
         John Wanamaker Bldg Suite 450, Philadelphia PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail:
         debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com;
         and

     (3) Timothy J. Macfall, Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko 310
         Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017.

Representing the company are Kendra Lee Baisinger, Steven E.
Bizar, Thomas P. Manning and, Howard D. Scher of Buchanan
Ingersoll, PC, 1835 Market St., 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-665-3878, E-mail: baisingerkl@bipc.com,
bizarse@bipc.com, manningtp@bipc.com and scherhd@bipc.com.


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action filed
against Tag-It Pacific, Inc.

On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint,
"Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352,"
was filed against the company and certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003 to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006 the court heard competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth
Huberman as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff thereafter filed
an amended complaint on March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
a purported class period between Nov. 13, 2003 and Aug. 12,
2005.  

It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real
with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patricia I Avery of Wolf Popper, 845 3rd Ave., 12th
         Fl., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600;

     (2) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and

     (3) Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 E. 45th St., 4th
         Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230.

Representing the defendants is Panteha Abdollahi of Paul
Hastings Janofsky and Walker, 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626, US, Phone: 714-668-6200, E-mail:
pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Certifies $200B "Lights" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York certified a class that permits
Americans who currently smoke, or ever did smoke "light"
cigarettes, to proceed to trial with their claims that the
tobacco companies conspired for decades to deceive the public
regarding the health risks associated with light cigarettes.

Named defendants in the suit are:  

     -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;  
     -- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;  
     -- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;  
     -- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and  
     -- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco  
        (Investments) Ltd.

The ruling was in favor of a nationwide class of smokers who
claim they were defrauded by the companies' use of the brand
descriptor "Lights" and purchased "light" cigarettes because
they believed they were safer than other brands.

Judge Weinstein said the plaintiffs may claim damages on behalf
of all U.S. residents who smoked "light" cigarettes from their
introduction in the early 1970s until the start of the trial.

At p. 169 of his Memorandum & Order, it is stated:

"Plaintiffs seek an order that there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to the following: that the defendants never
intended the "light" or 'lights' descriptor to refer to taste.

"Alternatively, plaintiffs request that the court preclude
defendants from introducing evidence that the meaning of the
'light' or 'lights' descriptor was primarily a reference to the
taste of defendants' products.  Their contention is that the
word 'lights' was intended to convey to the smoker that 'light'
cigarettes were not as harmful to health as 'regular'
cigarettes.

"Defendants' view is that the evidence demonstrates that they
intended 'lights' to refer to a lighter-tasting cigarette and
that many consumers understood this.  [T]he issue of smokers'
beliefs cannot be resolved on summary judgment.  Evidence of
consumers' perceptions of the meaning of the 'lights' descriptor
is necessary to prove or controvert their reliance on
defendants' representations and will be received.

"The motion is denied."

The judge also said he would "entertain a motion to extend the
class, to encompass smokers of all "low tar" brands rather than
"lights" alone."

According to plaintiffs' attorney Michael D. Hausfeld, an
analysis by plaintiffs' expert witnesses concluded more than 90
percent of the smokers in the potential class purchased light
cigarettes over the past three decades based on health concerns,
as opposed to taste or other factors.

A separate study found that smokers who had known the truth
about the health risks would have expected discounts of 50 to 80
percent per pack.  That finding was part of the basis for a
demand for between $120 billion and $200 billion in damages, Mr.
Hausfeld said.

Because the suit was filed under civil provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, those
damages could be automatically tripled, up to a staggering $600
billion, he said.

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged in the suit that cigarette manufacturers violated the
Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring
to mislead smokers into thinking light cigarettes were safer
than regular smokes when the companies knew otherwise (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006)

The plaintiffs, eight light-cigarette smokers from around the
U.S., claim the companies defrauded them and other smokers.  The
suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for death
or disease caused by smoking.

The judge set a trial date of Jan. 22, 2007.

A copy of Judge Weinstein's 540-page Memorandum & Order is
available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1252

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,   
         North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-  
         3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:    
         mabelasic@jonesday.com;

     (2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup   
         Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,   
         Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:   
         peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of   
         Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il   
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;  
   
     (3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth   
         Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-  
         5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or   
         Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park   
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:   
         212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;
         and  

     (4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington   
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,   
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W.   
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005; and William P.   
Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th   
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-  
337-8090, E-mail: wpb@ftllaw.com.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Fla. Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remittances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duval County in Florida initiated a lawsuit against online hotel
booking agents over alleged underpayment of taxes for brokering
hotel rooms, The Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges that several online travel agents negotiate
discounted room rates with hotels, sell the rooms at marked-up
prices, but only pay taxes on the lower discounted rates.

Named defendants in the suit include:

     -- Orbitz,
     -- Travelocity, and  
     -- Priceline

The county is seeking all unpaid taxes, penalties and legal
fees, in addition to punitive damages.

Leon County in Miami, Florida initiated a similar lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
online travel Web sites, alleging that the firms buy room
rentals from hotels at a discounted rate, mark them up for
resale to customers, who pays the tax for the full rental price
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2006).

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including
California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter,
April 4, 2006).


TRAVEL COMPANIES: City Government in Ken. Sues Over Tax Remits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Louisville in Kentucky initiated a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against
online travel Web sites, alleging that the firms are underpaying
taxes to Kentucky cities for brokering hotel rooms, The
Associated Press reports.

The suit claims the companies paid taxes on wholesale room rates
instead of the higher retail rates consumers are required to
pay.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Cendant Travel,  
     -- Cheap Tickets, Inc.,  
     -- Does 1 through 1000, Inclusive,  
     -- Expedia, Inc.,  
     -- Hotels.com, L.P.,  
     -- Hotels.com GP LLC,  
     -- Hotwire, Inc.,  
     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp.,  
     -- Lowest Fare.com, LLC,  
     -- Maupintour Holding, LLC,  
     -- Orbitz, LLC,  
     -- Orbitz, Inc.,
     -- Priceline.com, Inc.,  
     -- Site59.com, LLC,  
     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.,  
     -- Travelocity.com, LP,  
     -- Travelweb, LLC, and
     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.  

The suit seeks class-action status and an unspecified award for
24 cities and 25 Kentucky counties that have hotel taxes.

"They're not remitting the transient room taxes back to the
government," said Bill O'Brien, head of the civil division for
the Jefferson County attorney's office.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:      

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1240

The suit is "Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government v.
Hotels.com, L.P. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00480-TBR," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
under Judge Thomas B. Russell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher J. Aluotto, Michael Peter Foley and
         Jonathan P. Saxton all of Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis
         LLP, One W. Fourth Street, Suite 900, Cincinnati, OH
         45202, Phone: 513-381-9200 or 513-381-9309, Fax: 513-
         381-9206 or 513-381-9276, E-mail: cja@rendigs.com or
         mfoley@rendigs.com or jsaxton@rendigs.com;

     (2) M. Scott Barrett and Dennis T. Trainor both of Barrett
         & Associates, 520 N. Walnut Street, Bloomington, IN
         47404, Phone: 812-336-4664;

     (3) Irvin D. Foley and Anthony Raluy both of Foley, Bryant
         & Holloway, 500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2450,
         Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-569-7550, Fax: 502-
         561-0025, E-mail: ifoley@fbhlaw.net or
         traluy@fbhlaw.net;

     (4) Irvin G. Maze of Jefferson County Attorney, Hall of
         Justice, 600 W. Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202,
         Phone: 502-574-6336, Fax: 502-574-0114;

     (5) John T. Murray of Murray & Murray, P.O. Box 19,
         Sandusky, OH 44871-0019, Phone: 419-624-3000, Fax: 419-
         624-0707; and

     (6) Michael J. O'Connell of Parker & O'Connell, PLC, 455 S.
         Fourth Avenue, 930 Starks Building, Louisville, KY
         40202, Phone: 502-584-7196, Fax: 589-7451.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Turnstone Systems, Inc., according to the company's Aug.
14, 2006 Form 10-QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2006.

On Nov. 9, 2001, Arthur Mendoza filed a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging claims against the company, certain of the company
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering of stock as well as the company's
secondary offering of stock.

The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the company initial
public offering and the company secondary stock offering between
Jan. 31 and Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaint alleges generally that the prospectuses under
which such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and commissions received by
the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over
300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently
pending in the Southern District of New York.

On April 18, 2002, Michael Szymanowski was appointed lead
plaintiff in the action.  On April 22, 2002, an amended
complaint was filed.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss.  On July 15, 2002, the company collectively
with the other issuer defendants also filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss.

The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the underwriters'
motion to dismiss on Aug. 15, 2002 and to the issuers' motion to
dismiss on Aug. 27, 2002.

The underwriters' reply to the opposition was filed on Sept. 13,
2002, and the company reply to the opposition was filed on Sept.
27, 2002.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motions
to dismiss with respect to substantially all of the plaintiffs'
claims, including those against the company.

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposed settlement and release of claims against the issuer
defendants, including Turnstone.

In August 2005, the court entered an order affirming its
preliminary approval for the proposed settlement, and scheduled
a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement to the
shareholder class for April 2006.

In April 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection
with the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement
but did not indicate when it would issue a decision regarding
final approval of the settlement.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


TYSON FOODS: Del. Court Hears Motion to Junk Executive Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Tyson Foods Inc. presented in a hearing on Sept.
20 arguments supporting its motion to dismiss a consolidated
lawsuit filed against the company, current and former company
executives, and board members over alleged improper executive
payouts, Meat News reports.  

In court papers, Tyson argues that each of the items charged
against the company should be dismissed because the plaintiffs
waited too long to sue and that the issues, in some cases,
cannot be brought under Delaware law.  Tyson attorney David
Graham argued that most of the option grants in question date to
1999 and 2001.

Honorable William B. Chandler III, chancellor of the Delaware
Court of Chancery, did not indicate when he would issue a
ruling.

Defendants include former chairman Don Tyson, who retired in
2001, current chairman John Tyson, and current chief executive
Richard Bond.

The lawsuits include a consolidated class action and a
derivative suit by New Jersey resident Eric Meyer, a Tyson
shareholder, and New York-based Amalgamated Bank, trustee of an
index fund that owns Tyson stock.

The plaintiffs is challenging option grants granted to Tyson
officials that were allegedly timed in advance of favorable news
likely to boost the company's stock price.  They also allege
that Tyson failed to disclose in proxy materials that executives
and board members had set up related party transactions under
which they received millions of dollars from the company for
farm and aircraft leases, livestock operations and other
services; and that Tyson family members and friends unfairly
received millions of dollars from lucrative "consulting"
contracts.

The plaintiffs is seeking to regain profits for the company as
well as some shareholder compensation from the directors, said
Megan McIntyre, partner of Eisenhofer and Grant, the firm
representing the plaintiffs.  

The suit is "Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:01-cv-00425-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  Representing
the plaintiffs is John Leonard Reed of Edwards Angell Palmer &
Dodge, LLP, 919 North Market Street, Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE
19801, Phone: (302) 777-7770, Fax: (888) 325-9165, E-mail:
jreed@EdwardsAngell.com.  Eisenhofer and Grant also represents
plaintiffs in the suit.

Representing the defendants are Anthony W. Clark and Robert
Scott Saunders of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, One
Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302)
651-3000, E-mail: tclark@skadden.com and rsaunder@skadden.com.


VOLUME SERVICES: Calif. Court Gives Final Okay to "Holden" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Orange gave
final approval to the proposed settlement in the purported class
action, "Holden v. Volume Services America, Inc. et al.," which
was filed in against Centerplate, Inc. and its subsidiary Volume
Services.

In May 2003 a purported class action, "Holden v. Volume Services
America, Inc. et al." was filed against the company in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange by a
former employee at one of the California stadiums the company
serve, alleging violations of local overtime wage, rest and meal
period and related laws with respect to this employee and others
purportedly similarly situated at any and all of the facilities
the company serve in California.

The purported class action sought compensatory, special and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the
applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged
illegal acts.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the company executed an agreement to settle
this claim.  The proposed settlement received preliminary court
approval on Feb. 27, 2006 and final court approval on June 26,
2006.

The deadline to appeal the final ruling was Sept. 1, 2006.  At
the final fairness hearing, the court reserved ruling on the
matter of claims administration costs.

Spartanburg, South Carolina-based Centerplate, Inc. (AMEX: CVP)
-- http://www.centerplate.com/-- is a provider of food and  
related services, including concessions, catering and
merchandise services in sports facilities, convention centers
and other entertainment facilities.  As part of its food
services business, the company also provides facility management
services at a small number of accounts.  Centerplate operates
throughout the U.S. and in Canada.  The company has provided its
services to several sporting and other events, including 24
World Series games; nine U.S. Presidential Inaugural Balls; 10
Super Bowls; eight NCAA Final Four Men's Basketball Tournaments,
and 14 World Cup Soccer games.  The company typically provides
services in its clients' facilities pursuant to long-term
contracts that grant it the exclusive right to provide certain
food and beverage products and services and, under some
contracts, merchandise products and other related services
within the facility.


VOLUME SERVICES: Resolves All Claims in "Perez" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
All claims in the class action, "Celeste Perez v. Volume
Services Inc., d/b/a Centerplate, Inc.," which was filed in the
Superior Court for Yolo County, California has been resolved.

Filed in August 2004, "Perez" makes substantially identical
allegations to those in "Holden v. Volume Services America, Inc.
et al."  Consequently, the company filed a demurer and the case
was stayed on Nov. 9, 2004 pending the resolution of Holden.

In February 2006, the parties stipulated to add Celeste Perez as
a named plaintiff in the Holden suit and the Perez case was
dismissed.  Accordingly, Ms. Perez' claim will now be resolved
with the Holden case.

Spartanburg, South Carolina-based Centerplate, Inc. (AMEX: CVP)
-- http://www.centerplate.com/-- is a provider of food and  
related services, including concessions, catering and
merchandise services in sports facilities, convention centers
and other entertainment facilities.  As part of its food
services business, the company also provides facility management
services at a small number of accounts.  Centerplate operates
throughout the U.S. and in Canada.  The company has provided its
services to several sporting and other events, including 24
World Series games; nine U.S. Presidential Inaugural Balls; 10
Super Bowls; eight NCAA Final Four Men's Basketball Tournaments,
and 14 World Cup Soccer games.  The company typically provides
services in its clients' facilities pursuant to long-term
contracts that grant it the exclusive right to provide certain
food and beverage products and services and, under some
contracts, merchandise products and other related services
within the facility.


WASHINGTON REDSKINS: Advocates for Deaf File Suit in Md. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of the Deaf and Joseph B. Espo, an
attorney with Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP in Baltimore,
Maryland, filed a class action against the Washington Redskins
and FedEx Field football stadium.  

The complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, claims that the Washington Redskins and
FedEx Field failed to provide captioning for announcements made
over the public address system before, during, and after
Washington Redskins home games, as required under Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The class action was brought on behalf of all individuals who
are deaf or hard of hearing, who attend or in the future will
attend Washington Redskins home games at FedEx Field.

Representing the class are Shane Feldman, Brian Kelly, and Paul
Singleton, who are deaf or hard of hearing and who regularly
attend Washington Redskins home games at FedEx Field.

The complaint asks the court to order the Washington Redskins
and FedEx Field to provide and display captioning on the
scoreboards and video monitors for all announcements made over
the public address system, including plays and penalties called,
safety and emergency information, and any other announcements.

According to Mr. Espo, "The failure to provide and display
captioning for the announcements made over the public address
system discriminates against deaf and hard of hearing Washington
Redskins fans.  The Washington Redskins have known about this
for years and did nothing.  Deaf and hard of hearing fans are
tired of being left out of the game."

Brown, Goldstein & Levy on the Net: http://www.browngold.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Spencer C. Demetros Announces Conn. Securities Filing  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Spencer C. Demetros announced that a
securities class action was filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased common stock of ADVO, Inc. during the class period
July 6, 2006 to Aug. 30, 2006.

The complaint, that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, charges that ADVO and several of its
officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding ADVO's
business and financial results that artificially inflated stock
prices during the class period.

Interested parties may, no later than Nov. 10, 2006, move for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact The Law Offices of Spencer C.
Demetros, 100 Franklin Street, Suite 901, Boston, MA 02110,
Phone: (617) 423-9955.


CONNETICS CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in
Pennsylvania and Ohio, announces that a lawsuit has been filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Connetics Corp. between
June 28, 2004 and May 3, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against
Connetics and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made false
statements regarding one the company's important drugs - Velac,
as well as reporting false financial results by failing to
properly reserve for rebates.

In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants concealed
critical information regarding carcinogenicity study data, as
well as potential issues raised by the FDA, which would
influence the potential profitability of the drug for the
company.

On May 3, 2006, Connetics announced that it would be unable to
file its quarterly report in a timely manner due to the need to
restate its financial results. Shares have reacted negatively to
news, falling more than 60% from its class period high.

Interested parties may, no later than Nov. 17, 2006, move for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato &
Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 668-4130, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com.


IMAX CORP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, filed a class action in the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of IMAX Corp.
between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that IMAX and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning IMAX's
financial health.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the fourth quarter
of 2005 IMAX recognized revenue from theaters that were not yet
opened in order to inflate its financial results in order to
attract a buyer or merging partner for the company.

On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was responding to an
informal inquiry from the SEC with respect to its accounting, in
particular, revenue recognition issues.  On this news, shares of
IMAX dropped from $9.63 per share to $5.73 per share, a decline
of 40.5%.

Interested parties may, no later than Oct. 10, 2006, move for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank &
Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 and (212) 682-1818, Fax:
(212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *