CAR_Public/060928.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 193

                            Headlines

ADVANTUS CORP: Recalls Ledu-Brand Desk Lamps Posing Fire Risk
AFFINION GROUP: Continues to Face Various Consumer Fraud Suits
ALLIED INSURANCE: $100M Payout to Plan Holders Held Indefinitely
BP AMERICA: N. Mex. Court Certifies Class in Royalties Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Prison Receiver Moves to Raise Pay for Medical Staff

CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Wis. Suit Over Faulty "Horizon" Shingles
C.H. ROBINSON: Ala. Judge Orders Labor Bias Suit to Go to Trial
C.H. ROBINSON: Court Approves $15M Labor Bias Suit Settlement
CINCINNATI GAS: Court Mulls Class Status for Air Pollution Suit
CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Overrules Objections in Securities Suit

HANOVER DIRECT: Faces Suits in Del., N.J. Over Privatization
MANAGED CARE LITIGATION: Dec. Hearing Set for Fla. Suit Deal
NASUTRA LLC: Recalls Dietary Supplement Over Hazardous Content
NESTOR TRAFFIC: Court Denies Remand Bid in Speed Program Suit
ORACLE CORP: Calif. Court Vacates Sept. 11 Trial for Stock Suit

PATRIOT LOGISTICS: Oct. Hearing Set for Fla. Suit Settlement
PENNSYLVANIA: Green Ridge Residents File Suit Over 2004 Flooding
PENSION LAWS LITIGATION: Seven Cos. Face Lawsuits in Four States
PUBLIC STORAGE: Property Managers' Suit Awaits Certification
PUBLIC STORAGE: Unit Renters Sue in Calif. Over Alleged Fraud

PUBLIC STORAGE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Storage Insurance
RLB FOOD: Recalls Spinach Products for E. coli Contamination
SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Discovery Continues in N.Y. Suit Over Ambien
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Brief on Calif. Stock Suit's Dismissal Due Dec.
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Oct. 26 Hearing Set for $8M Stock Suit Deal

S&M NUTEC: Discovery Continues in Greenies Dog Treat Lawsuit
U-HAUL INT'L: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for "Boyle" Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Court Stops Challenge to Medicaid Eligibility Law
US TRADING: Recalls Pudding for Undeclared Milk Protein Content
WISE FOODS: Recalls Tortilla Chips for Undeclared Soy Content


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
CONNECTICS CORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files Tex. Stock Suit


                            *********


ADVANTUS CORP: Recalls Ledu-Brand Desk Lamps Posing Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advantus Corp., of Jacksonville, Florida, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,000 units of Ledu-Brand desk lamps.

The company said the plastic near the bulb of these lamps can
overheat and melt.  This poses a burn hazard to consumers who
could touch the hot plastic.

Advantus Corp. has received two reports of lamps overheating.  
No injuries have been reported.

These are Ledu-brand desk lamps with model number L462BK.  The
model number is written on the packaging.  This recall involves
lamps containing a serial number on the bottom of the lamp
between A462050400001 and A462050401002.  They also have a
metallic UL foil sticker with E149992 written on it.

Picture of the recalled desk lamp:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06581.jpg

These desk lamps were manufactured in China and are being sold
by commercial office products dealers nationwide during May 2006
for about $145.

Consumers are advised to stop using the lamps immediately and
return them to the retailer where purchased for a full refund.

For more information, contact Advantus Corp. at (800) 771-0529
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.advantus.com.


AFFINION GROUP: Continues to Face Various Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. is party to a number of lawsuits purporting
to be a class action against it or its affiliates over
allegations of federal or state consumer protection statutes
violations.  

                      August 2005 Litigation

On Aug. 9, 2005, a class action was filed against Trilegiant
Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The claim asserts violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and various California consumer protection statutes.  The
suit seeks unspecified actual damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

                       January 2005 Litigation

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.  

The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection
statutes.  The company filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which was denied by the court.  

The company appealed the court's decision, and the case has been
stayed until the appellate court has ruled on the motion to
compel arbitration.

                       November 2002 Litigation

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court
of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer
fraud and deceptive practices act.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

                      January 2002 Litigation

On Jan. 24, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Trilegiant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, alleging that Trilegiant violated the Credit Repair
Organizations Act in connection with its Creditline product.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the terms of
a class-wide settlement of this case.  Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, Trilegiant has provided notice to the class
members via first class mail advising them of the terms of the
settlement.

All class members have released their claims against Trilegiant
under the settlement.  All class members wanting to receive
benefits under the settlement were required to return a claim
form post-marked by Feb. 16, 2006 and had the option of choosing
a no-cost annual membership in one of three membership programs
offered by Trilegiant.

In lieu of a membership program, class members could elect to
receive a cash payment.  The total cash payments that Trilegiant
has offered to make to the class are capped at $0.5 million.

On March 13, 2006 the Alabama Court signed the final order
approving the terms of the settlement.  The judgment became
final on April 12, 2006.

                        November 2001 Litigation

On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison
County, Illinois against Trilegiant alleging violations of state
consumer protection statutes in connection with the sale of
certain membership programs.

Motions to dismiss were denied and certification of a class of
consumers has been granted; the exact size of the certified
class is not known at this time.

Norwalk, Connecticut-based Affinion Group, Inc. --
http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a leading affinity direct  
marketer of value-added membership, insurance and package
enhancement programs and services to consumers, with over 30
years of experience.  Affinion currently offers its programs and
services worldwide through over 4,500 affinity partners.
Affinion's diversified base of affinity partners includes
leading companies in a wide variety of industries, including
financial services, retail, travel, telecommunications,
utilities and Internet.  Affinion markets to consumers using
direct mail, online marketing, in-branch marketing,
telemarketing and other marketing methods.  Affinion also has a
growing loyalty solutions operation, which manages points-based
loyalty programs.


ALLIED INSURANCE: $100M Payout to Plan Holders Held Indefinitely
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement payments to policyholders in a class action against
Allied Insurance Co. have been delayed because of the complexity
of the process, The Des Moines Register reports.

The process of identifying who is eligible to participate in the
settlement, and how much to pay them, has been more complicated
than expected, lawyers involved in the process say, according to
the report.

The suit was filed in 1997.  It claims that Allied's mutual
insurance arm, which policyholders own, was improperly
transferring assets to its publicly owned sister company.  That
time, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. was buying both the public
and policyholder businesses of Allied.  Shareholders received
$1.57 billion, and policyholders received $110 million.

The parties reached an agreement last summer to settle the suit
for a minimum of $100 extra million to the policyholders.  The
payouts to 75,000 policyholders were expected as early as June.  
Deadline to file claims was Jan. 10, 2006.

"We cannot say at this time when the distribution will occur,"
the lawyers announced at the Web site set up for the settlement.

Boston-based lawyer for the plaintiff, Jason Adkins, said he was
considering asking a Polk County judge to have an unspecified
number of extra claims to be allowed if they were filed within a
few weeks of the original deadline.  He and the other lawyers
for the plaintiffs already have received $28.5 million from
Nationwide.

Mr. Adkins is member of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C., 90 Canal
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-
367-1040, Fax: 617-742-8280.  Settlement Web site:
http://www.alliedmutualsettlement.com.


BP AMERICA: N. Mex. Court Certifies Class in Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The First Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico granted
class-action status for the lawsuit filed against BP America Co.
f/k/a AMOCO Production Co. and ConocoPhilips Co. f/k/a COP,
Inc., Case No. D-0101-CV-200001620.

Laura Dichter, Romero Family Limited Partnership, and J. Glenn
Turner filed this lawsuit in June 2000, individually and on
behalf of a proposed class of royalty and overriding royalty
interest owners against defendants ConocoPhilips Co. and BP
America.

They purport to be royalty and overriding royalty interest
owners in the San Juan Basin whose royalty and overriding
royalty interests apply to leases operated by the defendant BP
America (BP Subject Leases).

The BP Subject Leases produce gas that is processed at the San
Juan New Blanco Plant near Bloomfield, New Mexico, which is
jointly owned by COP and BP.  Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are
removed from the gas stream at the plant and are then sold by
defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that they and all class members have been
damaged, because defendants underpaid royalty and overriding
royalty to them, including amounts due for NGLs saved and sold
by defendants.

The second amended complaint alleges breach of contract, breach
of the covenant to market.  Plaintiffs seek actual damages,
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

COP entered into a settlement agreement.  That settlement was
approved on May 12, 2006.  Thus the case is proceeding against
BP only.  It was granted class-action status on July 25, 2006 by
Judge Michael E. Vigil.

For more details, contact:

     (1) J.E. Gallegos, Esq., Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., 460 St.,
         Michaels Drive, Building 300, Sante Fe, New Mexico
         87505, Phone: (505) 983-6686; and

     (2) Thomas W. Paterson, Esq. of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana St., Suite 5100, Houston, Texas 77002-5096,
         Phone: (713) 651-9366.


CALIFORNIA: Prison Receiver Moves to Raise Pay for Medical Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sillen, federal receiver for California's prison medical
care system, has submitted a request to U.S. District Court
Judge Thelton E. Henderson to order salary increases for prison
health care staff.

The move is aimed at improving quality of care in the state's
prisons by attracting and retaining qualified medical staff and
reducing reliance on a costly temporary workforce.

"Qualified clinicians are essential to a constitutionally
adequate medical care system," Mr. Sillen said. "These salary
adjustments are long overdue as a first step to attracting and
retaining health care professionals in the effort to turn the
prisons around and improve quality of care for inmate patients."

The receivership is the result of a 2001 class action, "Plata v.
Schwarzenegger," that found the medical care in California's 33
prisons violates the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and
unusual punishment.  Judge Henderson appointed Mr. Sillen as
receiver in February 2006 and charged him with taking over the
operations of the state's prison medical care system, bringing
it up to constitutional levels.

                     The Proposed Increase

Pending court action, the proposed raises will take effect Sept.
1, and deliver increases ranging from 5 to 64 percent over time
for critical health care positions in the state's prisons.  The
estimated cost of the increases is approximately $24 million in
the first year.  By contrast, in fiscal year 2005-06, the state
spent $90 million on contract employees to help fill huge
vacancies in prison medical staffing.  Contractors are far more
costly than permanent employees. Currently the state pays an
average of $67 per hour for temporary nurses against $38 per
hour to state-employed nurses.

Vacancy rates for primary care providers -- physicians, nurse
practitioners and physician assistants -- in the prisons
currently stand at 20 percent.  The shortage of Registered
Nurses clocks in at 15 percent, down from 39 percent last year
after a December 2005 court order provided a $1,700 bump to
prison nurses.

The new round of increases will apply to a broad spectrum of
prison health care staff, including those in Nursing, Pharmacy,
Medical Transcribing, X-Ray, Medical Records and Dietary
Services. In addition, Nurse Practitioners and Physician
Assistants (PAs) will receive raises.  Physician raises will
follow after the receiver has had an opportunity to evaluate
their performance on an individual basis.  The request to the
court includes a provision allowing the receiver to raise
physician salaries up to $300,000, from the current $150,000, at
his discretion.

"We need to develop a system for ensuring that competent,
dedicated physicians are rewarded, while others whose
performance falls short are not," Mr. Sillen said.

The proposed increases for clinical staff will bring salaries
more in line with those paid by University of California
hospitals, a statement in Medical News Today said.  Depressed
salaries are a key factor in the shortage of qualified health
care personnel in the prison system, according to the statement.

"Qualified health care professionals are an endangered species,"
Mr. Sillen said.  "They need to be paid appropriately and
provided with clinical environments and working conditions where
they can do the job they trained to do: take care of patients.
That's what this Receivership will deliver.  Salaries are only
the first step, but they make a big difference."

For instance, prison pharmacists today are paid approximately
half of market wage, and there is a 42 percent vacancy rate
statewide.  Pharmacists will be receiving maximum salary
increases of 64 percent from the receiver.  The state also pays
prison clinical dieticians less than half of market wage,
resulting in a 63 percent vacancy rate statewide.  They will see
maximum increases of 28 percent, the statement said.

The statement refers to this table to show there is a consistent
pattern of low wages and high vacancy rates:

Position        Vacancy Rate Max. Salary Increase Max. Salary
Medical Transcriber   26%            10%      $38,808
X-Ray Technician      44%            49%      $62,436
Medical Records Tech  26%         13-19% $42,708-$51,564
Registered Nurse  15% statewide, 23% statewide
                  51% Bay Area   35% Bay Area  $97,848-$107,868
Pharmacist        42%               63-64%  $112,668-$123,936
Clinical Dietician    63%            28%      $59,136
Nurse Practitioner    20%
& Physician Assistant  (for all primary 5% statewide  $115,440-
                        care providers) 9% Bay Area  $119,868

The receiver also has added Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) to
the job classifications in the prison medical system, and is now
recruiting to fill those positions.  These nurses will replace
Medical Technical Assistants, a hybrid position held by peace
officers that is being phased out.  The new LVN salaries will
range from $40,620 to $49,368 statewide; $45,600 to $55,428 in
the Bay Area.

The papers filed on Sept. 17 in the U.S. District Court for
Northern California request that Judge Henderson waive the state
laws that permit only specific state agencies to make changes to
prison medical staff salaries, thus allowing the court to take
the proposed action.  Governor Schwarzenegger's Cabinet
Secretary, Fred Aguiar, indicated support for the plan in an
Aug. 30 letter to the receiver.  

"If such an order were to be drafted and issued by the court,"
Mr. Aguiar wrote."  The Administration stands ready to offer its
assistance, technical or otherwise, to successfully implement
the order."


CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Wis. Suit Over Faulty "Horizon" Shingles
----------------------------------------------------------------
CertainTeed Corp. is a defendant in a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin over
Horizon brand roof shingles that some homeowners have had
problems with, The Wisconsin State Journal reports.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Nancy Hollis of DeForest and
Roger Luft of Eau Claire who both charge CertainTeed with breach
of contract and concealing that the shingles were "defective and
unreliable."

The suit accuses the company of violating the Wisconsin
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The lawsuit seeks to have CertainTeed compensate people with
failing shingles for all costs including labor and disposing of
the old shingles.

In August, a similar lawsuit was filed in the Erie County Court
of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania against CertainTeed over Horizon
brand roof shingles that some homeowners have had problems with
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).

The lawsuit charges that the company "maliciously concealed or
suppressed the facts" regarding its shingles "with the intent to
defraud."  It claims that the company began manufacturing and
selling defective shingles in Pennsylvania and other states
starting around 1987.   

It also claims that before putting them on the market, the
company failed to test the shingles, which failed prematurely
due to moisture invasion, curling, cracking, blistering,
deteriorating and otherwise not performing.

According to Minneapolis attorney Clayton Halunen, CertainTeed
now compensates consumers only for the cost of new shingles if
the shingles have been found to be defective.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Minnesota and Illinois, he
said.

For more information, contact Clayton D. Halunen of Halunen &
Associates, 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, Phone: (612) 605-4098, Fax: (612) 605-4099.


C.H. ROBINSON: Ala. Judge Orders Labor Bias Suit to Go to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Inge Prytz Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama denied a request from C.H. Robinson
Worldwide to keep a sex and age discrimination suit filed
against the company from going to trial, The Huntsville Times
reports.

In 2005, Bonita Gordon of Huntsville and Ingrid Reeves of
Birmingham, filed the lawsuit accusing C.H. Robinson of passing
over qualified women for promotions and allowing a work
environment that was hostile to women.

Ms. Gordon also alleged that the Huntsville branch manager,
Robert James, retaliated against her after he learned she was
participating in a class action against the company.

According to Ms. Gordon, she was fired in January 2005 after
working for the Huntsville office for more than 10 years.

Meanwhile, Ms. Reeves, who worked in the Birmingham office for
nearly three years, said she was subjected to sexual innuendo,
obscene talk radio programs and music.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

C.H. Robinson has denied the discrimination and harassment
claims.

The company is facing similar discrimination lawsuits in North
Carolina, Georgia, Ohio and other states, the report said.

A trial date has not been set for the Alabama suit.

The suit is "Gordon v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., Case No.
5:05-cv-02452-IPJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Inge P. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eden Brown Gaines and Steven M. Sprenger both of
         Sprenger & Lang, Pllc, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite
         500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-772-1172 or 202-
         265-8010, Fax: 202-332-6652, E-mail:
         egaines@sprengerlang.com or lrusnacko@sprengerlang.com;
         and

     (2) Byron R. Perkins of The Cochran Firm, 505 North 20th
         Street, Suite 825 Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-244-
         1115, Fax: 205-244-1171, E-mail:
         perkins@cochranfirm.com.

Representing the defendant are Sandra B. Reiss and David L.
Warren, Jr. both of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC,
One Federal Place, Suite 1000, 1819 5th Avenue, North
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 328-1900, E-mail:
sandra.reiss@odnss.com or david.warren@odnss.com.


C.H. ROBINSON: Court Approves $15M Labor Bias Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Minnesota granted final approval to
the $15 million settlement in the labor-related class action
filed against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., the Pioneer Press
reports.

At a Sept. 18 fairness hearing, Judge Joan N. Ericksen ruled
that former and current female employees of C.H. Robinson will
share in the $15 million settlement of a case alleging gender
discrimination in pay and promotion.

Under the settlement, $6.9 million will go to plaintiffs'
attorneys, which includes fees of $5.3 million and expenses of
$1.6 million.  

According to court documents, Gwen Carlson, the lead plaintiff,
will receive $155,000.  Tricia Porter, another plaintiff, will
receive $224,914, and plaintiff Amy Hossenlopp will receive
$139,000.

As part of the settlement, there will be changes in company
policies, including prohibition of client entertainment at
"inappropriate venues," and non-reimbursement of expenses from
visits to such businesses.  The settlement also calls for C.H.
Robinson to appoint an equal opportunity director and
specialists in its human resources department.

The company must also do an annual employee survey on work
conditions and have documented annual performance evaluations
for all salaried employees.  New branch manager jobs have to be
posted and the company has to continue efforts to recruit women
for sales and operations positions.

C.H. Robinson admits no liability.  

In 2002, the company was named defendant in two lawsuits by a
number of present and former employees.  The first lawsuit
alleged a hostile working environment, unequal pay, promotions,
and opportunities for women, and failure to pay overtime.  The
second lawsuit alleges a failure to pay overtime.  The
plaintiffs in both lawsuits sought unspecified monetary and non-
monetary damages and class action certification.  

On March 31, 2005, the judge issued an order denying class
certification for the hostile working environment claims, and
allowing class certification for certain claims of gender
discrimination in pay and promotion.

The judge also granted the company's motions for summary
judgment as to the hostile working environment claims of 10 of
the named plaintiffs, and dismissed those claims.

The gender discrimination class claims and the remaining two
hostile work environment claims were settled in principle on
April 11, 2006, which was preliminarily approved by the court on
June 12, 2006.  

The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. C.H. Robinson World (0:02-cv-
03780-JNE-JJG)" filed in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota
under Judge Joan N. Ericksen with referral to Jeanne J. Graham.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Susan M. Coler of Sprenger & Lang PLLC - Mpls, 310 4th  
         Ave. S Ste 600, Mpls, MN 55415, Phone: (612) 871-8910,  
         Fax: 6128719270, E-mail: scoler@sprengerlang.com; and  
   
     (2) Michael D. Lieder of Sprenger & Lang - DC, 1614 20th  
         St. NW, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: 202-265-8010, Fax:  
         202-332-6652, E-mail: mlieder@sprengerlang.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Robyn E. Anderson of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,  
         800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015,  
         Phone: (612) 349-8500, Fax: 612-339-4181, E-mail:  
         reanderson@rkmc.com; and  

    (ii) Kari Thoe Crone of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,  
         800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015,  
         Phone: (612) 349-8500, Fax: 6123394181, E-mail:  
         ktcrone@rkmc.com.


CINCINNATI GAS: Court Mulls Class Status for Air Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' request for class certification of a
lawsuit filed against Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., alleging
violations of the Clean Air Act.

A citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to
the company's Zimmer Station filed the suit in November 2004.  
The case seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against
the company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the
Ohio State Implementation Plan, and Ohio laws against nuisance
and common law nuisance.

Plaintiffs have filed a number of additional notices of intent
to sue and two lawsuits raising claims similar to those in the
original claim.  

One lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds and the
remaining two have been consolidated.  The plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which is fully briefed and is
awaiting ruling.  

The suit is "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric company, case
No. 1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Susan J. Dlott.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Paul Alley and John Charles
Greiner of Graydon Head & Ritchey - 1, 2500 Chamber Center
Drive, PO Box 17070, Suite 300, Ft Mitchell, KY 41017, Phone:
859-282-8800, E-mail: palley@graydon.com, and
jgreiner@graydon.com.

Representing the company are Louis Francis Gilligan, Keating
Muething & Klekamp - 1, One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6523, E-
mail: lgilligan@kmklaw.com; and Ariane Johnson, Cinergy
Services, Inc., 1000 East Main Street, Plainfield, IN 46168.


CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Overrules Objections in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
overruled the objections made in regards to the Special Master's
Report and Order in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Constar International, Inc.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters
were named defendants in a consolidated putative securities
class action, "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020."

This action consolidates the lawsuits:

      -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
          al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

      -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
          Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005
and the company's answer was filed on Aug. 8, 2005.

The Special Master issued a Report and Order denying the
company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 22, 2006.  

The company filed objections to the Report and Order on March 6,
2006.  The court heard the objections on May 1, 2006 and issued
an order overruling the objections on May 24, 2006.  The case is
now proceeding with class certification and discovery.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Edmund V. Ludwig.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414, E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes &
         Lerach, LLP, 401 B. Street, STE. 1700, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com;
         and

     (3) Darren J. Check of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Steven B. Feirson, Michael L.
Kichline and Scott A. Thompson of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 1717
Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2793, Phone: 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2390, Fax: 215-994-2222,
E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com
and scott.thompson@dechert.com.


HANOVER DIRECT: Faces Suits in Del., N.J. Over Privatization
------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct, Inc., Chelsey Direct, LLC, and each of the
company's directors are defendants in three substantially
identical complaints filed in Delaware and New Jersey state
courts over a planned privatization.

The suits were filed:

      -- in Delaware Chancery Court by Glenn Freedman and
         L.I.S.T., Inc. as plaintiffs on March 1, 2006;

      -- in Delaware Chancery Court by Howard Lasker as
         plaintiff on March 7, 2006; and

      -- in Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division
         by Feivel Gottlieb as plaintiff on March 3, 2006.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs challenge Chelsey's going
private proposal and allege, among other things, that the
consideration to be paid in the going private proposal is unfair
and grossly inadequate, that the Special Committee cannot be
expected to act independently, that Chelsey has manipulated the
financial statements of the company and its public statements in
order to depress the stock price of the company and that the
proposal would freeze out the purported class members and
capture the true value of the company for Chelsey.

In each complaint, plaintiffs seek class action certification,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission of the
transaction if the offer is consummated and unspecified damages.

Weehawken, New Jersey-based Hanover Direct, Inc. (OTC: HNVD) --
http://www.hanoverdirect.com-- is a direct marketer of quality,  
branded merchandise through a portfolio of catalogs and
Websites.  The direct marketing operations consist of a
portfolio of catalogs and associated Web Sites in the home
fashions, men's and women's apparel categories that included
during 2005, Domestications, The Company Store, Company Kids,
Silhouettes, International Male and Undergear.  Each catalog can
be accessed on the Internet individually by name.  The company
also owned and operated the Gump's retail store in San Francisco
and the Gump's By Mail catalog and Website until their sale on
March 14, 2005.  In addition, it manufactures high-quality
pillows and comforters for sale in The Company Store, Company
Kids and Domestications catalogs and Websites, through its
retail outlet stores and super-premium down comforters, pillows
and featherbeds under the Scandia Down brand name, which it
sells through third party luxury retailers in North and South
America.


MANAGED CARE LITIGATION: Dec. Hearing Set for Fla. Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 1, 2006 at 10 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re: Managed Care
Litigation, MDL NO. 1334, Master File No. 00-1334-MD-MORENO."

The hearing relates only to these provider track cases:

      -- "Ashton, et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-
         20143-CIV-MORENO;" and

      -- "Solomon, et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-
         22804-CIV-MORENO."

The final approval hearing will be held on at the U.S.
Courthouse, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Courtroom IV, Tenth Floor, Federal Justice Building, 99
Northeast 4th Street, Miami, Florida 33132.

Deadline for any objections or exclusion requests to and from
the settlement is on Oct. 30, 2006.  Proof of claim forms must
be submitted on or before Jan. 13, 2007.

These two lawsuits were brought by a number of individual
healthcare providers and various state or national professional
associations, which represent the interests of healthcare
providers.

The professional associations are:

      -- American Podiatric Medical Association,
      -- Florida Chiropractic Association,
      -- Florida Psychological Association,
      -- Florida Podiatric Medical Association,
      -- Texas Podiatric Medical Association,
      -- California Podiatric Medical Association, and
      -- Arizona Chiropractic Society, Inc.

In general, plaintiffs allege that in various time periods from
1990 to the present, Humana Inc. and Humana Health Plan, Inc.,
improperly denied, delayed and/or reduced payment to healthcare
providers, healthcare provider groups, and healthcare provider
organizations by engaging in several types of allegedly improper
conduct, including:

      -- misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the use of
         edits to unilaterally "bundle," "downcode" and/or
         reject claims for medically necessary covered services;

      -- failing and/or refusing to recognize CPT(R) modifiers;

      -- concealing and/or misrepresenting the use of improper
         guidelines and criteria to deny, delay, and/or reduce
         payment for medically necessary covered services;

      -- misrepresenting and/or refusing to disclose applicable
         fee schedules;

      -- failing to pay claims for medically necessary covered
         services within the required statutory and/or
         contractual time periods; and

      -- misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the use of
         appropriate or unsound criteria to calculate payments
         due to healthcare providers, healthcare provider   
         groups, and healthcare provider organizations
         compensated under a capitation system or payments due
         to non-participating healthcare providers based on
         usual and customary rates.

In addition, the Solomon and Ashton complaints allege that
Humana and the other defendants identified below conspired to
engage in the above-described conduct.

Other defendants in the cases include:

      -- Aetna, Inc.,
      -- Aetna-USHC, Inc.,
      -- Anthem, Inc.,
      -- CIGNA Corp.,
      -- Coventry Health Care, Inc.,
      -- Health Net, Inc.,
      -- PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.,
      -- Prudential Insurance Co. of America,
      -- United Health Care,
      -- United Health Group, and
      -- WellPoint Health Networks, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim that the conduct generally described above
violated state and federal statutes, and they also seek recovery
on common law theories, including breach of contract.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Humana Healthcare Provider Settlement, Settlement
         Administrator, P. O. Box 4850, Portland, OR 97208-4850,
         Phone: 1-800-420-2913, E-Mail:
         claimsadmin@humanaprovidersettlement.com, Web site:
         http://www.humanaprovidersettlement.com;


NASUTRA LLC: Recalls Dietary Supplement Over Hazardous Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nasutra, LLC is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of all
dietary supplement product that is sold under the brand name
Nasutra.  

The company said finished product from several lots of Nasutra
was tested and preliminarily found to contain an analogue of an
ingredient in a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug.  
Analytical tests conducted by the FDA of Nasutra samples from
two lots concluded that the products contained acetildenafil.

Acetildenafil is an analogue of sildenafil.  Sildenafil is the
active pharmaceutical ingredient in Viagra, an FDA-approved drug
that is used to treat erectile dysfunction.  

Acetildenafil is close in structure to sildenafil and is
expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event
profile.  This poses a threat to consumers because acetildenafil
may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs,such
as nitroglycerin, and lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.  

Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates.  Erectile dysfunction is a
common problem in men with these conditions, and they may seek
products to enhance sexual performance.  Additionally,
acetildenafil, like sildenafil, may cause side effects, such as
headaches and flushing.

Customers who have this product in their possession should stop
using it immediately and contact their physician if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking this
product.  

Consumers are advised to return any unused Nasutra, for a refund
of the full purchase price, to the retail location from which it
was purchased or to the company directly if it was purchased
from the company as a part of its Direct Response Program.  

Consumers can call 1-800-568-3374 to receive instructions for
returning the product.  Additional information is provided at
http://www.nasutra.com/recall.

Any adverse events that may be associated with the use of this
product and/or quality problems should be reported to the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088; by fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178; by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852-9787; or on the MedWatch website:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.


NESTOR TRAFFIC: Court Denies Remand Bid in Speed Program Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has
denied a motion seeking to remand class actions that were filed
against Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Nestor, Inc., and the City of Akron.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek
damages and injunction against the city's speed program.  These
cases are:

      -- "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
          00139-DDD;" and

      -- "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD."

In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiff
brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified
amount against city of Akron and all of its city council members
in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and
state constitutional violations.  

In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive
relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against
the company, various past and present employees of the company
and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil conspiracy,
common plan to commit fraud, violations of the Consumer Sales
Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of privacy,
negligence, and federal constitutional violation.

Both actions were initially filed in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas and were later removed to federal court.  

On Feb. 17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a
joint motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to that motion on Mar. 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance
permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper
exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but
deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an
opportunity for discovery by the respective plaintiffs.

The court also held that federal court was an appropriate forum
and denied a motion by plaintiffs to remand to state court.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Mendenhall Plaintiff] Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Ste.
         201, 190 North Union Street, Akron, OH 44304, Phone:
         330-535-8160, Fax: 330-762-9743, E-mail:
         j.corgan@justice.com;  

     (2) [Sipe Plaintiff] Antoni Dalayanis, 5th Floor, 12 East
         Exchange Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-315-1060,
         Fax: 800-787-4089, E-mail: lawyer@bright.net.

     (3) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] Michael J. Defibaugh of
         City of Akron, Law Department, Ste. 202, 161 South High
         Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-375-2030, Fax: 330-
         375-2041, E-mail: defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us; and

     (4) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] Richard Gurbst and Donald
         W. Herbe of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 4900 Key Tower,
         127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-479-
         8607 and 216-479-8312, Fax: 216-479-8777, E-mail:
         rgurbst@ssd.com and dherbe@ssd.com.


ORACLE CORP: Calif. Court Vacates Sept. 11 Trial for Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
vacated the Sept. 11, 2006 trial date for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Oracle Corp. and certain
of its officers and directors.

Stockholder class actions were filed against the company and its
chief executive officer on and after March 9, 2001.  Between
March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised
second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, the company's then chief financial officer
(who currently is chairman of the company's board of directors)
and a former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the company's actual and
expected financial performance and the performance of certain of
its applications products, while certain individual defendants
were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities
laws.

Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants
sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged
in accounting violations.

The parties are conducting discovery.  Although trial had been
set for Sept. 11, 2006, the court vacated that trial date, and
no new trial date has been set.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

The suit is "Nursing Home Pension Fund et al. v. Oracle Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jennie Lee Anderson, Eli
Greenstein, Mark Solomon and Monique Winkler of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058,
Fax: 619-231-7423 and 415-288-4534, E-mail:
jenniea@lerachlaw.com, Elig@lerachlaw.com, marks@lerachlaw.com
and MoniqueW@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dorian Daley, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA
         94065, Phone: (650) 506-5200, Fax: (650) 506-7114;

     (2) James C. Maroulis of Oracle Corporation, 500 Oracle
         Parkway, M/S 5OP7, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, Phone:
         650-506-4517, Fax: 650-506-7114, E-mail:
         jim.maroulis@oracle.com; and

     (3) Lee Howard Rubin of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, Two
         Palo Alto Square, Suite 300, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
         Alto, CA 94306-2112, Phone: 650-331-2037, Fax: 540-331-
         4537, E-mail: lrubin@mayerbrownrowe.com.


PATRIOT LOGISTICS: Oct. Hearing Set for Fla. Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Oct. 26, 2006 fairness was set for the proposed
settlement in the class action filed against Patriot Logistics,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

Filed on Nov. 4, 2005, the complaint, "Coleman v. Patriot
Logistics, Inc., Case No. 3:05-CV-1152," alleges that certain
aspects of the company's motor carrier leases with its
independent-contractor owner-operators violate certain federal
leasing regulations.  It seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified
amount of damages, and attorney's fees.  

On Jan. 6, 2006, defendant served an answer denying most
elements of the complaint and asserting Affirmative Defenses.  
On March 10, 2006, the court denied, in virtually all respects,
plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's Affirmative Defenses.

On March 30, 2006, the court denied defendant's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana.  

On April 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed class certification motion.  
Through mediation on May 16, 2006, the parties reached a
proposed settlement agreement.  

On July 10, 2006, the court granted the parties' agreed motion
to preliminarily certify a nationwide plaintiff class and
Jacksonville, Florida subclass, to appoint class counsel, to
approve a form of class notice, and to schedule for Oct. 26,
2006, a fairness hearing at which to determine whether to
certify the class and subclass and approve the proposed
settlement agreement.

The suit is "Coleman et al. v. Patriot Logistics, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-01152-HES-MMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barbara Slott Pegg, Barbara Slott Pegg, P.A., 316 Sea
         Moss Ln., Suite 3, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082, Phone:
         904/285-8100, Fax: 904/285-8890, E-mail:
         westpegg@att.net; and

     (2) Bryan Robert Rendzio, Kenneth Allen Tomchin, Jay Brian
         Watson of Tomchin & Odom, P.A., 8833 Perimeter Park
         Blvd., Suite 104, Jacksonville, FL 32257, Phone:
         904/353-6888, Fax: 904/353-0188, E-mail:
         tomchin@fdn.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Daniel R. Barney, Robert L. Browning of Scopelitis,
         Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite
         280, Washington, DC 20036-5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-
         mail: dbarney@scopelitis.com or
         rbrowning@scopelitis.com; and

     (2) Michael L. Harvey of the Law Office of Michael L.
         Harvey, 1122 3rd St, Neptune Beach, FL 32266, Phone:
         904/242-8715, Fax: 904/242-8717.


PENNSYLVANIA: Green Ridge Residents File Suit Over 2004 Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 50 lower Green Ridge residents filed a class action
against the city, the Scranton Sewer Authority and independent
contractor New Jersey-based Kalimex over a 2004 flooding, The
Scranton Times-Tribune reports.

The residents allege that defendants did not properly protect
residents' homes and properties during the flooding.

The Sewer Authority was named in the suit because the flooding
caused sewage backups that were ignored by the authority, said
Comegys Avenue resident Charles Armbruster, a plaintiff.

Kalimex, which was hired by the city to demolish condemned
houses to make way for a flood-control project, is accused of
failing to block water after the cleanup.

The suit is asking for a jury trial and undetermined amount of
money for damages caused by the flood.

Among the plaintiffs is Hamid Haroun Mahdavi and his wife
Eugenia, who said they suffered damages of about $50,000.

The residents' lawyer is Thomas J. Ratchford Jr. of Scranton
(Lackawanna Co.).


PENSION LAWS LITIGATION: Seven Cos. Face Lawsuits in Four States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven large companies are facing lawsuits in four states over
alleged violation of pension laws by allowing their employees to
be overcharged by outside firms operating 401(k) retirement
plans, The Associated Press reports.

Named companies named in the lawsuits are:

     -- Lockheed Martin Corp.,
     -- General Dynamics Corp.,
     -- United Technologies Corp.,
     -- Bechtel Group,
     -- Caterpillar Inc.,
     -- Exelon Corp., and
     -- International Paper Co.

Together, the companies have more than 400,000 employees in
401(k) plans, the lawsuits said.

The suits were filed by lawyer Jerome Schlichter in federal
district courts in California, Connecticut, Illinois and
Missouri.  They allege that employees were charged millions of
dollars in excessive management fees, which often were hidden in
obscure agreements and not disclosed to the workers.

The lawsuits look at revenue-sharing deals in which the mutual
funds chosen for corporate 401(k) plans return a percentage of
the management and investment fees they earn to the outside
administrators who run the plans and determine which funds will
be offered.

According to the lawsuits, the arrangements were not disclosed
to participants, and the costs charged far surpassed what is
reasonable to manage the accounts.

For more information, contact Jerome J. Schlichter of
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900,
St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: (314) 621-6115, Fax: (314) 621-7151.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Property Managers' Suit Awaits Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County has yet to
rule on a motion for class certification in the labor-related
litigation against Public Storage, Inc.

The Brinkley plaintiffs are suing the company on behalf of a
purported class of California property managers who claim that
they were not compensated for all the hours they worked.  

Filed on April 2005, the suit, "Brinkley, et al. v. Public
Storage, Inc.," is based upon California wage and hour laws.  
The maximum potential liability cannot be estimated, but would
be increased if a class or classes are certified or, if claims
are brought on behalf of others under the California Unfair
Business Practices Act.

In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking
to certify five subclasses.  Plaintiff is seeking certification
for alleged meal period violations, rest period violations,
failure to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage
reimbursement, and for pay stub violations.

Glendale, California-based Public Storage, Inc. (NYSE: PSA) --
http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a fully integrated, self-
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust
(REIT) that acquires, develops, owns and operates storage
facilities.  The company is an owner and operator of storage
space in the U.S., with direct and indirect equity investments
in 1,501 storage facilities containing approximately 92 million
square feet of net rentable space, as of Dec. 31, 2005.  The
company also has a 44% ownership interest in PS Business Parks,
Inc., a public REIT that, as of Dec. 31, 2005, owned and
operated commercial properties containing approximately 17.6
million net rentable square feet of space located in eight
states.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Unit Renters Sue in Calif. Over Alleged Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the California Superior Court for Orange County,
alleging violations of consumer fraud laws.

The plaintiff filed the suit, "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc.,"
in April 2003 against the company on behalf of a putative class
of renters who rented self-storage units from the company.   

Plaintiff alleges that the company misrepresented the size of
its storage units, has brought claims under California statutory
and common law relating to consumer protection, fraud, unfair
competition, and negligent misrepresentation.  

The suit seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 3, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.  

In Aug. 2005, the company filed a motion to remove the case to
federal court, but the case has been remanded to the Superior
Court.  

The company is vigorously contesting the claims upon, which this
lawsuit is based, including class certification efforts.

Glendale, California-based Public Storage, Inc. (NYSE: PSA) --
http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a fully integrated, self-
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust
(REIT) that acquires, develops, owns and operates storage
facilities.  The company is an owner and operator of storage
space in the U.S., with direct and indirect equity investments
in 1,501 storage facilities containing approximately 92 million
square feet of net rentable space, as of Dec. 31, 2005.  The
company also has a 44% ownership interest in PS Business Parks,
Inc., a public REIT that, as of Dec. 31, 2005, owned and
operated commercial properties containing approximately 17.6
million net rentable square feet of space located in eight
states.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Storage Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County
in relation to the sale of storage insurance.

Filed on January 2006, plaintiffs bring this action, "Simas v.
Public Storage, Inc.," against the company on behalf of a
purported class, who bought insurance coverage at the company's
facilities.  

They are alleging that the company does not have a license to
offer, sell and/or transact storage insurance.  The suit was
brought under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200.   

The company filed a demurrer to the complaint.  While the  
demurrer was pending, plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege  
a national class and claims for unfair business practices,  
quasi-contract, common counts, and negligent and intentional  
misrepresentation.

Public Storage renewed its demurrer and moved to strike the
national class allegations.  The court dismissed all the claims
with leave to amend, except for the claim for unjust enrichment.

Based on this ruling, the court held that the motion to strike
was moot.  Plaintiff elected not to amend her complaint and is
therefore only proceeding with the claim for unjust enrichment.

Glendale, California-based Public Storage, Inc. (NYSE: PSA) --
http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a fully integrated, self-
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust
(REIT) that acquires, develops, owns and operates storage
facilities.  The company is an owner and operator of storage
space in the U.S., with direct and indirect equity investments
in 1,501 storage facilities containing approximately 92 million
square feet of net rentable space, as of Dec. 31, 2005.  The
company also has a 44% ownership interest in PS Business Parks,
Inc., a public REIT that, as of Dec. 31, 2005, owned and
operated commercial properties containing approximately 17.6
million net rentable square feet of space located in eight
states.


RLB FOOD: Recalls Spinach Products for E. coli Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
RLB Food Distributors, L.P., of West Caldwell, New Jersey, is
initiating a multiple east coast states voluntarily recall of
certain salad products that may contain spinach with an Enjoy
Thru date of Sept. 20, 2006.

The products recalled by RLB are:

     -- Balducci's Mesclun Mix 5 oz.,
     -- Balducci's Organic Baby Spinach 5 oz.,
     -- Balducci's Mixed Greens 5 oz.,
     -- FreshPro Mesclun Mix 5 oz.,
     -- FreshPro Organic Baby Spinach 5 oz.,
     -- FreshPro Mixed Greens 5 oz.,
     -- FreshPro Salad Mix with Italian Dressing 4.75 oz.,
     -- FreshPro Salad Mix with Ranch Dressing 5.25 oz

Spinach used in these products may have been supplied from
Natural Selections Foods, a California grower and processor, to
RLB Food Distributors.

This recall was initiated when Natural Selections Foods issued
on Sept. 15, a nationwide recall of all their products that
contain spinach because they may be contaminated with
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 bacteria (E. coli).

E. coli 0157:H7 causes a diarrhea illness often with bloody
stools.  Although most healthy adults can recover completely
within a week, some people can develop a form of kidney failure
called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.

Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome is most likely to occur in young
children and the elderly.  The condition can lead to serious
kidney damage and even death.

The recalled products were distributed in Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and
Washington D.C.  They can be identified by an "Enjoy Thru" date
of Sept. 20, 2006 or before that is located on the bottom of the
package.

No illnesses have been reported to the company as of Sept. 19.

An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
several states, and Natural Selections Foods is ongoing to
identify the cause of the possible E. coli contamination.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for full refund.  Customers with
questions may contact RLB Food Distributors at 973-575-9526
X154.


SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Discovery Continues in N.Y. Suit Over Ambien
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Austin Texas man said he was contacted by a Dallas law firm
to testify on a class action against the makers of sleeping
medication Ambien, KXAN reports.

Jeff Bowman was arrested for driving while intoxicated.  He
admitted drinking, as well as on taking two Ambien on the night
of the arrest.

New York City Attorney Susan Chana Lask filed the class action
complaint against Sanofi-Synthelabo & Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. in
the Southern District of New York on March 6, 2006, Case No.
06CIV1762.  Plaintiffs are Janet Makinen, Judith Renee Lasswell,
Christina Brothers, & Kathleen M. Callahan, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated.

The proposed class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all
persons in the U.S. that have ingested the drug Ambien from 2000
to date and experienced the side effects of amnestic nocturnal
eating behavior (excessive eating while asleep) and somnambulism
(sleepwalking) in which they were injured or damaged as a result
of these side effects.

Defendants are accused that:

     -- they designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, marketed
        and/or placed into the stream of commerce Ambien knowing
        that it had side effects of amnestic nocturnal eating
        behavior and somnambulism;

     -- they suppressed, concealed, misrepresented and/or
        obscured data regarding the adverse side effects of
        Ambien;

     -- they were aware or should have been aware of studies and
        data linking Ambien and its side effects of sleep
        walking and sleep eating, but nevertheless continued to
        design, produce, manufacture, market, distribute and/or
        sell it without any warnings as to potential detrimental
        side effects associated with it;

     -- despite their actual knowledge of the detrimental side
        effects, defendants failed to warn or adequately and  
        sufficiently warn the Plaintiffs and other class
        members, the public, governmental bodies and the Medical
        community of the harmful and detrimental side effects;

     -- they failed to test or adequately test Ambien
        prior to manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or
        selling it; and

     -- they published false and/or misleading information about
        the safety and potential adverse side effects of Ambien.

Plaintiffs allege theories of evidence for negligence, strict
liability, breach of implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade
practices, express warranty, and consumer fraud violations.

They are seeking, among others:

     * an order certifying the cause of action number three of
       this complaint as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with plaintiffs as
       class Representatives;

     * a judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally,
       awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiffs and each
       member of the proposed class in an amount to be
       determined by a jury and/or the court on both an
       individual and a class wide basis;

     * a judgment against defendants for punitive damages in an
       amount to be determined at trial; and

     * a monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of
       this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Civil
       Procedure.

       Stipulated Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan

June 30, 2006       Plaintiffs shall furnish signed
                    authorizations for the release of all
                    medical, prescription, psychiatric,
                    psychological, employment, insurance and
                    military records and a list of all treating
                    physicians and medical facilities where
                    plaintiffs received treatment.  

June to
Oct. 6, 2006        Parties may engage in written discovery
                    regarding class certification issues,
                    provided that written requests must be
                    submitted by Aug. 11, 2006 so that written
                    discovery will be completed by Oct. 6, 2006.

Oct. 6, 2006 to
Dec. 18, 2006       Sanofi-aventis may depose the named
                    plaintiffs, their prescribing and treating
                    physicians, and fact witness regarding class
                    certification issues.

Sept. 18, 2006      Plaintiffs shall serve on Sanofi-aventis any
                    expert reports and supporting materials
                    plaintiffs intend to use in support of their
                    motion for class certification.  Plaintiff
                    anticipates offering testimony from experts
                    in the fields of sleep disorders and LLS
                    pharmacology.

Dec. 4, 2006 to
Feb. 5, 2007        Sanofi-aventis may depose plaintiffs' class
                    certification experts.

Feb. 19, 2007       Sanofi-aventis shall serve on plaintiffs any
                    expert reports and supporting materials that
                    it intends to use in opposition to
                    plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  
                    Sanofi-aventis anticipates offering
                    testimony from experts in the fields of
                    psychiatry, psychology, neurology, sleep
                    disorders, pharmacology and toxicology.

Feb. 19, 2007
to April 20, 2007   Plaintiffs may depose Sanofi-aventis' class
                    certification experts.

April 20, 2007      Close of class certification discovery.

The suit is "Makinen et al. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo et al. (1:06-
cv-01762-LLS)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Susan Chana Lask, 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite
2369, New York, NY 10001, U.S. Phone: 212-358-5762.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Brief on Calif. Stock Suit's Dismissal Due Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems, Inc.'s responsive brief with regards to the
appeal on the dismissal of the consolidated securities class
action against the company is due on Dec. 15, 2006.

On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of the company,
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Siebel and certain of its
officers relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and
certain customer satisfaction surveys.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on Aug. 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff.  The consolidated
complaint also raised claims regarding the company's business
performance in 2002.

In October 2004, Siebel filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on Jan. 28, 2005 with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on March 1, 2005.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

Siebel filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 27, 2005, and on Dec. 28, 2005, the court dismissed the
case with prejudice.

On Jan. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on
Sept. 15, 2006, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief.  
Defendants' responsive brief is due Dec. 15, 2006.  

The suit is "Wollrab v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00983-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Basser of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 402 W.
         Broadway, Ste. 850, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         230-0800, E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com;

     (2) Francis M. Gregorek of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, Symphony Towers, 750 B. Street, Suite 2770, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-239-4599, E-mail:
         gregorek@whafh.com;

     (3) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-mail:
         lifshitz@bernlieb.com; and

     (4) Dale MacDiarmid of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160.

Representing the defendants are Michael D. Torpey, Erin L.
Bansal and Penelope Graboys of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-2669, Phone: 415-778-5700, Fax: 415-778-5759, E-mail:
mtorpey@orrick.com, ebansal@orrick.com and
pgraboysblair@orrick.com.


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Oct. 26 Hearing Set for $8M Stock Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 26, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. for
the proposed $8 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: Sirius
Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-10863."

The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Griesa in the U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007.

The settlement covers all persons who, during the period from
Feb. 16, 2000 through April 2, 2001, purchased or otherwise
acquired company common stock.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Feb. 1,
2007.

In September 2001, the purported class action, "Sternbeck v.
Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 2:01-CV-295," was filed against
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.  

Subsequently, additional purported class actions were filed,
which were consolidated in a single purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
"In re: Sirius Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-
10863" (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2005).

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons who acquired the
company's common stock on the open market between Feb. 16, 2000
and April 2, 2001.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and press
releases concerning when the company's service would be
commercially available, which caused the market price of the
company's common stock to be artificially inflated.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

In June 2002, the company filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York requesting the court
to dismiss the complaint in this action with prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  In January 2004, the
court denied its motion to dismiss this action.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re Sirius Satellite Securities Litigation c/o Berdon
         Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, New
         York 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-
         0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com;  

     (2) Linda P. Nussbaum and Steven Jeffrey Toll of Cohen,
         Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: (212) 838-
         7797 and (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
         lnussbaum@cmht.com and stoll@cmht.com; and

     (3) Katherine M. Ryan, Esq. and Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.


S&M NUTEC: Discovery Continues in Greenies Dog Treat Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed against S&M NuTec,
LLC over allegations that its Greenies teeth-cleaning product
hurt or even killed dogs.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
ordered the commencement of class discovery for the lawsuit on
July 24.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers who purchased Greenies(r) dog treats, "the original
green smart treat(r)" ("Greenies" or "Greenies dog treat"), and
the general public.  It alleges that NuTec has been marketing,
advertising and selling Greenies since 1998 and that Greenies
are "100% edible and highly digestible."

Plaintiff claims that the consumption of Greenies by dogs has
not only been responsible for severe esophageal and/or
intestinal problems, it has also led to the death of numerous
dogs.

In fact, the complaint alleges that pieces of Greenies have
become lodged in dogs' esophagi and intestines, creating
obstructions and causing serious medical problems.

The complaint also alleges that the company was well aware of
the types of problems caused by Greenies, but that it did not
take any affirmative action to warn consumers of the potential
for these types of problems.

A group of 10 pet owners from eight states filed a similar suit
against the company, accusing the company of knowing the dangers
of Greenies, but refused to adequately warn consumers or recall
the product (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2006).
   
The class action is in addition to several suits filed against
the company.  One suit was filed by a woman in Los Angeles
Superior Court, whose dog was forced to undergo surgery to
remove a piece of Greenie stuck on the pet's esophagus.  A New
York couple also filed a suit against the company after the
death of their dog.

For more information, contact Vahn Alexander of Yourman
Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020, E-
mail: valexander@yaplaw.com.


U-HAUL INT'L: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for "Boyle" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will hold
a fairness hearing on Jan. 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Boyle, et al. v. U-Haul
International, Ltd., et al., August Term 1998. No 0840."

The final hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark I.
Bernstein, Courtroom 246, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Dec. 15, 2006.

The case covers any individual who rented U-Haul moving
equipment from a U-Haul center or independent dealer in the
state of Pennsylvania after Aug. 7, 1992, and were charged for a
second rental term, because he/she returned the equipment after
the scheduled return time but within 24 hours.

The suit was initially filed against U-Haul International, Inc.
and U-Haul Co. of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs sued U-Haul for
refunds of these charges.

The settlement provides monetary benefits in the form of refunds
of some of the additional rental charges to class members who
submit a valid and timely claim.  If an individual submits a
valid and timely claim form, he/she will receive 75% of the
amount they were charged for a second rental term.  

If the total amount claimed by class members exceeds
$250,000.00, each class member will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement amount.  Individual's claim will be subject to
research to determine its validity.  

If the amount claimed is less than $250,000.00, U-Haul will
donate the difference to charity.  As part of the settlement,
counsel for plaintiffs will not seek to receive any fees or
expenses in connection with this litigation.

For more details, contact:

     (1) "Boyle, et al. v. U-Haul International, Ltd., et al.,"
         c/o Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-877-745-4148,
         Web site: http://www.UHAULPennsylvaniaLitigation.com;

     (2) Ann M. Caldwell of Caldwell Law Office, 108 W. Willow
         Grove Avenue, Suite 300, Willow Grove, PA 19118, Phone:
         (215) 248-2030, Fax: (215) 248-2031, E-mail:
         acaldwell@classactlaw.com;

     (3) Richard D. Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC,
         7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410) 745-
         4149, Fax: (410) 745-4158, E-mail:
         whitehatrdg@earthlink.net; and

     (4) Anthony J. Bolognese and Joanna D. Buchanico of
         Bolognese & Associates, LLC, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK
         Blvd., Suite 650, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215)
         814-6750, Fax: (215) 814-6764, E-mail:
         abolognese@bolognese-law.com and
         jbuchanico@bolognese-law.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Stops Challenge to Medicaid Eligibility Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald Guzman of the Northern District of Illinois
preliminarily ruled that plaintiffs in a class action that
challenges a new federal law requiring Medicaid recipients to
present proof of U.S. citizenship, lack standing to continue,
according to The Jurist.  

The Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Chicago filed the case on
June 28.  The law, which went into effect on July 1, sought to
ensure that only U.S. citizens or qualified legal immigrants
gain access to Medicaid (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006).  
Shriver Center argues that the law would hurt the most
vulnerable people.

The suit was filed on behalf of nine plaintiffs who say they
cannot document their citizenship and might lose their Medicaid
benefits if the law is implemented (Class Action Reporter, July
4, 2006).  It sought to enjoin the Bush administration from
implementing the law, which allegedly violates the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding due process of law
(Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006)

In July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
exempted the elderly and the disabled from having to prove their
U.S. citizenship (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).  
However, the exemption wouldn't be applicable on certain groups,
including those on Medicare and those who get certain Social
Security benefits.

Judge Guzman's recent ruling, did not rule on whether adopted
and foster children have standing to challenge the law.

The suit named as plaintiffs Ruby Bell, A.L., Alocia Brown,
Della Otis, George Crawford, Kevin Harris, Ruby Bell, Ruby
Trammell, and Robert Patterson.

The suit is "Bell et al. v. Leavitt, Case No. 1:06-cv-03520,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Anderson and David E. Morrison of Goldberg Kohn,
         55 East Monroe, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60603, US,
         Phone: (312) 201-4000, E-mail:
         mary.anderson@goldbergkohn.com or
         david.morrison@goldbergkohn.com.

     (2) John Mark Bouman of Poverty Law Project, 111 North
         Wabash, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 263-
         3830, E-mail: johnbouman@povertylaw.org; and

     (3) Thomas D. Yates of Health & Disability Advocates, 205
         West Monroe Street, 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606-5013,
         Phone: (312) 223-9600, E-mail: tyates@hdadvocates.org.  

Representing the defendant is Jonathan C. Haile, U.S. Attorney's
Office, NDIL, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL
60604, Phone: (312) 353-5300, E-mail: jonathan.haile@usdoj.gov.


US TRADING: Recalls Pudding for Undeclared Milk Protein Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Trading Co. of Hayward, California is recalling the
following products because it contains undeclared dairy protein
casein:

     -- Dragonfly Brand Mango Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz. packed
        in 6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Banana Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz. packed
        in 6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Jackfruit Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz.
        packed in 6 clear plastic cups;
     -- Dragonfly Brand Pink Guava Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz.
        packed in 6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Coconut Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz. packed
        in 6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Pandan Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz. packed
        in 6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Papaya Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz. packed
        in 6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Taro Pudding Net Wt.: 2.82 oz. packed in
        6 clear plastic cups;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Assorted Pudding Net Wt.: 50.76 oz.
        packed in clear plastic container;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Mini Lychee Pudding Net Wt.: 14 oz.
        packed in clear plastic bag;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Mini Mango Pudding Net Wt.: 14 oz.
        packed in clear plastic bag;

     -- Dragonfly Brand Mini Tropical Pudding Net Wt.: 14 oz.
        packed in clear plastic bag; and

     -- Dragonfly Brand Mini Tropical Pudding Net Wt.: 33.6 oz.
        packed in clear plastic container.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to dairy
(casein) run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

Dragonfly Pudding was distributed in retail stores throughout
the state of California, Nevada, Oregon, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. All Codes are affected in this recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Recall was initiated after it was discovered that products
containing dairy (casein) was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of dairy (casein).

Customers who have purchased these products and are allergic to
milk protein are urged to return it to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Customers with questions may contact the company
at 1-800-453-5502.


WISE FOODS: Recalls Tortilla Chips for Undeclared Soy Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wise Foods, Inc. is initiating an East Coast recall of all sizes
of Nacho Tortilla chips because the product may contain soy as
an ingredient component.

Soy can be allergenic to certain consumers.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume these
products.

Customers who have the product and are sensitive to soy should
not consume it.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

Wise is recalling approximately 31,500 cases of the affected
brands distributed on the East Coast that contain code dates up
to and including JAN2907 for Wise branded product, and NOV1306
for private label product.

Nacho Tortilla Product            Bag Code (up to and including)

Wise brand                        JAN2907

Bravo brand                       JAN2907

Moore's brand                     JAN2907

Hannaford brand                   NOV1306

Giant Gustados brand              NOV1306

Stop & Shop Gustados brand        NOV1306

Tops Gustados brand               NOV1306

The code dates are located on the top right portion of the bag.

Wise Foods learned of the issue while conducting a labeling
review and has provided notice to the company's distributors and
retail outlets directing them to remove these products from
distribution.  Wise Foods has modified processes relating to raw
material purchasing and receiving as a safeguard.

Consumers holding this product with code dates prior to those
listed above should return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions may call the company toll
free number at 1-888-759-4401.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of ADVO, Inc. between July 6, 2006 and Aug. 30, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that ADVO and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements regarding ADVO's business and
financial results.

Specifically, defendants concealed material adverse problems in
ADVO's long-term financial health and intrinsic value in order
to accomplish a merger, which the company had entered into with
Valassis Communications, Inc., to create the largest integrated
media services provider in the nation.

Valassis was acquiring all of ADVO's outstanding common stock in
an all cash transaction.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, investors believed the acquisition would occur,
causing ADVO's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $36.80 per share in
August 2006.

On Aug. 30, 2006, Valassis announced that it had filed an action
to rescind its merger agreement with ADVO.  On this news, ADVO's
shares fell to $28.59 per share.

According to the complaint, to accomplish the merger, ADVO
offices and employees concealed material information, including
that:

      -- its business had deteriorated so badly that it would
         never be replaced;

      -- its financial internal controls were woefully
         inadequate; and

      -- its business was not nearly as successful as the market
         and Valassis had been led to believe.

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

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than Nov.
10, 2006, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff
of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected
by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could
affect the overall recovery for class members, including
decisions concerning settlement.  The securities laws require
the Court to consider the class member(s) with the largest
financial interest as presumptively the most adequate lead
plaintiff(s).

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


CONNECTICS CORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Connetics Corp. between
June 28, 2004 and May 3, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant Connetics and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.


ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files Tex. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.
publicly traded securities between Feb. 19, 2004 and March 24,
2006.

The complaint charges Encysive and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

Encysive is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of different
synthetic small molecule compounds for the treatment of a range
of cardiovascular, vascular and related inflammatory diseases.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Encysive
made false and misleading statements regarding the success of
Sitaxentan, or Thelin, a drug it was developing to treat
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH), and stated that it had
completed Phase III development of Thelin.

During the class period, defendants led shareholders and
analysts to believe that U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approval was imminent and that such approval would make Thelin a
competitor to Acetelion Ltd.'s similar drug, Tracleer
(Bosentan).

However, after the company completed two successful public
offerings and the individual defendants received cash/stock
awards based on the apparent success of Thelin, the company's
shareholders learned that defendants had been less than
forthcoming with the true prospects for Thelin.

On March 27, 2006, U.S. regulators delayed approving Thelin
until they could get more data.  The FDA sent the company a
letter asking for information and possibly more studies to
determine if Thelin was safe and effective for use in treating
PAH.  On this news, Encysive shares fell 49%.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/encysive/.


                            *********


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  * * *