CAR_Public/060927.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 192

                            Headlines

APPLETON PAPERS: Settles Suit Over Pollution Caused by Ohio Mill
ATLAS AIR: Faces Suits Over Cargo Services Price Manipulation
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Still Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Ventas Sale
CAYRE GROUP: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts for Strangulation Hazard
CSA NUTRACEUTICALS: Reaches $10.8M Settlement in Shape Up! Suit

DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Judge McGinnis to Handle Sexual Abuse Suit
DYNEGY INC: Discovery Continues in W.Va. Stand Energy Litigation
DYNEGY INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Tex. ERISA Fraud Suit
DYNEGY INC: Some Claims Remain in Ill. ERISA Violations Lawsuit
EL POLLO: Cal. Managers' Suit Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration

EL POLLO: Still Faces Overtime Wage Violations Suit in Calif.
ENRON CORP: UC Approves $13.5M Settlement with Kirkland & Ellis
ENRON CORP: UC Approves $72.5M Settlement with Arthur Andersen
FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE: Discovery Commences in Ill. FCRA Lawsuit
FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE: Md. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Hill"

HEXION SPECIALTY: Faces Suit Over Air Emissions, Odors in Ky.
HOLLAND AMERICA: Passenger Sues in Wash. Over Alleged Fraud
INFOSONICS CORP: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
INTELSAT LTD: Conn. Court Mulls Judgment Motion for ERISA Suit
LEGO SYSTEMS: Recalls Toy Trucks on Reports of Wheel Detaching

MURPHY OIL: Settles Hurricane Katrina Oil Spill Suit for $330M
PREMIUM STANDARD: Settles Kans. "Hog Stench" Lawsuit for $4.5M
RAM ENERGY: Continues to Face Royalty Owners' Suit in Okla.
REPUBLIC COS: No Class Yet in La. Lawsuit Over Insurance Policy
SOYO INC: Still Faces Consumer Suit Over Faulty Motherboards

SPEAR & JACKSON: Settles Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit for $650T
STAPLES INC: Issues Vouchers as Settlement in Item Pricing Case
TIME WARNER: AOL Members Sue in Calif. Over Privacy Violations
TOBACCO LITIGATION: RJ Reynolds to Appeal "Lights" Certification
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris to Appeal "Lights" Ruling

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Aussies Could File Light Suit, Lawyer Says
UNITED STATES: No Trial Set in Lawsuit Against Milberg Weiss
ZURICH NORTH: PIA Files Amicus Against Broker Compensation Suit


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROADCOM CORP: Braun Law Group Files Securities Suit in Calif.
SCOTTISH RE: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


APPLETON PAPERS: Settles Suit Over Pollution Caused by Ohio Mill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appleton Papers, Inc. resolved claims by local residents in the
purported class action filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio alleging that the company released and
continues to release hazardous substances from a local paper
mill, including PCBs, dioxins and fluorochemicals, which
allegedly caused injury to them and/or damage to property.

In April 2005, 11 local residents who allegedly live, or have
lived, near the wastewater treatment plant of the West
Carrollton mill and two former mill employees -- and one of
their spouses -- filed the lawsuits in Montgomery County, Ohio
court.

Those suits were later removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.  The local resident plaintiffs
requested that the court certify the matter as a class action.  
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
remediation and other relief.  

In 2005, the lawsuit commenced by the two former mill employees
was dismissed without prejudice.  The lawsuit commenced by the
local resident plaintiffs has been resolved.

Appleton, Wisconsin-based Appleton Papers, Inc. --
http://www.appletonideas.com/-- manufactures and distributes a  
variety of specialty paper products.  Its top product is
carbonless paper (sold under the NCR Paper brand), which is used
for business forms.  Appleton also makes thermal paper and
related products that are used in point-of-sale receipts and
coupons, tickets (including event, lottery, and transportation
tickets), and labels.  Other units make security products
(checks and documents designed to be resistant to
counterfeiting) and plastic packaging films for use in the food
processing, household goods, and industrial products industries.


ATLAS AIR: Faces Suits Over Cargo Services Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., and its operating
subsidiary, Polar Air Cargo, Inc. plus a number of other cargo
carriers were named as co-defendants in several class actions
filed either in U.S. federal courts or in a Canadian court.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
defendants, including AAWW and Polar, manipulated the market
price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of surcharges.

They seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  All of the
suits have been transferred or are awaiting transfer to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the
cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

The company has notified its directors and officers' insurance
carrier of these lawsuits and has engaged outside counsel.  
Also, it has contacted counsel for the other named defendants
with respect to conducting a joint defense in an effort to limit
defense costs where possible.

Further, the company, Polar and a number of other cargo carriers
have been named as defendants in a civil class action in
Ontario, Canada that is substantially similar to the class
actions in the U.S.

Purchase, New York-based Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AAWW) -- http://www.atlasair.com/-- is a holding  
company with two principal wholly owned operating subsidiaries
Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo, Inc.  The company provides
air cargo and related services throughout the world, serving
Asia, Australia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, South America
and the U.S.  The company operates its business through four
segments: Scheduled Service, Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and
Insurance, Air Mobility Command Charter for the U.S. military,
and Commercial Charter.  All segments are directly or indirectly
engaged in the business of air cargo transportation.  The
company solely operates Boeing 747 freighter aircraft.  AAWW's
operating fleet totaled 41 aircraft at Dec. 31, 2005.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Still Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Ventas Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative
class action filed by certain limited partners in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware.  The suit is "Edith
Zimmerman et al. v. GFB-AS Investors, LLC and Brookdale Living
Communities, Inc."

The suit was filed March 22, 2006.  It alleges a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the sale of facilities
indirectly owned by the investing partnerships to Ventas Realty,
L.P., and the subsequent lease of those facilities by Ventas to
subsidiaries of Brookdale Living.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an accounting, damages
in an unspecified amount, and disgorgement of unspecified
amounts by which the defendants were allegedly unjustly
enriched.  

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug. 14 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Chicago, Illinois-based Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (NYSE: BKD)
-- http://www.brookdaleliving.com/-- is an operator of senior  
living facilities in the U.S., with over 380 facilities in 31
states and the ability to serve over 30,000 residents.  


CAYRE GROUP: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts for Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cayre Group, of New York, New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
4,500 units of "Candie's" brand children's hoodie sweatshirts
with drawstrings.

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 recalled hoodie style zip front hooded sweatshirts were sold
in four youth sizes S (7-8), M (9-12), L (14) and XL (16).  The
sweatshirts have drawstrings through the hood and were available
in two colors, Blue Bell and Demitasse.  A tag sewn on the
inside of the garment reads, "Candie's."

Pictures of the recalled hoodies:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06263a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06263b.jpg

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in the Philippines and
are being sold at Kohl's department stores and on Kohls.com from
August 2006 through September 2006 for between $20 and $36.

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or contact The Cayre
Group to return the merchandise for a full refund.

For additional information, contact The Cayre Group at (800)
284-3023 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.cayre.com.


CSA NUTRACEUTICALS: Reaches $10.8M Settlement in Shape Up! Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TV personality Phil "Dr. Phil" McGraw agreed to put up a
settlement fluid recovery fund to resolve the Shape Up! suit
currently pending against him and CSA Nutraceuticals, GP, LLC in
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles (Case No. BC 312830).

The fund will consist of $6.3 million of Nutrilite(R) Daily
Multivitamin/Multimineral, 6-month supply, and $4.5 million in
cash, out of which all costs and attorneys fees will be paid.

All of the contents of the Fund will be distributed.  Dr. Phil
will have no personal obligation to contribute to the Fund.

The agreement provides benefits to people who can establish, by
affidavit or proof of purchase, that they bought Shape Up!
supplements before July 1, 2006.

The agreement will also provide benefits to certain charitable
organizations.  These charities are to be selected by the
parties and approved by the court.

The plaintiffs filed the suit against Dr. Phil and Texas-based
CSA Nutraceuticals in March 2004 and sought recognition of their
litigation as a national class action complaint.

The plaintiffs, including Joanne Levine of California, alleged
that the defendants made material misrepresentations and false
claims based on certain marketing, promotional and advertising
materials concerning Shape Up! products.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs maintained the claims were not
supported by science.

The Shape Up! products, which are no longer distributed or sold,
include the Shape Up! Apple, Pear, and Intensifier supplements
and the Shape Up! meal replacement products, including bars,
shakes, and ready-to-drink mixes.  

According to plaintiffs' attorney Henry H. Rossbacher, most of
the products were sold over the counter at Wal-Mart and other
retailers.

The defendants' position is that the Shape Up! products were
accurately described, that defendants acted properly, and that
Dr. Phil did not receive any money from the sale of the products
as his endorsement fee was paid directly to charity.

The court did not reach any decision regarding the case.

Under the settlement, McGraw and the other defendants admit no
fault, misrepresentation or wrongdoing.

Dr. Phil is represented by Gregory D. Phillips of Munger, Tolles
& Olson, L.L.P., 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: (213) 683-9276, Fax: (213) 683-
5176.

Representing the plaintiffs are Henry H. Rossbacher of The
Rossbacher Firm, Phone: +1-213-895-6500; and James R. Sobieraj
of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Phone: +1-312-321-4200.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Judge McGinnis to Handle Sexual Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky's Chief Justice Joseph Lambert has appointed Pendleton
County judge Robert W. McGinnis to replace Senior Judge John
Potter in the sexual abuse case against the Diocese of
Covington, The Kentucky Post reports.  Judge McGinnis will
preside over a hearing in Boone Circuit Court on Oct. 4.

Senior Judge John Potter announced his retirement after a
session on Sept. 13 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2006.  
The hearing was set to deal with attorneys' fees and a demand by
attorney Brenda Dahlenburg Bonar to get part of an $84 million
settlement.  

Judge Potter awarded plaintiff attorneys $18.5 million in fees
in May, but Stan Chesley, lawyer for the lead plaintiff, had
refused to give Ms. Bonar a share.  Ms. Bonar argues that she is
entitled part of the fees for her efforts in the initiation,
prosecution and ultimate settlement of the case.  The initial
two plaintiffs in the case that eventually became a class action
were her clients, as well as 13 of the original class members.

              Appeal on Disclosure of Victims' Info

Attorneys for the plaintiff filed an appeal on Sept. 8 against a
court ruling ordering the release of personal information about
the victims (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006).

Attorneys had argued that the order violates the victims'
constitutional right to privacy.  According to the appeal, Judge
Potter himself stated in an order of June 2005 that the
information victims submitted in the settlement process wouldn't
be made public without their consent.

In that order, Judge Potter pointed out that under Kentucky law
sex-abuse allegations must be forwarded to police.  The judge
reasoned that he wants the prosecutors to know the type of
abuse, when it occurred and the name of the suspected abuser.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, however, reasoned that those laws
are designed to protect children suffering abuse right now, and
not adults who endured it years ago.

In a petition filed with the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the
attorneys say that Judge Potter's order has already harmed their
clients by giving them anxiety over, among others, the
embarrassment that the disclosure could bring.             

                           Settlement

Meanwhile, the first monetary awards had been distributed to
victims of sexual abuse in the class action settlement (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).  The amounts awarded from the
$85 million settlement weren't revealed due to privacy concerns,
said Mr. Chesley.

The settlement got initial court approval in July 2005.  On Jan.
31, Judge Potter finally approved the settlement, which will
benefit 361 victims.  It calls for victims to receive between
$5,000 and $1 million based on the severity and duration of the
abuse they suffered.

                          Case Background

Mr. Chesley filed the class action in Boone County Circuit Court
back in 2003, claiming 21 priests and some other workers abused
more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades
while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2003).

According to court filings, from about 1956, information on the
sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed
from the public, including parents of children in schools and
parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well
as from family members of employees of the diocese.


DYNEGY INC: Discovery Continues in W.Va. Stand Energy Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action filed
against Dynegy, Inc. as well as other companies that is pending
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

The suit, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., et al., 2:04-cv-00867," was brought by Stand
Energy Corp. (formerly Atlantigas Corp.) on Aug. 3, 2004.  

In October 2004, the company was named as a defendant in the
case, which is alleging that interstate pipelines provided
preferential storage and transportation services to their own
unregulated marketing affiliate in return for a percentage of
the profits.

Plaintiffs contend that such conduct violates applicable Federal
Regulation and Oversight of Energy regulations and federal and
state antitrust laws, and constitutes common law tortious
interference with contractual and business relations.

In addition, the complaint claims the defendants conspired with
the other market participants to receive preferential natural
gas storage and transportation services at off-tariff prices.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.

Following numerous procedural motions, which limited plaintiffs'
claims against the company to state antitrust violations and
resulting unjust enrichment, defendants filed their answers to
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in September 2005.  The
parties are actively engaged in discovery, according to the
company's Aug. 14 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., et al., 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Wets Virginia under
Judge Robert C. Chambers.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano and Molly
         McGinley Han of Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero, 604
         Virginia Street, E. Charleston, WV 25301, Phone:
         304/342-0133, Fax: 342-4605; and

     (2) Robert C. Sanders of Law Office of Robert S. Sanders,
         12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-
         2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 574-2153.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Ryan Takemoto, Roxane A. Polidora and Steven A. Dahm of
         Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Phone: 415/983-1000
         and 202/775-9800, Fax: 415/983-1200 and 202/ 833-8491;
         and

    (ii) Marc E. Williams of Huddleston Bolen, P.O. Box 2185,
         Huntington, WV 25722-2185, Phone: 304/529-6181, Fax:
         522-4312.


DYNEGY INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Tex. ERISA Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the original class
action against Dynegy, Inc. and several individual defendants
that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The suit was filed in September 2005 by two former Illinois
Power Co. salaried employees who were participants in the Dynegy
Midwest Generation, Inc. (DMG) 401(k) Savings Plan for salaried
employees (formerly known as the Illinois Power Incentive
Savings Plan), which the company refers to as the "DMG Salaried
Plan.  The plaintiffs purport to represent all DMG Salaried Plan
participants who held Dynegy common stock through the DMG
Salaried Plan from Jan. 1, 2002 through Jan. 30, 2003.

The complaint alleges violations of ERISA in connection with the
DMG Salaried Plan.  It seeks unspecified damages for the losses
to the plan, as well as attorney's fees and other costs.

In December 2005, Dynegy filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, in response to which plaintiffs' counsel filed a
second putative class action on behalf of three alleged plan
participants that is materially identical to the original
action.  

In March 2006, the court dismissed the original action with
prejudice based on lack of standing and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs in that matter have appealed
that dismissal.  

The second putative class action relating to the DMG Salaried
Plan remains pending.  It is still at the class discovery stage.

The suit is "Holtzscher, et al. v. Dynegy Inc., et al., Case No.
4:05-cv-03293," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Scott Monroe Clearman of McClanahan & Clearman, 700
         Louisiana, Ste. 4100, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         223-2005, Fax: 713-223-3664, E-mail: scott@mcllp.com;
         and

     (2) Thomas R. McDade of McDade & Fogler, 909 Fannin, Ste.
         1200, Houston, TX 77010-1006, Phone: 713-654-4300, Fax:
         713-654-4343.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Morgan D. Hodgson of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, 1330
         Connecticutt Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-
         429-6219, Fax: 202-261-9021, E-mail:
         mhodgson@steptoe.com; and

    (ii) Jacks C. Nickens of Nickens Keeton, et al., 600 Travis,
         Ste. 7500, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-571-9191, Fax:
         713-571-9652.


DYNEGY INC: Some Claims Remain in Ill. ERISA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several claims are still pending against Dynegy, Inc., Illinois
Power Co., Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. and several others in
a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The suit was filed in January 2005 by three DMG union employees
who are participants in the DMG 401(k) Savings Plan for
Employees Covered Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(formerly known as the Illinois Power Co. Incentive Savings Plan
For Employees Covered Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement),
which the company refers to as the "DMG 401(k) Plan."

The plaintiffs purport to represent all DMG and Illinois Power
employees who held Dynegy common stock through the DMG 401(k)
Plan from February 2000 to the present.

The complaint alleges violations of ERISA in connection with the
DMG 401(k) Plan that are similar to the claims made in the
Dynegy Inc. ERISA litigation settled by Dynegy in December 2004,
including claims that certain of Dynegy's former officers -- who
are past members of its Benefit Plans Committee -- breached
their fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries in
connection with the plan's investment in Dynegy common stock-in
particular with respect to Dynegy's financial statements,
Project Alpha, alleged round trip trades and gas price index
reporting.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the losses to the
plan, as well as attorney's fees and other costs.

In March 2006, an amended complaint was filed naming additional
former officers and employees of Dynegy as defendants and
amending the fraud claims.

In June 2006, the court granted Dynegy's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' fraud claims for failing to plead those claims with
particularity.  The remaining counts in the March 2006 amended
complaint remain pending.

The suit is "Lively, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00063-MJR-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois under Judge Michael J. Reagan with
referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Margaret E. Hasselman of Lewis, Feinberg, et al., 1330
         Broadway, Suite 1800, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510-
         839-6824, Fax: 510-839-7839, E-mail:
         mhasselman@lewisfeinberg.com; and

     (2) Matthew B. Leppert of Schuchat, Cook, et al., Generally
         Admitted, 1221 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, St. Louis, MO
         63103-2364, Phone: 314-621-2626, Fax: 314-621-2378, E-
         mail: MBL@SCHUCHATCW.COM.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Morgan D. Hodgson of Steptoe & Johnson, 1330
         Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         202-429-6219, Fax: 202-261-9821, E-mail:
         mhodgson@steptoe.com; and

    (ii) Charles L. Joley of Donovan, Rose, et al., Generally
         Admitted, 8 East Washington Street, Belleville, IL
         62220, Phone: 618-235-2020, Fax: 618-235-9632, E-mail:
         cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com.


EL POLLO: Cal. Managers' Suit Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles has yet to lift the stay on the proceedings in a
purported class action against El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.

The suit alleges certain violations of California labor laws,
including alleged improper classification of general managers
and restaurant managers as exempt employees, pending the outcome
of the mandatory arbitration between the company and one of the
plaintiffs.

On or about Apr. 16, 2004, two former employees and one current
employee filed the class action against the company on behalf of
all putative class members, who are former and current general
managers and restaurant managers from April 2000 to present.

Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory damages for
unpaid wages, interest, certain statutory penalties,
disgorgement of alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs as well as certain injunctive relief.  

The complaint was served on the company on Apr. 19, 2004.  The
court ordered the class action stayed pending the arbitration of
one of the named putative class plaintiffs as a result of his
execution of a mandatory arbitration agreement with the company.

Irvine, California-based El Pollo Loco, Inc. --
http://www.elpolloloco.com-- is a restaurant concept  
specializing in flame-grilled chicken.  It operates a restaurant
system consisting of 146 company-operated and 194 franchised
restaurants located primarily in California, with additional
restaurants in Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Illinois.


EL POLLO: Still Faces Overtime Wage Violations Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of EPL
Intermediate, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, alleging certain violations of California
labor laws and the California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff Salvador Amezcua filed the suit on Oct. 18, 2005, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation,
unlawful deductions from earnings and unfair competition.  

The suit requested remedies that include compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company was served with this complaint on Dec. 16, 2005.  
The court has ordered that the case be deemed complex and
assigned it to the complex litigation panel.

Irvine, California-based El Pollo Loco, Inc. --
http://www.elpolloloco.com-- is a restaurant concept  
specializing in flame-grilled chicken.  It operates a restaurant
system consisting of 146 company-operated and 194 franchised
restaurants located primarily in California, with additional
restaurants in Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Illinois.


ENRON CORP: UC Approves $13.5M Settlement with Kirkland & Ellis
---------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California Board of Regents approved a $13.5
million settlement with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in
the Enron Corp. securities litigation on Sep. 21.  The
settlement is subject to approval by the court.  The university
is lead plaintiff representing a class of Enron investors who
lost tens of billions of dollars in the company's bankruptcy.

Kirkland & Ellis served as legal counsel for a number of the
off-books entities through which Enron was able to manipulate
its financial statements.  The court dismissed all of the claims
against Kirkland & Ellis by order dated Dec. 19, 2002, but that
order remained subject to appeal.

With this latest settlement, the university has now obtained
more than $7.3 billion (including interest) for Enron investors,
including:

     -- $2.4 billion from Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
     -- $2.2 billion from JPMorganChase,
     -- $2 billion from Citigroup,
     -- $222.5 million from Lehman Brothers,
     -- $69 million from Bank of America,
     -- $168 million from Enron's outside directors, and
     -- $32 million from Andersen Worldwide

The university will also secure a distribution of $37 million
for investors through the bankruptcy proceeding for the LJM2
partnership involved in the Enron scheme.

Remaining defendants in the investors' lawsuit include former
officers of Enron, the law firm of Vinson & Elkins and a number
of major financial institutions that allegedly set up false
investments in clandestinely controlled Enron partnerships, used
offshore companies to disguise loans and facilitated phony sales
of phantom Enron assets.  As a result, Enron executives were
allegedly able to deceive investors by reporting increased cash
flow from operations and by moving billions of dollars of debt
off Enron's balance sheet, thereby artificially inflating
securities prices.

In February 2002, the university was named lead plaintiff in the
Enron shareholders' class action previously filed against top
executives of Enron Corp. and its accounting firm, Arthur
Andersen LLP.  The university filed a consolidated complaint on
April 8, 2002, adding nine banks and two law firms as defendants
in the case.  In April 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Melinda
Harmon completed her rulings on the various defendants' motions
to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery.  Following those
rulings, the university filed an amended complaint on May 14,
2003.

Other institutional investors acting as representative
plaintiffs on behalf of Enron investors include:

     * Washington State Investment Board,
     * the Amalgamated Bank and its Long View Funds,
     * San Francisco City and County Employees' Retirement
       System,
     * Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust
       Fund,
     * Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan,
     * Greenville Plumbers Pension Plan, and
     * Archdiocese of Milwaukee

Trial in the case is slated to begin in Houston on April 9,
2007.

                     Securities Litigation        

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP attorneys filed a consolidated class action against Enron
Corp. in the U.S. District Court in Houston.  The suit seeks
relief for purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt
securities between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and
directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations
of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants
engaged in massive insider trading while making false and
misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.  

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

                     Non-settling Defendants

The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,  
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,  
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.   
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.  
Representing the defendants is J Mark Brewer of Brewer and  
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:  
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com.

Contact for William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin: 655 West
Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


ENRON CORP: UC Approves $72.5M Settlement with Arthur Andersen
--------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California Board of Regents approved a $72.5
million settlement with the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen
LLP in the Enron Corp. securities litigation on Sept. 21.

The settlement is subject to approval by the court.  The
Andersen settlement becomes effective only if the University
settles with certain other defendants prior to the end of trial.  
The university is lead plaintiff representing a class of Enron
investors who lost tens of billions of dollars.

The Andersen accounting firm was Enron's auditor, and signed off
on many of the company's allegedly false and misleading
financial reports.

With this latest settlement, the university has now obtained
more than $7.3 billion (including interest) for Enron investors,
including:

     -- $2.4 billion from Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
     -- $2.2 billion from JPMorganChase,
     -- $2 billion from Citigroup,
     -- $222.5 million from Lehman Brothers,
     -- $69 million from Bank of America,
     -- $168 million from Enron's outside directors, and
     -- $32 million from Andersen Worldwide

University of California will also secure a distribution of $37
million for investors through the bankruptcy proceeding for the
LJM2 partnership involved in the Enron scheme.

Remaining defendants in the investors' lawsuit include former
officers of Enron, the law firm of Vinson & Elkins and a number
of major financial institutions that allegedly set up false
investments in clandestinely controlled Enron partnerships, used
offshore companies to disguise loans and facilitated phony sales
of phantom Enron assets.

As a result, Enron executives were allegedly able to deceive
investors by reporting increased cash flow from operations and
by moving billions of dollars of debt off Enron's balance sheet,
thereby artificially inflating securities prices.

In February 2002, University of California was named lead
plaintiff in the Enron shareholders' class action previously
filed against top executives of Enron Corp. and its accounting
firm, Arthur Andersen LLP.  The university filed a consolidated
complaint on April 8, 2002, adding nine banks and two law firms
as defendants in the case.  In April 2003, U.S. District Court
Judge Melinda Harmon completed her rulings on the various
defendants' motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery.  
Following those rulings, the university filed an amended
complaint on May 14, 2003.

Other institutional investors acting as representative
plaintiffs on behalf of Enron investors include:

     * Washington State Investment Board,
     * the Amalgamated Bank and its Long View Funds,
     * San Francisco City and County Employees' Retirement
       System,
     * Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust
       Fund,
     * Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan,
     * Greenville Plumbers Pension Plan, and
     * Archdiocese of Milwaukee

Trial in the case is slated to begin in Houston on April 9,
2007.

                     Securities Litigation        

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP attorneys filed a consolidated class action against Enron
Corp. in the U.S. District Court in Houston.  The suit seeks
relief for purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt
securities between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and
directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations
of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants
engaged in massive insider trading while making false and
misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.  

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

                     Non-settling Defendants

The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,  
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,  
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.   
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.  
Representing the defendants is J Mark Brewer of Brewer and  
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:  
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com.

Contact for William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin: 655 West
Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE: Discovery Commences in Ill. FCRA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action against Fieldstone
Mortgage Co., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Filed on Jan. 9, 2006 and captioned, "Rhodes v. Fieldstone
Mortgage Co.," the class action alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Plaintiff claims that the company violated the firm offer of
credit guidelines encapsulated in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.
during its mail marketing campaign in or around April 2005.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the company did not comply
with the statutory guidelines in providing a firm offer of
credit to the potential consumer.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1681 et seq., statutory damages can range from $100 to $1,000
per mailing in the event that the violation is deemed willful.

No motion for class certification has yet been filed in this
case.  The company filed a motion to dismiss/motion to strike
pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for the injunctive relief
portion of the compliant.  This action is in the initial stage
of discovery, 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.

The suit is "Rhodes v. Fieldstone Mortgage Co., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00108," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Mark Filip.

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman and Jeremy
Patrick Monteiro of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com and
jmonteiro@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robert Jerald Emanuel of Burke, Warren, MacKay &
         Serritella, P.C., 330 North Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor,
         Chicago, IL 60611-3607, Phone: (312) 840-7000, E-mail:
         remanuel@burkelaw.com; and

     (2) Sunny S. Huo of Severson & Werson, One Embarcadero
         Center, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, Phone: 415-677-
         5519.


FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE: Md. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Hill"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland heard oral
arguments from both sides on the outstanding issues in the
purported class action, "Hill, et al. v. Fieldstone Mortgage
Co., et al.," 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.

The class action was filed on Jan. 16, 2002 by plaintiffs, who
are two individuals who obtained a second mortgage loan from
Fieldstone Mortgage in 1998, in the amount of $28,000, secured
by their residence.  It was brought against Fieldstone Mortgage
and 10 other mortgage lenders that plaintiffs contend are or
were the assignees of second mortgage loans in Maryland made by
Fieldstone Mortgage.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the defendants violated the Maryland Second Mortgage
         Loan Law, or SMLL, by failing to obtain the necessary
         license to provide a second mortgage loan and by
         charging fees unauthorized by the SMLL; and

      -- the defendants violated the Maryland Consumer
         Protection Act by engaging in conduct contrary to the
         provisions of the SMLL.

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that their mortgage
contract is illegal and, therefore, that they do not need to
honor their obligation to repay the second mortgage loan.

Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages in the amount of $300,000.
Fieldstone Mortgage, and each of the other defendants, filed
motions to dismiss asserting that, among other things:

      -- the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable
         three-year statute of limitations;

      -- the plaintiffs' failed to properly plead a claim under
         the Maryland Consumer Protection Act; and

      -- the plaintiffs' request for a judicial declaration that
         their mortgage contract is illegal is not a remedy
         available under either Maryland statutory or common
         law.

The circuit court heard oral arguments on the motions to dismiss
in January 2003.  To date, the court has not ruled on this
motion.  

The lawsuit was consolidated with 14 other class actions with
identical claims against other mortgage lenders.  No motion for
class certification has yet been filed in this case.

On March 30, 2006, the court held a status conference with
regard to this matter.  The court requested supplemental
briefings on the outstanding issues from the parties.  Oral
argument on the outstanding issues was heard on July 26, 2006.

Columbia, Maryland-based Fieldstone Investment Corp. (NASDAQ:
FICC) -- http://www.fieldstonemortgage.com/-- is a mortgage  
real estate investment trust engaged in originating loans
through its operating subsidiary, Fieldstone Mortgage Co.  The
company originates loans through its two primary channels, non-
conforming and conforming.  Each channel has wholesale and
retail lending divisions.  It maintains a wholesale network of
over 4,700 independent mortgage brokers, of which approximately
4,300 are non-conforming brokers and 400 are conforming brokers
serviced by 20 regional operations centers.  In addition, the
company operates a network of non-conforming retail branch
offices and conforming retail branch offices located in 21
states throughout the U.S.


HEXION SPECIALTY: Faces Suit Over Air Emissions, Odors in Ky.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky.

The suit, filed on May 2006, relate to odors and air emissions
from the company's Louisville plant.  It was filed as a class
action on behalf of plaintiffs living in Riverside Gardens, a
community adjacent to the plant.

The suit is "Humphrey et al. v. Hexion Specialty Chemicals,
Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-00276-JGH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge John G.
Heyburn, II.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark K. Gray of Gray & White, 500 W. Jefferson Street,
         Suite 1200, PNC Plaza, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone:
         502-585-2060, Fax: 502-581-1933, E-mail:
         mkgrayatty@aol.com; and

     (2) Steven D. Liddle of Macuga & Liddle, PC, 975 E.
         Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 28307, US, Phone: 313-
         392-0015.

Representing the defendants is David J. Kellerman, Middleton
Reutlinger, 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower, Louisville, KY 40202-
3410, Phone: 502-584-1135, Fax: 502-561-0442, E-mail:
dkellerman@middreut.com.


HOLLAND AMERICA: Passenger Sues in Wash. Over Alleged Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based cruise-ship operator Holland America Line, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Carnival Corp., is facing a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington over alleged defrauding of passengers traveling on
Alaska cruises through a series of deceptive actions.

Plaintiff J.B. Miller, an Ohio resident who took an Alaska
cruise on July 15, 2006, claims injuries by the company's
alleged illegal omissions of the nature of the financial
relationships underlying the shore excursions it offers.  The
central focus of the complaint is that the company did not
disclose, either orally or in writing, that the third-party
businesses that the company features and promotes, which conduct
shore excursions for Holland America passengers in Alaska, have
paid the company to be included in promotions.

Such omissions allegedly directly contravene the mandate of
Alaska Statute which governs "Required Disclosures in Promotions
on Board Cruise Ships."  Violations of the statute constitute
unfair trade practices under Alaska's consumer protection
statutes.

In addition, Holland America allegedly failed to follow Alaska
law with respect to disclosure of its kickbacks on shore
excursions, it has also stolen from its passengers in the guise
of "collecting" fines that the government has never imposed.

In July 2006, Ohio resident J.B. Miller's flight to Seattle was
delayed, causing him and his family to miss the sailing of a
Holland America cruise to Alaska.

According to the complaint, Mr. Miller and his family were
instructed to fly to Juneau, Alaska, in order to meet the ship.
Once aboard, Holland America charged the Millers $300 per person
for what it characterized as a "Jones Act Penalty."

According to Mr. Berman, while the government does have the
ability to fine passengers under a similar act, the Passenger
Vessels Service Act, the government never imposed the fine on
Holland America.

"Holland America forced the family to come up with $1,200 under
the guise of a federal fine, and we know that Holland America
knew the government would never ask for the money in return, and
the government did not do so here," Mr. Berman noted.  "In our
view this is an egregious fraud and we believe this may be a
wide-spread practice, involving a large percentage of those
fined."

The named plaintiff filed the action on behalf of:

     -- a class of "Shore Excursion Kickback Class" consisting
        of all persons and entities who took Alaska cruises or
        "cruisetours" with Holland America who also purchased
        shore excursions or other services offered on
        promotional material distributed by Holland America or
        on promotions by the company; and

     -- and a class of "Jones Act Phony Penalty Class"
        consisting of all persons and entities who took Holland
        America cruises or "cruisetours" within six years of the
        date of this lawsuit, who were assessed purported "Jones
        Act Penalties" by Holland America when the U.S.
        government did not actually assess any such penalties.

The plaintiff is requesting:

     * an order certifying the action to be maintained as a
       class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
       and appointing Mr. Miller and his counsel to represent
       the class;

     * statutory damages suffered by class members in the amount
       of $500 per shore excursion taken per class member and  
       $500 per phony JOnes Act or PVSA charge;

     * contract damages of $300 for each class member improperly
       charged for a JOnes Act or PVSA penalty when no such
       penalty was ever actually imposed;

     * a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order providing
       for equitable and injunctive relief enjoining Holland
       America from omitting to disclose that the third-party
       businesses they promote for shore excursions pay Holland
       America money for that privilege; and

     * attorneys fees, costs of the suit, pre- and post-
       judgment interest.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1242

The suit is "Miller v. Holland America Line Inc., Case No. 2:06-
cv-01363-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Robert S. Lasnik.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman and Jeniphr A.E.
Breckenridge both of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 5th
Ave., Ste 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax:
206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com or
jeniphr@hagens-berman.com.


INFOSONICS CORP: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
InfoSonics Corp. is defendant in several purported securities
fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Between June 13, 2006 and July 14, 2006, seven securities class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.   The longest class period alleged in
these seven cases is from May 8, 2006 to June 12, 2006.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits allege that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and/or 20A of the U.S.
Exchange Act, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5, in
connection with the company's restatement announced on June 12,
2006.  

In these seven lawsuits, plaintiffs seek declarations that each
action is a proper class action, unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs, equitable/injunctive relief,
and/or such other relief as is just and proper.  

The first identified complaint is "Peter Polizzi, et al. v.
InfoSonics Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01233," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1.866.389.0274,
         E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com;

     (2) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (4) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (5) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,
         Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,
         Fax: (215) 638-4867;

     (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;

     (7) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300;

     (8) Klafter & Olsen, LLP, 2121 K St., NW Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20037, Phone: 202.261.3553, Fax:
         202.261.3533, E-mail: info@klafterolsen.com;

     (9) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

    (10) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423;

    (11) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

    (12) Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005,
         New York, NY, 10018, Phone: 212.868.3610, Fax:
         212.918.7967;

    (13) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

    (14) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; and

    (15) Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, (New York), 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212)
         239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         lawyer@lawssb.com.


INTELSAT LTD: Conn. Court Mulls Judgment Motion for ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion for partial summary judgment in the class
action against Intelsat, Ltd., which alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Initially, two putative class action complaints that were filed
against the company and Intelsat Global Service Corp. in 2004
were consolidated into a single case.  The suit was brought by
certain named plaintiffs who are U.S. retirees, spouses of
retirees or surviving spouses of deceased retirees.

The complaint, which was amended several times, arose out of a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization, referred to as the
IGO, prior to privatization regarding medical benefits for
retirees and their dependents.

The plaintiffs allege that Intelsat wrongfully modified health
plan terms to deny coverage to surviving spouses and dependents
of deceased Intelsat retirees, thereby breaching the fiduciary
duty obligations of ERISA, and the "contract" represented by the
IGO resolution.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation
and promissory estoppel.  They seek a declaratory ruling that
putative class members would be entitled to unchanged health
plan benefits in perpetuity, injunctive relief prohibiting any
changes to these benefits, a judgment in the amount of $112.5
million, compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1
billion, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has granted the company's motion to dismiss most of
the fraud claims, although in subsequent amendments plaintiffs
have restated them.  The court authorized very limited
discovery, which is underway, and the company filed a motion for
summary judgment on Jan. 31, 2006.

The plaintiffs' response was filed on Feb. 27, 2006, and the
company's reply was filed on March 21, 2006.  The plaintiffs
also filed a motion for partial summary judgment on March 23,
2006, seeking a ruling that the company may not rely as a
defense upon the immunity of its predecessor IGO, and the
company filed its opposition to the motion for partial summary
judgment on April 11, 2006.  The plaintiffs filed their reply to
Intelsat's opposition on April 24, 2006.

The suit is "Morales, et al. v. Intelsat Global Service Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01044-JR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marni E. Byrum, 2009 North 14th Street, Suite 600,
         Arlington, VA 22201, Phone: (703) 525-3877, Fax: (703)
         525-2252, E-mail: mebyrum@aol.com; and

     (2) Lawrence P. Postol of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 815
         Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC
         20006-4004, Phone: (202) 463-2400, E-mail:
         lpostol@seyfarth.com.

Representing the defendant in Andrew Gendron of Venable, LLP,
Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201-2978, Phone:
(410) 244-7439, Fax: (410) 244-7742, E-mail:
agendron@venable.com.


LEGO SYSTEMS: Recalls Toy Trucks on Reports of Wheel Detaching
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEGO Systems Inc., of Enfield, Connecticut, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
358,000 units of LEGO EXPLORE Super Trucks.

The company said the plastic wheels on the truck can detach,
exposing a metal axle.  This poses a puncture hazard to young
children.

LEGO Systems, Inc. has received 10 reports of a wheel detaching.  
Two children received serious puncture injuries resulting from
the exposed metal axle once the wheel detached.  Another child
fell when the wheel came off of the toy truck.

LEGO EXPLORE Super Truck is a toy-in-toy product designed for
children ages 18 months and up.  The toy features a red plastic
pick-up/dump truck that measures about 15-inches high and 19-
inches wide with four 7-inch black plastic wheels that are
packed with a box of 40 LEGO DUPLO bricks in the cargo area.  
The unit has a row of DUPLO "studs" across the top of the cab,
molded yellow headlights and stickers on the front and sides of
the unit create the idea of a windshield, windows and doors
depicting a LEGO figure in the driver's seat.  The LEGO Explore
logo is printed on the door stickers.  The box of DUPLO bricks
is not included in this recall.

Picture of the recalled toy truck:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06262.jpg

These recalled toy trucks were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at various retailers nationwide, including Toys "R"
Us and Wal-Mart, from August 2002 through August 2004 for about
$20.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled toy trucks (not
the bricks) immediately and contact LEGO Systems for information
on receiving a refund.

For additional information, contact LEGO at (800) 718-1858
anytime, or visit http://www.LEGO.com.


MURPHY OIL: Settles Hurricane Katrina Oil Spill Suit for $330M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Murphy Oil
Corp., entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee to settle a consolidated class
action litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The parties' settlement proposal, negotiated less than a year
after the filed cases were consolidated, would conclude
thousands of claims, with total expenditures and settlement
benefits to be paid by Murphy Oil and its insurers estimated at
$330,000,000.

Under the terms of the Memorandum, all residential and
commercial properties in the Class Area will receive a cash
payment pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to
court approval following recommendations by a court-appointed
Special Master.  The company believes these payments will be
covered by insurance.

The entire Class Area will have the benefit of a comprehensive
remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory
bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.

Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty
Arpent Canal.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which has
scheduled a hearing for the matter on Oct. 10, 2006.

On Sept. 9, 2005, a class action was filed seeking unspecified
damages to a class comprised of residents of St. Bernard Parish
who were claiming damages caused by a release of crude oil at
the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Murphy Oil USA's Meraux,
Louisiana, refinery as a result of flooding damage to a crude
oil storage tank following Hurricane Katrina.

The suit was filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.   

The court certified the class on Jan. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common   
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-   
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,   
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,   
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.   
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.   
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:   
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and  
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:  
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


PREMIUM STANDARD: Settles Kans. "Hog Stench" Lawsuit for $4.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Standard Farms, Inc. entered a $4.5 million settlement
with six plaintiffs in the suit "Steven Adwell, et al. vs. PSF,
et al." that is pending in Jackson County, Kansas City,
Missouri.

There are 29 plaintiffs remaining in this case as well as 24
plaintiffs in the previously disclosed case of "Michael Adwell,
et al. vs. PSF, et al." also pending in Jackson County, Kansas
City, Missouri.

The plaintiffs alleged odors from the company's large-scale hog
operations had spoiled their enjoyment of their property.

In the company's most recent annual report, filed in June with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Premium Standard
said the same lawyer involved in these two court cases had filed
five other class actions, all making similar allegations about
odor.


RAM ENERGY: Continues to Face Royalty Owners' Suit in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAM Energy Resources, Inc., along with other defendants, denied
the allegations in a purported class action filed by royalty
owners in the District Court for Woods County, Oklahoma.

In April 2002, a lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc.,
certain of its subsidiaries and various other individuals and
unrelated companies, by a lessor of certain oil and gas leases
from which production was sold to a gathering system owned and
operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership.  The lawsuit
covers the period from 1977 to a current date.

In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned
subsidiaries of RAM Energy, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed as a
class action on behalf of all royalty owners under leases owned
by any of the defendants during the period Magic Circle or CFLP
owned and operated the gathering system.

The petition claims that additional royalties are due because
Magic Circle and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the
wellhead for an amount in excess of the price upon which royalty
payments were based and paid no royalties on natural gas liquids
extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system.

Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at
the wellhead by Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties
on take or pay settlement proceeds and failure to properly
report deductions for post-production costs in accordance with
Oklahoma's check stub law.

RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the
lawsuit denying all material allegations set out in the
petition.

In the event the court should find RAM Energy, Inc. and its
related defendants liable for damages in the lawsuit, a former
joint venture partner is contractually obligated to pay a
portion of any damages assessed against the defendant lessees up
to a maximum contribution of approximately $2.8 million.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based RAM Energy Resources, Inc., (NASDAQ: RAME)
-- http://www.ramenergy.com/-- formerly Tremisis Energy  
Acquisition Corp., is an oil and gas company focused on the
acquisition, exploration, development, exploitation, production
and management of oil and gas properties, primarily in Texas,
Louisiana and Oklahoma.  On May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources,
Inc. merged with Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp.  In
accordance with the merger agreement, Tremisis Energy
Acquisition Corp. has changed its name to RAM Energy Resources,
Inc.


REPUBLIC COS: No Class Yet in La. Lawsuit Over Insurance Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in statewide putative lawsuit
pending in the District Court of the Parish of Orleans,
Louisiana against a subsidiary of Republic Companies Group, Inc.

Filed on April 12, 2006, the suit generally alleges that
Republic Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. and other unaffiliated
insurer defendants breached their policies by failing to pay the
face value of policies to insureds that sustained a total loss
of their homes and improvements in part as a result of a non-
covered loss from Hurricane Katrina.

Thus, plaintiffs seek to recover face value of the policies
regardless of the anti-concurrence provisions of the company's
policies or the fact the company timely paid covered losses in
accordance with the policies' provisions.

The suit seeks declaratory relief and unspecified monetary
damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.  No class has
been certified in this matter.

Wilmington, Delaware-based Republic Companies Group, Inc.
(ASDAQ: RUTX) -- http://www.republicgroup.com/-- is a provider  
of personal and commercial property and casualty insurance
products to individuals and small- to medium-size businesses.  
It operates in four segments of the property and casualty
insurance business: Independent Agents-Personal Lines;
Independent Agents - Commercial Lines; Program Management;
Insurance Services and Corporate.  The personal lines products
include homeowners and dwelling fire, low-value dwelling,
standard and nonstandard auto and personal umbrella coverages.  
The commercial lines products include commercial package, auto,
workers' compensation, property, general liability, farm and
ranch, employers' nonsubscriber, lender's collateral protection
and prize indemnification coverages.  In the Insurance Services
segment, Republic provides fronting services.  In the Program
Management segment, Republic distributes personal and commercial
insurance policies through contractual programs.


SOYO INC: Still Faces Consumer Suit Over Faulty Motherboards
------------------------------------------------------------
SOYO, Inc., a subsidiary of SOYO Group, Inc., remains a
defendant in the consumer fraud class action, "Gerry Normandan
et al, v. SOYO Inc. Case No. RCV 082128," which was filed in
California Superior Court.

The case, filed on Aug. 2, 2004, seeks class-action status and
alleges defects in motherboards, which the company distributes,
and that the company misrepresented and omitted material facts
concerning the motherboards.

The plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
obtained by defendant as a result of alleged misconduct, plus
interest, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Ontario, California-based SOYO Group Inc. (OTCBB: SOYO) --
http://www.soyo.com-- is a global provider of large screen  
consumer electronics, computer peripheral devices, and broadband
telecommunications products and services. With its additional
sales offices in South America, SOYO Group sells its products
through an extensive network of authorized distributors,
resellers, system integrators, VARs, retailers, mail-order
catalogs and e-tailers, including Micro Center, Target.com,
Walmart.com, eCost.com, Fry's Electronics, PC Mall, and Office
Depot, among others.


SPEAR & JACKSON: Settles Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit for $650T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spear & Jackson, Inc. reached a $650,000 settlement for the
consolidated securities fraud class action pending against it in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
according to the company's Aug. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

Initially, a number of class actions were initiated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by company
stockholders against:

     -- the company;
     -- Sherb & Co. LLP;
     -- the company's former independent auditor; and
     -- certain of the the the company's directors and
        officers,
     
        * including Mr. Crowley, the company's former chief
          executive officer/chairman, and
        * Mr. Fletcher, the company's former chief financial
          officer and current acting CEO.  

They charge the company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  These various class actions were subsequently
consolidated.

Thereafter, the defendants filed certain Motions to Dismiss with
regard to the complaint and on Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in the action, "In Re
Spear & Jackson Securities Litigation," entered its order
regarding these motions.  

The order denied the company's motion as well as that of Mr.
Crowley, the former CEO of Spear & Jackson. The company is in
the process of preparing its answer and defenses to the
complaint.

The court granted the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Mr.
Fletcher, the company's interim chief executive officer, and
also granted the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the company's
former independent auditor, Sherb & Co., LLP.

The class plaintiff has since filed an appeal regarding the
trial court's decision to dismiss the case against Sherb & Co.,
LLP, which appeal is presently pending.  No appeal was filed
with respect to the decision to dismiss the case against Mr.
Fletcher.

The court denied the motion of Spear & Jackson's Monitor to
abate the litigation for a six-month period pending the
administration of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's
restitution fund.

The court also denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification
and established a new cut-off for discovery until Dec. 19, 2005.  

The case was initially set on the court's two-week calendar
beginning March 6, 2006 but the trial date has since been reset
for October 2006.

On July 7, 2006 the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida issued a Memorandum of Understanding, which
confirmed that the plaintiffs and defendants in the class action
had reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of this
litigation, subject to court approval.

The MOU outlines the general terms of the settlement and is to
be supplemented by a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
that is to be issued at a later date.

In settlement of the class action the defendants will pay a sum
of $650,000, which is to be deposited by the company into a
Qualified Settlement Fund within thirty days of the date of the
MOU.

Following the execution of the MOU, the lead plaintiffs will
commence discovery procedures to confirm the fairness and
reasonableness of the settlement.  Plaintiffs retain the right
to terminate the settlement if such discovery reveals that it is
not fair, reasonable and adequate.

The suit is "In re: Spear & Jackson, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-80375," filed in the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.  

Plaintiffs firm involved in the and similar cases:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL),
         515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach,
         FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;
   
     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place, 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364;

     (3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East, Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
         1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 730, Washington, DC,
         20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400;

     (6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-    
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (7) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Ave.,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;
   
     (8) Vianale & Vianale, LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355
         Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com;

     (9) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax:
         212.753.3630, E-mail: info@whesq.com; and

    (10) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270
         Madison Ave., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600,
         Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com.

Representing the defendants is Allan Michael Lerner, 2888 E
Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306, Phone: 954-
563-8111.


STAPLES INC: Issues Vouchers as Settlement in Item Pricing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staples Inc. is handing out vouchers worth $7.50 to the first
1,200 shoppers at its 64 Bay State stores as part of a
settlement of a class action claiming it failed to comply with a
state regulation requiring it to mark prices on individual items
in its stores, the Boston Globe reports.

There is no minimum purchase required with the $7.50 voucher,
and other Staples promotions can be used with it, although no
change will be provided on purchases less than $7.50.  Vouchers
cannot be used for gift cards, stamps, business services, or
telephone or Internet orders.  There is a limit of one voucher
per customer, who must be 15 years old or older.

Colman Herman of Dorchester, a consumer activist who pioneered
the item-pricing litigation, says the Staples approach of
issuing vouchers to consumers is the way to go.  The money
should go to consumers or to consumer groups.

Staples settled out of court, denying wrongdoing but proposed a
novel method for resolving claims that it violated item-pricing
regulations in the state of Massachusetts (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 13, 2006).

Plaintiffs were represented by Samuel Perkins of Brody, Hardoon,
Perkins and Kesten, LLP, One Exeter Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts
02116, Phone: 617 880 7103 or 617 880 7100, Fax: 617 880 71,
Email: sperkins@bhpklaw.com.


TIME WARNER: AOL Members Sue in Calif. Over Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of three AOL members, against AOL LLC, the
Internet division of Time Warner Inc.

The lawsuit claims that AOL violated:

     -- the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
        Section 2702;

     -- the California Online Privacy Act of 2003, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code section 22575;

     -- the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
        Code Section 1750;

     -- the California Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code
        Section 1798.80;

     -- the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
        Code Section 17500;

     -- the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
        Code Section 17200; and

     -- common law.

Specifically, the complaint states that on July 31, AOL posted
on its publicly accessible website a database containing roughly
20 million Internet search queries entered over a three-month
period by approximately 658,000 different AOL members.

Plaintiffs claim the database detailed the date and time the AOL
member conducted each search, as well as any Web sites the
member clicked on after AOL's search engine returned its
results.

No AOL user names were attached to the database, but the
complaint says search terms contain personal information, enough
to identify the AOL member.

The complaint alleges that although AOL later pulled the
database from its Web site, the database had already been
downloaded, reposted, and made searchable on other websites.

The complaint also alleges that AOL has neither taken steps to
make secure similar information it has collected nor stopped
collecting this type of information from its members.

AOL apologized for its disclosure, but the complaint contends
AOL has done nothing to remedy the situation.

The lawsuit is the first class action filed in federal court as
a result of AOL's July 31 public release of queries made by
hundreds of thousands of AOL members without their permission.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of all AOL members in the
U.S. whose Internet search query data was disclosed without
consent from Jan. 1, 2004 until the present.

There are questions of law or fact common to the class:

     -- whether AOL's release of the Member Search Data, to
        third parties, was a violation of the Electronics
        Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2702;

     -- whether AOL has released the Member Search Date or the
        content of other communications to third parties and the
        number of times AOL has released this information;

     -- whether AOL's release of the Member Search Data to third
        parties is a violation of California law;

     -- whether AOL is in violation of Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code
        Section 22575;

     -- whether AOL is in violation of Cal.Civ. Code Section
        1750;

     -- whether AOL is in violation of Cal.Bus.& Prof.Code
        Section 17500;

     -- whether AOL is in violation of Cal.Civ. Code Section
        1798.80;

     -- whether AOL is in violation of Cal.Bus. & Prof.code
        Section 17200;

     -- whether plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled
        to damages and/or restitution and the appropriate
        measure of damages; and

     -- whether plaintiffs and members are entitled to
        injunctive and other equitable relief.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1255

The suit is "Ramkissoon v. AOL LLC, Case No. C 06 5866," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) C. Oliver Burt, III, Manuel John Dominguez, Esq. and
         Marc J. Greenspon, Esq. all of Berman DeValerio Pease
         Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900,
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: (561) 835-9400, E-
         mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com, Website:
         http://www.bermanesq.com;

     (2) Richard R. Wiebe of The Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe,
         425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA
         94104, Phone: (415) 433-3200, Fax: (415) 433-6382, E-
         mail: wiebe@pacbell.net; and

     (3) James K. Green of James K. Green, P.A., 222 Lakeview
         Avenue, Suite 1650, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone:
         (561) 659-2029, Fax: (561) 655-1357, E-mail:
         jameskgreen@bellsouth.net.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: RJ Reynolds to Appeal "Lights" Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. will appeal Judge Jack
B. Weinstein's decision to certify a national class of "light"
smokers for a potential $200 billion lawsuit against cigarette
makers, Interactive Investor reports.

Martin L. Holton, deputy general counsel of litigation at R.J.
Reynolds, said in a statement that R.J. Reynolds -- maker of
Camel and Kool cigarettes -- also plans to ask for a stay of all
proceedings in the case, pending a review by the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York certified on Sept. 25 a class that
permits Americans who currently smoke, or ever did smoke "light"
cigarettes (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.  

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

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.

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.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris to Appeal "Lights" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA will seek prompt appellate review of Judge
Jack B. Weinstein's decision to certify a national class of
"light" smokers in the Schwab lawsuit.

The decision was issued by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein,
who refused to apply the recent findings regarding "light"
cigarettes by another federal judge in Washington, D.C., in a
case brought by the Justice Department against major cigarette
companies.

"The company will take immediate steps to begin the process of
appealing this decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, and will seek a stay of all trial court
proceedings pending a decision by the appellate court," said
William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA's vice president and
associate general counsel.

"The company believes that the appellate court will find that
[Mon]day's certification decision runs counter to the
overwhelming weight of federal and state case law regarding
class actions in smokers' litigation and must be reversed.

"This case involves smokers who are not seeking to recover for
personal injuries, who continue to smoke 'light' cigarettes and
who paid no more for Marlboro Lights cigarettes than they would
have paid for regular Marlboros," Mr. Ohlemeyer said.

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
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.  

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

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.

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.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Aussies Could File Light Suit, Lawyer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hausfeld, an attorney who is behind a major class action
in the U.S. against tobacco companies, believes Australians
could also sue for damages, the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
reports.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York certified on Sept. 25 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
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

"Many of the documents that we have seen in the U.S. case deal
with internal tobacco industry memos from other parts of the
world ... in particular Australia," Mr. Hausfeld said.

"Likewise to the U.S. market, they knew the fraud that they were
perpetrating on the Australian public and the fact that the
public was relying on it."

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.  

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

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.

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.


UNITED STATES: No Trial Set in Lawsuit Against Milberg Weiss
------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference was held on Sept. 20 on a case accusing
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and two of its partners of
paying several individuals in secret kickbacks to serve as
plaintiffs in numerous shareholder lawsuits.

At the case meeting, U.S. Atty. Douglas Axel said prosecutors
might bring "additional allegations not within the scope of this
indictment."

Defense lawyers argued that that possibility significantly
complicated their trial preparation as well as talks over a
discovery schedule and trial date, according to Los Angeles
Times.

U.S. District Court, Central District of California Judge John
Walter did not set a date for the trial, but said he was
considering fall of next year.  He set a case meeting to take
place Nov. 27, when a trial date will likely be set.

"Setting a trial date is frankly unfair," Bill Taylor, an
attorney for Milberg Weiss told the court during the conference.

In May, Milberg Weiss and David J. Bershad and Steven G.
Schulman were indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly
participating in a scheme in which several individuals were paid
millions of dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving
as named plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and
shareholder derivative lawsuits.  The firm allegedly received
well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits
over the past 20 years.  

Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman both pled not guilty to wrongdoing
in July (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).  Seymour M.
Lazar, who is accused of acting as a paid plaintiff in some of
the firm's cases, and Paul T. Selzer, who is charged with
laundering money on Lazar's behalf, also pleaded not guilty to
charges filed against them.  

Recently, attorneys for Mr. Lazar asked the court to dismiss the
criminal case against him because protracted delays in the suit
and his failing health (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006).

The indictment charges the firm and the partners of conspiracy
with several objects, including obstructing justice, perjury,
bribery and fraud.  The conspiracy count outlines a scheme in
which individuals received secret kickback payments to serve, or
cause friends and relatives to serve, as named plaintiffs in
lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss.

The federal probe into allegations against Milberg Weiss, which
once dominated class action law in the U.S., accounting for 85%
of all such suits filed in California and 60% elsewhere in 2001,
came to light in January 2002, when a flurry of subpoenas went
out to scores of lawyers and stockbrokers from major firms and
plaintiffs who had participated in Milberg Weiss lawsuits.

In August 2005, Federal prosecutors stepped up their criminal
investigation of Milberg Weiss.  The investigation looked at
whether the firm illegally made payments to plaintiffs to lead a
series of shareholder suits.  Plaintiffs in such suits are not
permitted to receive payments beyond those awarded by courts, to
avoid conflict between their interests and those of the rest of
the class.

The 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was
drafted with Milberg Weiss in mind, limits plaintiffs to no more
than five class actions in three years.  


ZURICH NORTH: PIA Files Amicus Against Broker Compensation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Professional Insurance Agents filed
an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, in opposition to certain limited aspects
of a proposed settlement involving Zurich North America
insurers.

In making this filing, PIA National objects to recent multi-
state settlements that allegedly:

     -- create disparate impact on PIA members' livelihood by
        prohibiting the payment by carriers of certain
        contingency payments;

     -- introduce legal conflict and confusion of insurance
        buyers' rights by imposing a defective disclosure
        notice; and

     -- increase discrimination against PIA members in light of
        the most recent announcements by leading Mega-Brokers
        that their 2004 settlements have been revised,
        permitting them to receive certain specific contingency
        earnings, when settlements referred to in this class
        action suit could prohibit such payments to all other
        participants in the industry.

"A key mission of PIA is to defend the integrity of our members
and protect their business interests," said PIA Executive Vice
President & Chief Executive Officer Len Brevik.  "The alleged
abuses that led to these settlements were not committed by Main
Street insurance agents.  Regrettably, this settlement agreement
and others like it attempt to create a remedy for alleged
wrongdoing and then impose it on those who were not involved in
any wrongdoing.  As a result, PIA is compelled to address these
issues formally through our direct involvement in this class
action, on behalf of our members and their business interests."

CEO Brevik added that PIA's filing also addresses the broader
issue of efforts by several Attorneys General to use the
settlement process to compel support for changing the way
American business operates by attempting to make incentive
compensation illegal.  In the case of the proposed settlement
involving Zurich, this includes a provision requiring the
company to "support legislation and regulations in the U.S. to
abolish Contingent Compensation for insurance products or
lines."

"State Attorneys General should not usurp the policymaking
authority of state legislatures," CEO Brevik said.

"Specifically, they should not use their law enforcement powers
in an effort to bring about a fundamental change in the American
system of free enterprise.  Performance-based compensation is
not a threat to that system, it is the basis of that system.  
Certain provisions contained in these agreements are grossly
unfair to PIA agents, and grossly unfair to carriers by
restricting their ability to compensate their producers in a
legal and honest manner."

The PIA filing also notes that several of the original
settlements reached in 2004 have, in recent weeks, been amended
by State Attorneys General to liberalize earlier prohibitions
against receiving any contingency earnings, in signed
settlements involving Marsh, Aon and Willis, among others --
while not changing aspects of settlements that may adversely
impact Main Street agents, who were never accused of any
wrongdoing.

"These voluntary settlement agreements, which are not truly
voluntary, are being entered into by carriers under threat of
legal sanction by various State Attorneys General," said PIA
National President-elect Donna Pile.  "Provisions in these
settlements place the burden of these sanctions squarely on the
shoulders of the local Main Street agents, creating an enormous
financial strain on our PIA agencies.  It is dangerously
disconcerting that the Main Street agent force is paying the
price for a few wrongdoers from a totally different arena.  This
is not due process."

As part of the proposed settlement of a class action filed in
August 2005, which was prompted by investigations of alleged
bid-rigging conducted by several State Attorneys General,
professional independent insurance agents would supposedly be
required to use a court-mandated Mandatory Disclosure Statement
that is inaccurate, violates existing state and common law and
is rife with serious and fatal flaws.  While pointing out to the
court that PIA has no intent to obstruct the consummation of the
Zurich Class Settlement, nevertheless "any perceived need for
expediting the settlement process cannot justify the serious and
fatal flaws" in the mandated disclosure statement.

"PIA tried to participate in the drafting of the Mandatory
Disclosure Statement, but was unfairly locked out of those
negotiations," said PIA National Vice
President/Treasurer-elect Kenneth R. Auerbach, Esq.

"Unfortunately, the carriers involved in this process are in no
position to make modifications to these imposed results.  So,
the system left PIA with no other option to be heard.  PIA is
compelled to file our comments together with our proposed
changes to the disclosure statement directly with the court, as
a friend of the court, for its consideration," Mr. Auerbach
said.

                      Settlement Agreement

In March, Zurich Financial Services Group (Zurich) announced
that Zurich American Insurance Co. and its subsidiaries (ZAIC)
reached settlements with nine state attorneys general and one
insurance commissioner relating to their industry-wide
investigations into broker compensation and insurance placement
practices.

The agreements call for total payments of $171.7 million and
require the implementation of new disclosure and compliance
regimes.  ZAIC did not admit to any violation of U.S. federal or
state laws as part of the settlements.

The Multi-State Agreement increases the $100 million settlement
fund amount set forth in the MOU to a total of $151.7 million,
and requires ZAIC to pay $20 million for state fees and costs.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Broker
Activities Task Force (NAIC Task Force) assisted in developing a
regulatory settlement agreement with ZAIC that the insurance
commissioner from Florida has now executed.  The NAIC Task Force
supported this settlement as a sound regulatory framework, and
had urged all state insurance regulators to consider joining it.

Some of these settlements are dependent on court approvals, as
well as various other conditions.  

The nine state attorneys general who have executed settlement
agreements with ZAIC as part of the Multi-State Agreement are
those from California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.

The Multi-State Agreement will work in conjunction with a
proposed settlement between ZAIC and plaintiffs in a nationwide
class action against commercial insurers and brokers that is
pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of New
Jersey.  In October 2005, ZAIC and lead plaintiffs in the class
action entered into the MOU that sets out the principal terms of
settlement of that action.  

A copy of the Regulatory Settlement Agreement is available at:

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?127d


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

  
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


September 27-28, 2006
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 27-28, 2006
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 28-29, 2006
INSURANCE & REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

October 4-5, 2006
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 5-7, 2006
LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Ballantyne Resort, Charlotte, NC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2006
CORPORATE E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16-17, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 19-20, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealeys Seminars
Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2006
WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 25-26, 2006
DERIVATIVES BOOT CAMP
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 26-27, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS & PREEMPTION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 31-November 1, 2006
EXIT STRATEGIES FOR THE INSURANCE MARKETPLACE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 1-2, 2006
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 2-3, 2006
LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 9-10, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 4-5, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13-15, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

September 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

September 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

September 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

September 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

September 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

September 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

September 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

October 17, 2006
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WOMEN IN THE LAW
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 24, 2006
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2006
CURRENT CLAIMS ISSUES FOR UNDERWRITERS AND SENIOR CLAIMS PEOPLE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org  


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BROADCOM CORP: Braun Law Group Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Braun Law Group, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Broadcom Corp.'s securities between July 21,
2005 and July 13, 2006, inclusive of both the days.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(B)
and 20(A) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
promulgated thereunder.  Defendants include, Broadcom, Henry
Samueli, Scott McGregor, William Ruehle and Bruce Kiddoo.

On July 14, 2006, Broadcom announced that it would record more
than $750 million in added expenses and restate its past
earnings related to the illegal backdating of stock options.  
The undisclosed backdating of options violated generally
accepted accounting principles and the revelation of options
backdating resulted in a decline in Broadcom's share price.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Oct. 12, 2006.

For more detail, contact Michael D. Braun of Braun Law Group,
P.C., Phone: (310) 442-7755, E-mail: info@braunlawgroup.com, Web
site: http://www.braunlawgroup.com.


SCOTTISH RE: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action for violation
of the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Scottish Re Group, LTD.  The
class period is from Feb. 17, 2005 to July 28, 2006.  Defendants
include Scottish Re and certain of its top officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that Scottish Re and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
Scottish Re's financial health and business prospects, and
covered up serious operational and financial problems.

During the class period, the company continued to report robust
earnings and announced that this positive momentum would
continue going forward.

In early May 2006 the company announced that it had refinanced,
at favorable rates, all of its regulatory reserves for the
business acquired in its acquisition of ING Re's reinsurance
business.

While the company also reported reduced earnings for the first
quarter of 2006, this was dismissed as temporary, and not a
cause for concern.

Then on July 28, 2006, the defendants shocked the market by
announcing that CEO Scott Willkomm had resigned, and that for
the second quarter, the U.S. would report a huge loss of $130
million, and that results for the remainder of the year would be
negatively affected.

On this news the company's share prices declined an astounding
75%, from $16.00 to $3.99, wiping out millions in shareholder
value. Scottish Re's share price has never fully recovered.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.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  * * *