CAR_Public/061002.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 2, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 195

                            Headlines

ALKERMES INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice
APOLLO GOLD: Former Montana Tunnels Employees File Labor Lawsuit
BROOKSTONE INC: March 2007 Trial Set for Suit Over Air Purifiers
BROOKSTONE INC: No Class Certified in Ala. Air Purifiers Suit
CALPINE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. ERISA Suit

CFC INT'L: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Litigation Over ITW Deal
DORAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Damassia" Labor Suit in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Still Faces "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Still Faces Suits in Del., N.Y. Over Oak Hill Deal

EUROWEB INT'L: Reaches Settlement for Stockholders Suit in Del.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Suits in Fla.
HALLIBURTON CO: Suit Over Unpaid Overtime in Army Deal Dismissed
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Facing Suit in Okla. Over Tuberculosis Scare
MERIX CORP: Oregon Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint

MONSANTO CO: Faces Sherman Antitrust Act Violation Complaints
NATIONAL SECURITY: Ala. Insurance Suit Deal Yet to Get Approval
NORTH DAKOTA: USDA Continues to Face Suit by American Indians
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Ill.
ORANGE 21: No Discovery Yet in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit

PACIFIC COAST: Recalls Spinach Products for Possible Health Risk
PLAYSKOOL: Recalls Tool Benches with Detachable Toy Nails
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Oct. Hearing Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal
SCOTTISH RE: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Face Funeral Consumer Case in Tex.

SERVICE CORP: "Fancher" Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Independent Casket Distributors' Suit
SERVICE CORP: Tex. Appeals Court Denies Mandamus, Rehearing Bid
SNACK ALLIANCE: Recalls Tortilla Chips Due to Undeclared Soy

STAPLES INC: March 2007 Trial Set in Calif. Labor Litigation
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Sherman Act Violation Charges in Mass.
TRIBUNE CO: Investors Withdraw Lawsuit Over Buyback Program
TRIPLE B: Recalls Spinach Products for E. coli Contamination
WEST VIRGINIA: Health Dept. Settles Suit Over Medicaid Policy

YAHOO HOLDINGS: May Face Suit in U.S. Over Privacy Violation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNECTICS CORP: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
CONNETICS CORP: Continues to Face Securities Act Violation Suit
DELL INC: Yourman Alexander Announces Securities Suit Filing
JABIL CIRCUIT: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set November 20
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Over IPO


                            *********


ALKERMES INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered an order dismissing, in its entirety and with prejudice,
a consolidated securities class action against Alkermes, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Beginning in October 2003, the company and certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors were named
as defendants in six purported securities class actions:

      -- "Bennett v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12091";

      -- "Ragosta v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12184";

      -- "Barry Family LP v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-
         12243";

      -- "Waltzer v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12277";

      -- "Folkerts v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12386";
         and

      -- "Slavas v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12471."

On May 14, 2004, the six actions were consolidated into a single
action, "In re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
03-CV-12091-RCL."  

On July 12, 2004, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from
April 22, 1999 to July 1, 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleged, among
others, that, during such period, the defendants made
misstatements to the investing public relating to the
manufacture and the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration of the company's RISPERDAL CONSTA product.  It
sought unspecified damages.

On Sept. 10, 2004, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of the litigation on numerous
legal grounds, and the court referred that motion to a federal
magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for issuance of a report and recommendation as to
disposition of the motion to dismiss.

The court heard oral argument on the motion on Jan. 12, 2005.  
On Oct. 6, 2005, the federal magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation for dismissal, in its entirety, of the above-
captioned purported securities class action.

After issuance of this ruling, on Oct. 21, 2005, the company,
the individual defendants and the lead plaintiff filed a
stipulation with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts providing for dismissal of this action, in its
entirety and with prejudice.  

On Oct. 27, 2005, the court entered the dismissal order,
according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12091-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Connie M. Cheung, Jeffrey W. Lawrence, William S.
         Lerach and Shanna M. Scarlet, Lerach Coughlin Stoia &
         Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: jeffreyl@lcsr.com; and

     (2) David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,
         37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
         617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.  

Representing the company are Brian E. Pastuszenski and Alexis L.
Shapiro of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place, 53 State
Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1094, Fax: 617-523-
1231, E-mail: BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com or
ashapiro@goodwinprocter.com.  


APOLLO GOLD: Former Montana Tunnels Employees File Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Gold, Inc. was named as defendant in a purported labor
related class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana.

On May 24, 2006, 14 former employees at the company's Montana
Tunnels filed a purported class action mine, alleging violations
of both the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of
1988 and the Montana Wage Act, and breach of contract.

The allegations relate to the termination of the employees
following the cessation of mining in October 2005.  
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company gave
deficient WARN Act notice and are seeking damages for back pay
and benefits.

The suit is "Clements et al. v. Apollo Gold, Inc., et al., Case
No. 9:06-cv-00084-DWM-JCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana under Judge Donald W. Molloy with
referral to Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch.

Representing the plaintiffs are Brian C. Bramblett and Terry N.
Trieweiler of The Meloy Law Firm, P.O. Box 1241, 80 South Warren
Helena, MT 59624, Phone: 406-442-8670, Fax: 442-4953, E-mail:
ttrieweiler@qwest.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Edward John Butler of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., 90
         South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500, Colorado Springs, CO
         80903, Phone: 719-448-4052, Fax: 719-635-4576, E-mail:
         ebutler@sah.com;

     (2) John Rayburn Velk, Attorney at Law, 523 South Orange,
         Missoula, MT 59801, Phone: 406-543-0909, Fax: 406-543-
         0990, E-mail: slk@missoula-law.com; and

     (3) Glenn H. Schlabs, Attorney at Law, 90 South Cascade
         Avenue, Suite 1500, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, US,
         Phone: 719-475-2440, Fax: 719-635-4576, E-mail:
         gschlabs@sah.com.


BROOKSTONE INC: March 2007 Trial Set for Suit Over Air Purifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 5, 2007 trial is scheduled for the purported class
action filed against Brookstone, Inc. in the California Superior
Court in Los Angeles County regarding certain air purifiers that
were sold by the company.

The putative class action was commenced against the company on
Sept. 15, 2004.  The complaint, as amended, alleges, among other
things, that the company engaged in unfair business practices
under California's Unfair Competition Laws by selling certain
air purifiers that failed to perform as intended.  

On May 4, 2006, the Superior Court issued a decision certifying
that the action may be brought on a class-wide basis.  On July
21, 2006, the company filed a motion to de-certify the class
based on a recent appellate decision that was issued.  

A trial is scheduled for March 5, 2007, according to the
company's Aug. 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended July 1,
2006.

Merrimack, New Hampshire-based Brookstone, Inc. --
http://www.brookstone.com/-- sells gifts, gadgets, and other  
doodads targeted primarily toward men through about 300 stores
in more than 40 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.  The company's functional yet unique product categories
include health and fitness; home and office; outdoor living; and
travel and auto.  Brookstone also sells online and through
catalogs Brookstone and Hard-To-Find Tools.  Because most of
Brookstone's sales are gifts, it operates about 60 temporary
kiosks during the busy Father's Day and December holiday
seasons.  Osim International owns the company


BROOKSTONE INC: No Class Certified in Ala. Air Purifiers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in the purported class action
filed against Brookstone, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama over certain air purifiers that
were sold by the company.

On June 23, 2005, the company was served with a lawsuit on
behalf of all consumers who purchased a certain air purifier
from the company alleging, among other things, that such
products fail to perform the purposes for which they are
advertised and sold and seeking unspecified damages.

The class has not been certified, according to the company's
Aug. 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended July 1, 2006.

The suit is "Matthews v. Brookstone Co., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00369-WS-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama under Judge William H. Steele with referral
to Judge William E. Cassady.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Enrique Jose Gimenez of Lightfoot, Franklin & White,     
         400 North 20th Street, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:
         205-581-0700, E-mail: hgimenez@lfwlaw.com; and

     (2) Benjamen T. Rowe of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas
         & O'Neal, P.O. Box 2906, Mobile, AL 36652, Phone: (251)
         415-7302, Fax: 2514157350, E-mail: btr@cabaniss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James Bruce Carlson of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., 2311
         Highland Avenue South, P.O. Box 55727, Birmingham, AL
         35255-5727, Phone: (205) 930-5450, Fax: (205) 930-5335,
         E-mail: jcarlson@sirote.com; and

    (ii) W. Michael Atchison of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, P.O.
         Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259, Phone: (205) 868-
         6000, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com.


CALPINE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Calpine Corp. is
appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California of a consolidated class action
filed against it over allegations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations.

The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File
No. C 03-1685 SBA," a consolidation of two nearly identical
class action complaints.

The suit was filed against:

     -- the company;
     -- the members of its board of directors;
     -- the 401k Plan's Advisory Committee and its members;
     -- signatories of the 401k Plan's Annual Return/Report of
        Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002;
     -- an employee of a consulting firm hired by the 401k Plan;
        and

     -- unidentified fiduciary defendants

alleging claims under ERISA, purportedly on behalf of the
participants in the 401k Plan from Jan. 5, 2001 to the present
who invested in the Calpine unitized stock fund.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties involving the 401k Plan, in violation of ERISA. The court
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs appealed that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In addition, the company filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the hearing was scheduled for
June 5, 2006; however, prior to the hearing, the parties
stipulated to allow the appeal to proceed.

If the court ruling is reversed, the plaintiffs may then seek
leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to proceed with the action.
Plaintiff's opening brief was due Aug. 21, 2006.  Defendant's
opposition will be due in mid October 2006, 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.

The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
4:03-cv-01685-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward W. Ciolko and F. Andre Delfi of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) Robert S. Green and Robert A. Jigarjian of Green
         Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-
         6710, E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.

Representing the company is Robert L. McKague of Morrison &
Foerster, LLP, 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-813-5835, Fax: 650-494-0792, E-mail: rmckague@mofo.com.


CFC INT'L: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Litigation Over ITW Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
CFC International, Inc. settled a purported class action over
its definitive agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (ITW).

On June 22, 2006, the Pennsylvania Avenue Funds filed a punitive
class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (Case No. 06 CH 1264), against CFC and its directors,
as well as former director William G. Brown.

The complaint disclaims any request for damages and seeks only
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Specifically, the complaint
seeks a declaration that any non-solicitation, expense
reimbursement and termination fee provisions in the merger
agreement were entered into in breach of the director
defendant's fiduciary duties.  

The complaint also seeks a multi-faceted injunction requiring
the defendants to comply with certain conditions -- including
the condition that the merger be approved by the majority of the
minority of our stockholders -- before the ITW merger, or "any
acquisition," could be consummated.

CFC has reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff in
connection with the settlement of this litigation.

Chicago Heights, Illinois-based CFC International, Inc. --
http://www.cfcintl.com/-- formulates, manufactures and sells  
chemically complex, multi-layered functional coatings.  CFC
applies its coatings to rolls of plastic film, from which its
customers transfer the coatings or with which they laminate the
coatings to their products for protective, functional,
decorative and/or informative purposes.  CFC produces five types
of coated products: holographic products, printed products,
pharmaceutical pigmented coatings, security products, and
specialty pigmented and simulated metal coatings.  Its customers
are primarily companies in the consumer products and medical
supply industries.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Doral Financial Corp. continues to face a consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug.
15, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported
class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005
over allegations of federal securities laws violations.

Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

These lawsuits, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000 and as late
as May 26, 2005, allege primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements during the class period, failing to
disclose material information concerning the valuation of the
company's IOs, and misleading investors as to Doral's
vulnerability to interest rate increases.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred
the two actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that
court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions previously filed there before Judge Richard Owen.

On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West
Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging securities fraud during the period
between March 15, 2000 and Oct. 25, 2005, based on allegations
similar to those noted above, as well as based on the reversal
of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in
Doral Financial's control environment as described in the
company's amended annual report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages including interest, costs and expenses, and
injunctive relief.  

The deadline for defendants to respond to the amended complaint
was Sept. 15, 2006.


DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Damassia" Labor Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class
action, "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.," which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that from the period beginning November
1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title,
"assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these
employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Law.  It seeks an award equal to twice an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages.

The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-
08819-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Tarik Fouad Ajami, Adam T. Klein
and Justin Mitchell Swartz of Outten & Golden, LLP, (NYC), 3
Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 245-
1000, Fax: (212) 977-4005, E-mail: tfa@outtengolden.com,
atk@outtengolden.com and jms@outtengolden.com.

Representing the defendants are, Gerald Thomas Hathaway and Lisa
A. Schreter of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Phone: 212.583.2684 and
(404) 233-0330, Fax: 212.832.2719 and (404) 233-2361, E-mail:
ghathaway@littler.com.


DUANE READE: Still Faces "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class
action, "Enamul Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and Duane Reade
Holdings, Inc.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on March 24, 2006.  The company was served
with the purported class action complaint on April 2006.  The
suit alleges that from a period beginning March 2000, the
company incorrectly classified certain employees in an attempt
to avoid paying overtime to such employees, thereby violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  

The suit is "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02295-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Miriam Goldman
Cedarbaum.

Representing the plaintiffs is Seth Richard Lesser of Locks Law
Firm, PLLC, 110 East 55th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212-838-3333, Fax: 212-838-3735, E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com.

Representing the defendants are Gerald Thomas Hathaway and
Frances Mollie Nicastro of Littler Mendelson, P.C., 885 Third
Avenue 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-583-2684 and
(212) 583-2688, Fax: 212-832-2719, E-mail: ghathaway@littler.com
and fnicastro@littler.com.


DUANE READE: Still Faces Suits in Del., N.Y. Over Oak Hill Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. is a defendant in several purported
class actions in state courts in Delaware and New York that
challenges its acquisition by a group of investors, including
Oak Hill Capital Partners, L.P., and members of the company's
management team.

On July 30, 2004, the acquisition of the company was completed
by a group of investors.  As part of the acquisition, Duane
Reade Acquisition Corp., the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
merged with and into Duane Reade Inc., with Duane Reade Inc.
remaining as the surviving corporation.

Initially, the company was faced with:

     -- six purported class action complaints filed in the Court
        of Chancery of the State of Delaware, referred
        to as the "Delaware Complaints," as well as;

     -- three purported class action complaints that were filed
        in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.  

Two of the New York complaints have been dismissed without
prejudice.  The other New York complaint is pending, but has not
been served on the company.

The Delaware complaints name the company's former chairman and
certain other members of its board of directors and executive
officers as well as Duane Reade as defendants.  Four of the
Delaware complaints name Oak Hill as a defendant.  

The New York Complaint names the company's former chairman and
certain other members of the company's board of directors and
executive officers as well as Duane Reade as defendants.  One of
the dismissed New York complaints named Oak Hill as a defendant.

The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on Jan. 28, 2004, and
on April 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  

Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.duanereade.com-- is a  
drugstore chain operating 136 of 251 stores in Manhattan's
business and residential districts, 82 stores in New York's
outer boroughs and 33 stores in the surrounding New York and New
Jersey suburbs, including the Hudson River communities of
northeastern New Jersey.  Duane Reade Holdings provides a
selection of competitively priced, branded and private label
drugstore products available in the New York greater
metropolitan area.


EUROWEB INT'L: Reaches Settlement for Stockholders Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Euroweb International Corp. settled the purported stockholders'
class action, "Laurence Paskowitz v. Csaba Toro et al., C.A. No.
2110-N," which was pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On April 26, 2006, a lawsuit was filed by a stockholder of the
company against it, each of the company's directors and CORCYRA
d.o.o., a stockholder of the company that beneficially owns
39.81% of the company's outstanding common stock.  

The complaint was brought individually and as a class action on
behalf of certain of the company's common stockholders excluding
defendants and their affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges the proposed sale of 100% of the company's
interest in the company's two Internet and telecom-related
operating subsidiaries constitutes a sale of substantially all
of the company's assets and requires approval by a majority of
the voting power of the company's outstanding common stock under
Section 271 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.  

Plaintiff also alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the sale of the subsidiaries and the
disclosures contained in the proxy statement filed on April 24,
2006.  

The company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing,
however, in the interests of conserving resources.  On April 28,
2006, the parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, subject to confirmatory discovery
by plaintiff, the negotiation of a formal stipulation of a
settlement of the litigation.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the board of directors of
the company has determined to:

      -- increase the vote required to approve the sale of 100%
         of the company's interest in the subsidiaries;

      -- revise the disclosure within the proxy statement to
         eliminate the bonus of up to $400,000, which the  
         Compensation Committee of the company had the option  
         to pay to select members of management, as the Board  
         of Directors had previously elected to terminate the
         ability to pay such bonus; and

      -- provide supplemental disclosure as contained in the
         Supplemental Proxy Statement.  

The settlement will provide for the dismissal of the litigation
with prejudice and is subject to court approval.  

As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to pay an
amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be negotiated between
the two parties or, lieu of such agreement between the two
parties, will be determined by the court.

Budapest, Hungary-based Euroweb International Corp. (NASDAQ:
EWEB) -- http://www.euroweb-international.com/-- is an  
information technology service provider in Central and Eastern
Europe.  The company concentrates on IT outsourcing,
applications development, and consulting services through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Navigator Informatika Rt.  The
subsidiary is also engaged in IT project implementation and
management and the sale of IT-related equipment.  In May 2006,
the company sold its wholly owned subsidiaries Euroweb Internet
Szolgaltato Rt. and Euroweb Romania S.A. to Invitel Tavkozlesi
Szolgaltato Rt., a fixed-line operator based in Hungary.


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Suits in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Globetel Communications Corp. and certain of its top ranking
executives continue to face several purported securities class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  

On April 28, 2006, the law firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,
commenced a securities fraud class action on behalf of those
investors who acquired the securities of GlobeTel Communications
Corp. from Dec. 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Richard Stevens, et al. v.
GlobeTel Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-21071,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

     (1) 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;

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

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Boca Raton),
         The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax:
         561.367.8400, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com;

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

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

     (6) 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

     (7) 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.  


HALLIBURTON CO: Suit Over Unpaid Overtime in Army Deal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit filed against
Halliburton Co. accusing the company of violating contracts with
the U.S. Army when they failed to give workers in Iraq and
Kuwait overtime pay, CNN Money reports.

The judge agreed with Halliburton's contention that, although
the Pentagon contract called for overtime wages to be paid in
Iraq, U.S. laws governing military contracts allow only workers
employed inside the U.S. to be given the overtime pay.

In 2005, five Halliburton workers filed the suit claiming
Halliburton and its subsidiaries shorted 20,000 to 40,000 truck
drivers, cooks, mechanics and other workers millions of dollars
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2005).

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- DII Industries, LLC,
     -- Halliburton Co.,
     -- Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc.,
     -- Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.,
     -- Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
     -- Overseas Administration Service, and
     -- Service Employees International, Inc.

According to the suit, Kellog Brown & Root Services -- the
Pentagon's largest private contractor in Iraq -- signed a
contract with the Army in December 2001 to provide non-combat
support services.

The suit alleges that despite the fact that federal law does not
require companies to pay their overseas workers overtime, the
agreement between the Army and Halliburton required the payment
of time and one-half for workers who put in more than 40 hours a
week.  

The suit further alleges that the company and its subsidiaries
required its workers to sign contracts stipulating that they
would not receive overtime.  The suit also claims that workers
routinely worked between 80 to 100 hours a week.

The judge, though, left open the door for the five plaintiffs to
amend their complaint to add factual claims related to overtime
work performed in the U.S.

According to Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross, the
company welcomed the ruling and said the court had upheld the
contracts it signed with its employees, which do not call for
overtime pay, but include hazard pay increases after 40 hours
per week.

The suit is "Dingle et al. v. Halliburton Co. et al., Case No.
4:05-cv-03719," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Melinda Harmon.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jay Hodges Henderson, Jennifer Bickham Swick and Samuel
         Ainsworth Houston all of Cruse Scott et al., 2777 Allen
         Pkwy, 7th Flr, Houston, TX 77019, Phone: 713-650-6600,
         Fax: 713-650-1720; E-mail: jhenderson@crusescott.com or
         jswick@crusescott.com;

     (2) Christina Anne Fountain, 450 Newport Center Drive, 2nd
         Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-640-8222, E-
         mail: clopez-fountain@lopez-hodes.com;

     (3) Sharon J. Arkin of Arkin Glovsky, 150 S Los Robles
         Ave., Penthouse Ste 920, Pasadena, CA 91101;

     (4) Vincent D. Howard of Lopez Hodes et al., 450 Newport
         Center Dr, 2nd floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone:
         949-640-8222;

     (5) Beverly Pace of Lopez Hodes Restaino, 312 Walnut
         Street, Ste 2090, Cincinnati, OH 45202; and

     (6) Gregory T. Skikos and Steven J. Skikos both of Lopez
         Hodes et al., 625 Market St., 11th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94105.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Todd William Shadle of Godwin Gruber LLP, 1201 Elm St.,
         Ste 1700, Dallas, TX 75270, Phone: 214-939-4423, Fax:
         214-760-7332, E-mail: tshadle@godwingruber.com;

     (2) Nicole Becton, John L Bowles, Kevin S Donohue, Ronald
         Henry and Alan Palmer all of Kaye Scholer LLP, 901
         Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone:  
         202-682-3500.


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Facing Suit in Okla. Over Tuberculosis Scare
-------------------------------------------------------------
A truck driver in Oklahoma filed a civil class action against
Integris Health Systems, Inc. because of his possible exposure
to tuberculosis in an Integris Health hospital, The Daily
Oklahoman reports.

The suit accuses Integris Southwest Medical Center of being
indifferent to the health and welfare of its patients.  It came
after a discovery that a nurse in the medical care company had
an active case of tuberculosis.  The nurse resigned on Aug. 14,
the same day she received test results confirming she had
tuberculosis.

Plaintiff Martin Lane was confined on the hospital in early July
and had occasional contact with the nurse during that time,
according to the report.

Public health officials had asked people who were patients,
visitors or employees at Integris Southwest Medical Center from
Jan. 1 to Aug. 11 to undergo medical testing.

Mr. Lane has been tested for tuberculosis, attorney Terry West
said, but he hasn't received test results because he's currently
working out of state, the report stated.

"We are aware a lawsuit has been filed, but we have not yet been
served," Chris Hammes, Integris Southwest Medical Center
administrator said in a statement.


MERIX CORP: Oregon Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed
with prejudice the amended complaint in the consolidated
securities class action against Merix Corp.

Four proposed plaintiffs who purchased securities in the
company's January 2004 public offering filed class action
complaints against the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors in the first quarter of fiscal 2005.  

The complaints were consolidated in the second quarter of fiscal
2005 in a single action, "In re Merix Corp. Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-MO," in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon.  

On March 3, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint for failure to identify with
sufficient specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to
have been false and why the statements were either false when
made or material.  

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court granted that motion without
prejudice and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  
On Nov. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the company's January 2004 public offering.

The initial purchaser was one of the underwriters of the
company's January 2004 public offering and is one of the
defendants in this case.

The company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check,  
         Sean M. Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin &  
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)  
         667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
         dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com and  
         azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and  

     (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,  
         LLP, 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154,  
         Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax: (206) 839-0728, E-mail:  
         lfeldman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch  
         St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)  
         727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:  
         baumr@perkinscoie.com; and  

    (ii) Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L. Berenstain and Douglas W.  
         Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201 Third Ave.,  
         Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: (206) 359-
         8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax: (206)  
         359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail:  
         jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com  
         and DGreene@perkinscoie.com.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Sherman Antitrust Act Violation Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sac City, Iowa-based Pullen Seeds and Soil initiated a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against
the Monsanto Co. over alleged violation of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Agriculture Online reports.

Iowa State University agriculture law specialist Roger McEowen
is plaintiff in the case.  He is joined by an estimated 100,000
class members around the nation (1,000 in Iowa).  The suit
alleges that Monsanto has a monopoly over the glyphosate
herbicide marketplace with its Roundup products, product name
patent of which expired in 2000.

Plaintiffs also allege Monsanto retained product exclusivity "by
acquiring seed companies that were developing modified seed
technology, eliminating those products that could have led to
the development of genetically modified seeds that could be used
with non-glyphosate herbicide."  

Mr. Pullen also alleges that Monsanto engaged in the practice of
"bundling" crop input products like herbicides with seed to
ensure that seed companies produce and sell seed containing
Monsanto's seed traits virtually exclusively.

Mr. McEowen said plaintiffs seek "declaratory and injunctive
relief for Monsanto's alleged violations...and treble damages
under Iowa antitrust law for the overcharges Pullen and other
class members have paid."

According to Monsanto spokesman and public affairs manager
Andrew Burchett, the anticompetitive practices named in the suit
do not exist.  

The suit is "Pullen Seeds and Soil v. Monsanto Co., Case No.
1:06-cv-00599-UNA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey S. Goddess of Rosenthal,
Monhait & Goddess, P.A., 919 Market Street, Suite 1401, P.O. Box
1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E-mail:
jgoddess@rmgglaw.com.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Ala. Insurance Suit Deal Yet to Get Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama has
yet to give final approval to the proposed settlement in the
class action against a subsidiary of The National Security
Group, Inc.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama entered an order preliminarily approving a
proposed settlement of the case and preliminarily certifying
such a case as a class action.  

The "Mary V. Williams" case relates primarily to claims that a
subsidiary of the company sold industrial burial insurance
policies to racial minorities on which it charged higher
premiums or provided inferior benefits than premiums charged to
or policy benefits provided to similarly situated non-minority
policyholders.  The company's subsidiary has not sold industrial
burial insurance for more than 20 years.  

The proposed settlement provides for the company's subsidiary
to, among others, provide additional policyholder benefits,
including premiums adjustments and benefits enhancements on
existing policies and additional benefits on matured policies
and pay attorneys fees.  

The class, as preliminarily certified, would not permit any
class members to opt out of the settlement and preliminarily
enjoins all similar litigation against the company's subsidiary.

In the settlement, the company's subsidiary denied all claims
and allegations made in the lawsuit.  The proposed settlement is
subject to final approval by the court following an Aug. 22,
2006 fairness hearing.

The suit is "Williams, et al v. Nat'l Security Ins., Case No.
1:02-cv-00877-MHT-DRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama under Judge Myron H. Thompson with
referral to Judge Delores R. Boyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric James Artrip of Watson Jimmerson, 203 Greene
         Street, P.O. Box 18368, Huntsville, AL 35801, Phone:
         (256) 536-7423, Fax: 256-536-2689, E-mail:
         artrip@watsonjimmerson.com;

     (2) Christa L. Collins of James, Hoyer, Newcomer &
         Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, 4830 W. Kennedy
         Boulevard, Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: (813)
         286-4100, Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail:
         ccollins@jameshoyer.com;

     (3) Joel Lee DiLorenzo of K. Stephen Jackson, PC, Black
         Diamond Building, 2229 First Avenue North, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 205-252-3535, Fax: 205-252-3536, E-
         mail: joel@ksjpc.com; and

     (4) John J. Stoia of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
         Lerqch, LLP, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-
         mail: johns@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Richard A. Ball, Jr. and Thomas
Cowin Knowles of Ball Ball Matthews & Novak, PA, PO Box 2148,
Montgomery, AL 36102-2148, Phone: 334-387-7680, Fax: 334-387-
3222, E-mail: rball@ball-ball.com and cknowles@ball-ball.com.


NORTH DAKOTA: USDA Continues to Face Suit by American Indians
-------------------------------------------------------------
The racial discrimination case filed by six American Indian
farmers and ranchers against the U.S. Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture in 1999 is ongoing, an attorney for
the USDA said, according to reports.

The agency is working to provide documentation requested by the
Indians' attorneys, according to attorney J. Michael Kelley.  
Earlier this month, attorneys for American Indian farmers filed
a motion to bring the case to trial next year.

The suit was filed by six plaintiffs against Mike Johanns,
Secretary of the USDA.  They have filed a sixth amended
complaint in August 2005.

The suit claims that since at least 1981 the defendant has
engaged in a pattern of discriminating against Native American
farmers and ranchers in the provision of loans and loan
servicing because of their race.

The USDA allegedly committed this discrimination at various
stages of the loan and loan servicing process.  Native Americans
have been supposedly denied equal opportunity to obtain loan
applications and assistance in completing them, and the often
inaccessible locations of USDA's offices have imposed obstacles
to obtaining credit on Native Americans not typically
encountered by other farmers and ranchers.

Those Native Americans who nevertheless applied for loans
allegedly received significantly fewer loans than were provided
to white farmers.  Further, when loans were provided, they often
included onerous terms that were not imposed on white farmers.
Defendant also allegedly discriminatorily denied Native
Americans access to loan servicing options that were made
available to non-Native American loan recipients.

The discrimination practiced by the USDA was allegedly
exacerbated by the USDA's wholesale failure to accept, process,
and redress complaints, made both orally and in writing, whether
individually or through a representative.  

At the same time, USDA advised aggrieved farmers that they could
challenge decisions believed to be discriminatory by lodging
complaints with the agency's civil rights office.

Together, the USDA's pattern and practice of denying Native
Americans equal access to opportunities to obtain credit, while
simultaneously depriving them of a meaningful way to challenge
the discrimination they faced, have allegedly deprived Native
American farmers of privileges afforded to non Native-American
farmers, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
the Administrative Procedure Act and has caused them substantial
damage, including in many cases the loss of land held by their
families for generations.

The plaintiffs is bringing the class action on behalf of
themselves and the following class, which already has been
certified by this court:

"All Native American farmers and ranchers who:

     -- farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November
        24, 1999;

     -- applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program
        during that time period; and

     -- filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA
        individually or through a representative during the time
        period.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among others:

     -- an order declaring, pursuant to section 2201 of the U.S.
        Judiciary Code, that plaintiffs and the class members
        were denied equal credit opportunities and other farm
        program benefits and the full and timely enforcement of
        their discrimination complaints;

     -- an order declaring Defendant's actions to be a breach of
        plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Credit Opportunity
        Act and the Administrative Procedures Act and awarding
        eligible plaintiffs and class members monetary and
        injunctive relief appropriate to the proof at trial; and

     -- an order granting plaintiffs and the class members an
        award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Equal
        Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedures
        Act.

A copy of the sixth amended complaint is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?12c0

The suit is "Keepseagle, et al. v. VENEMAN, et al., Case No.
1:99-cv-03119-EGS," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Among the lawyers representing the plaintiffs is Robert E.
Goodman, Jr. of the Law Offices of Robert E. Goodman, Jr., 5956
Sherry Lane, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75225, Phone: (214) 368-1765.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Northfield Laboratories, Inc. and Chief Executive Officer Dr.
Steven A. Gould continue to face a putative securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
company's shareholders.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that during the period from Dec. 22, 2003 to Feb. 21,
2006, the named defendants made or caused to be made a series of
materially false or misleading statements and omissions about
the company's elective surgery clinical trial and business
prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs allege that those allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions caused the purported class to purchase
Northfield common stock at artificially inflated prices.

As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the action be certified as a proper class
action, unspecified compensatory damages (including interest)
and payment of costs and expenses (including fees for legal
counsel and experts), according to the company's Aug. 14, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2006.

The suit is "Topaz Realty Corp., et al. v. Northfield
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1493," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge George M. Marovich.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
         617.542.8300;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;

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

     (5) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

     (6) 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;

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (8) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

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

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

    (11) 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;

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

    (13) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867;

    (14) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com;

    (15) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;

    (16) The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508,
         New York, NY, 10118, Phone: 212.686.1060, Fax:
         212.202.3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and

    (17) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com.


ORANGE 21: No Discovery Yet in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has yet to occur in the consolidated securities fraud
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Orange 21, Inc., its directors
and certain of its officers.

Initially, two stockholder class actions were filed.  A
consolidated complaint was later filed on Oct. 11, 2005, which
purported to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged
class of persons who purchased the company's common stock
pursuant to the registration statement filed in connection with
the company's public offering of stock on Dec. 14, 2004.

The complaint alleged that the company and its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose in the registration statement material information
about plans to make a change in its European operations, its
dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its
products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley,
Inc.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
court granted on March 29, 2006.  The court allowed plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint only with respect to their claim
about a European distribution change.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint dated April 7, 2006.  

On May 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss that
amended complaint.  No discovery has been conducted.

The first identified complaint is "Christine Pittman, et al. v.
Orange 21, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, (San Diego), 402 West
         Broadway, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800,
         Fax: 619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, 501 West Broadway, Suit
         1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 877.493.5366, Fax:
         619.238.5425;

     (5) 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;

     (6) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (8) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867.


PACIFIC COAST: Recalls Spinach Products for Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Fruit Co. of Portland, Oregon is recalling
products that may include spinach supplied by Natural Selections
Foods, a California Grower and Processor.

The products listed below may be contaminated with Escherichia
coli 0157:H7 bacteria.  This bacteria causes a diarrheal 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.  HUS is most
likely to occur in young children and the elderly.  The
condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death.

Products include:

     -- Baby Spring Mix Salad Kit (4.6 lbs);

     -- Chef on the Run- Bacon Spinach Salad (9oz plus 2fl oz
        dressing);

     -- Chef on the Run- Spring Greens Salad (5oz plus 2fl oz
        dressing);

     -- Chef on the Run- Willamette Valley Salad (10oz plus 2fl
        oz dressing);

     -- Trader Joe's- Baby Spinach and Greens with Bleu Cheese,
        Candied Pecans and Cranberries with Raspberry
        Vinaigrette Dressing (10oz);

     -- Trader Joe's- Baby Greens and Spinach Salad with Wild
        Maine Blueberry Dressing (10oz);

     -- Mediterranean Veggie Blend Kit- 15 lbs.; and

     -- My Brothers Pizza Spinach and Garlic- 15oz and 36oz.

Products listed were distributed through various retail outlets
in Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.  There is no
international distribution.

Most Salad Products can be identified by the labels Trader
Joe's, My Brothers Pizza or Chef on the Run.  Salad containers
are easily identified in "clam shells".  Pizza products are
easily identified as they are on "round cardboard bottoms with a
plastic over wrap".  All salad products will have a "USE BY
DATE" on or before Sept. 20, 2006.  Pizza products will have a
"USE BY DATE" on or before Sept. 23, 2006.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Pacific Coast Fruit Co. stopped making all products with Spinach
supplied from California on Sept. 14, 2006.  FDA has recommended
"fresh spinach" not be consumed at this time.

The recall was initiated after it was announced by FDA that
products contaminated with E.Coli 0157:H7 from Natural
Selections in California were being recalled.

An investigation by the FDA, several states, and Natural
Selections Foods is ongoing to identify the cause of the
possible ecoli contamination.

Consumers are being asked to return any product listed to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company @ 1-503-731-9677.


PLAYSKOOL: Recalls Tool Benches with Detachable Toy Nails
---------------------------------------------------------
Playskool, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 255,000 Team Talkin? Tool Bench
toys, Consumeraffairs.com reports.

The company said the recall came after reports of the deaths of
two young children -- a 19-month-old boy from Martinsburg, West
Virginia, and a 2-year-old boy from League City, Texas --
suffocating when oversized, plastic toy nails sold with the tool
bench toys became forcefully lodged in their throats.

Though the toy nails are not considered a small part, and the
toys are intended for children age 3 and older, Playskool is
voluntarily conducting a recall as a precaution to prevent
additional incidents.

The Team Talkin? Tool Bench is a 20-inch tall plastic toy tool
bench with an animated red toy saw, a yellow toy drill and a
blue toy vice.  The toy talks and makes various sound effects,
including tool sounds.

The product also includes a toy hammer, screwdriver, two 2-inch
plastic screws, two 3-inch plastic nails and pieces to build a
small toy plane.  The red Playskool logo is on the front of the
brown surface of the tool bench.

The toy was sold at Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, KB Toys stores
and various other stores nationwide from October 2005 through
September 2006 for about $35.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the two toy nails away
from children and contact Playskool to get information on
returning the nails for a $50 certificate for a Playskool (or
its related companies) product.

For additional information, call Playskool at (800) 509-9554
anytime, or go to their Web site: http://www.playskool.com.


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Oct. Hearing Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 10, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
$24,200,000 settlement in the matter, "In re PurchasePro.com,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-S-01-0483-JLQ."

The hearing will be held before Judge Justin L. Quackenbush, in
the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, located at 333 S.
Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89101.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Nov. 17,
2006.  Request for exclusion from the settlement is Sept. 19,
2006.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased or acquired the
common stock of PurchasePro.com, Inc. during the period from
March 23, 2000 through May 21, 2001.

The case is a class action for violation of the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of PurchasePro between March 23,
2000, and May 21, 2001.  Plaintiffs have alleged that the
defendants perpetrated a fraud upon the investing community.

In part, plaintiffs have alleged that during the settlement
class period, defendants manipulated the company's reported
revenues in order to portray PurchasePro as a financially stable
and growing business.

Moreover, plaintiffs have alleged that, through their
investigation they have uncovered information from former
employees of the company that supports their claims.

Plaintiffs have also alleged that ongoing investigations by the
U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission further substantiate the allegations in the operative
complaint.

For more details, contact:

     (1) PurchasePro Securities Litigation c/o Berdon Claims
         Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014 Jericho, NY 11753-
         8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
         site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f7e;

     (2) Kevin J. Yourman, Vahn Alexander of Yourman Alexander &
         Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000, Manhattan
         Beach, CA 90266, Phone: (310) 725-6400, Fax: (310) 725-
         6420; and

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Shane T. Rowley and Antonio Vozzolo of
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331.


SCOTTISH RE: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Re Group, Ltd., is a defendant in several purported
securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On Aug. 2 and Aug. 7, 2006, putative class actions were filed
against:

     -- the company,
     -- Glenn Schafer, the chairman of its board of directors;
     -- Dean E. Miller, chief financial officer;
     -- Scott E. Willkomm, former chief executive officer; and
     -- Seth Vance, former chief executive officer - North
        America

on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who
purchased publicly traded securities between Dec. 16, 2005 and
July 28, 2006.

On or about Aug. 7, 2006, a related class action was filed
against the company, Mr. Miller, Mr. Willkomm, and Elizabeth A.
Murphy, former chief financial officer, in the Southern District
of New York on behalf of a putative class consisting of
investors who purchased publicly traded securities between Feb.
17, 2005 and July 28, 2006.

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning the company's business and operations, thereby
causing investors to purchase the company's securities at
artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

Two of the complaints allege, among other things, that the
defendants made false and misleading statements that it was
poised for future profitable growth, even though the defendants
allegedly knew that it had failed to control expenses and manage
its investment and liquidity risk.  

The third complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made positive statements about the company and its
financial strength that were lacking in any reasonable basis at
the time they were made, and that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that the defendants had improperly
valued allowances on deferred tax assets and that the company
lacked adequate internal controls.

Each of the class actions filed seek an unspecified amount of
damages, as well as other forms of relief.  

The first identified complaint is "Michael Zuckerman, et al. v.
Scottish Re Group Ltd., et al., Case No. 06-CV-5853," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax:
         212-684-519, E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com;

     (2) Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 , Baltimore, MD,

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

     (4) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150,
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
         lewis.kahn@kglg.com;

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

     (6) 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;

     (7) Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East 42nd Street, 46th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10165, Phone: 212.685.0969, Fax:
         212.685.2306, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com;

     (8) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

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

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


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Face Funeral Consumer Case in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International remains a defendant in the lawsuit,
"Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corp.
International, et al, Cause No. 4:05-CV-03394," which was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Filed on 2005, the suit is a purported class action on behalf of
casket consumers throughout the U.S., alleging that the company
and several other companies involved in the funeral industry
violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by
engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with the
sale of caskets.

A related class action, "Leoncio Solis v. Service Corp.
International," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas was consolidated into the Funeral
Consumers Case in the fourth quarter of 2005.

The lawsuit seeks injunctions, unspecified amounts of monetary
damages, and treble damages.

Plaintiffs are also seeking the court's permission to add a
claim to enjoin the company and the Alderwoods Group, Inc. from
closing a proposed merger.  

The suit is "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc et al. v. Service
Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral under Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan S. Abady of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff, 545
         Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-763-5000,
         Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com;  

     (2) Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste.
         750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028, Fax:
         865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com; and

     (3) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com.

Representing the the company is Gayle Anne Boone of Bracewell &
Giuliani, LLP, 1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 3800, Dallas, TX 75202-
2711, Phone: 214-468-3800, Fax: 214-468-3888.


SERVICE CORP: "Fancher" Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal requesting the dismissal without
prejudice of the purported class action, "Ralph Lee Fancher v.
Service Corp. International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-00246,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

The lawsuit, which was previously consolidated with the "Funeral
Consumers Alliance Inc et al. v. Service Corp. International,
Case No. 4:05-cv-03394, (Funeral Consumers Case)," makes the
same allegations as that case and is also brought against
several other companies involved in the funeral industry.

The case was filed on behalf of casket consumers throughout the
U.S. and alleges that the company violated the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiffs in the Fancher case filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal requesting that the case be dismissed
without prejudice.

The suit is "Fancher v. Service Corp. International et al., Case
No. 4:05-cv-04120," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with
referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550
W Main Ave., Ste. 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028,
Fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrew K. Doty of Iverson Yoakum Papiano, 624 South
         Grand Ave., Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-624-7444, Fax: 213-629-4563, E-mail:
         mkagley@iyph.com;

     (2) Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, 711
         Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
         andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com; and

     (3) Victoria L. Cook of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-653-
         7870, Fax: 713-654-3343, E-mail:
         vcook@susmangodfrey.com.


SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International remains a defendant in the
consolidated securities class action, "Conley Investment Counsel
v. Service Corp. International, et al; Civil Action 04-MD-1609,"
which was filed against the company and several of its current
and former executive officers or directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits:
      
     (1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International,
         et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL in the United
         States District Court for the District of Nevada;

     (2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International,
         et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL, in the United
         States District for the District of Nevada; and

     (3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International,
         et. al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114, In the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Florida

The suits named as defendants the company and several of the
company's current and former executive officers or directors.  
It is a purported class action alleging that the defendants
failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and
gravesites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm
Beach, Florida.

The suit is "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp.
International et al., Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Lynn N. Hughes.  

Representing the lead plaintiff are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston,
         TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com; and

     (2) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP Three
         Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
         212-545-4600.  

Representing the defendantsare:

     (i) Andrew M. Edison and J. Clifford Gunter III of
         Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300,
         Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-221-1371, Fax: 713-221-
         2144; and

    (ii) Roger B. Greenberg of Schwartz Junell et al., 909
         Fannin, Ste. 2000, Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-752-
         0017, Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
         rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com.


SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Independent Casket Distributors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International remains a defendant in the lawsuit,
"Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp. International,
et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," which was filed by independent
casket distributors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.  

The lawsuit makes the same allegations as the "Funeral Consumers
Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service Corp. International, Case No.
4:05-cv-03394, (Funeral Consumers Case)," and is also brought
against several other companies involved in the funeral
industry.

Unlike the Funeral Consumers Case, this case is a purported
class action on behalf of all independent casket distributors
that are in the business or were in the business any time from
July 18, 2001 to the present.

The case seeks injunctions, unspecified amounts of monetary
damages, and treble damages.

The suit is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (2) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market
         Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
         rsg@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM; and

     (3) Christine G. Pedigo of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran,
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-398-8700, Fax: 415-398-8704.

Representing the company is Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell and
Giuliani, LLP, 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com.


SERVICE CORP: Tex. Appeals Court Denies Mandamus, Rehearing Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The El Paso Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition in a
motion for rehearing of the purported class action, "David Hijar
v. SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc.,
and Service Corp. International, Cause Number 2002-740," which
was filed in the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County
Court at Law Number Three.

The Hijar Lawsuit involves a statewide class action brought on
behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased
funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas
at any time since March 18, 1998.

Plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related
regulations and/or statutes required the company to disclose its
markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection
with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make
certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract
and other legal claims.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary
damages.  They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and
declaratory relief."

The company denies that the plaintiffs have standing to sue for
violations of the Texas Occupations Code or the Rules; denies
that plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations under the
relevant regulations and statutes; denies that any breaches of
contractual terms occurred; and on other grounds denies
liability on all of the plaintiffs' claims.  

Finally, the company denies that the Hijar Lawsuit satisfies the
requirements for class certification.

In May 2004, the trial court heard summary judgment cross-
motions filed by the company and the plaintiff, at that time,
the only plaintiff.

The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment and denied the company's motion.  In its partial
summary judgment order, the trial court made certain findings to
govern the case, consistent with its summary judgment ruling.
The company's request for rehearing was denied.

During the course of the Hijar Lawsuit, the parties have
disputed the proper scope and substance of discovery.  Following
briefing by both parties and evidentiary hearings, the trial
court entered three orders against the company that are the
subject of appellate review:

      -- a January 2005 discovery sanctions order;

      -- an April 2005 discovery sanctions order; and

      -- an April 2005 certification order, certifying a class
         and two subclasses.

On April 29, 2005, the company filed an appeal regarding the
certification order and, concurrently with its initial brief in
that appeal, filed a separate mandamus proceeding regarding the
sanctions orders.

In the certification appeal, briefing has concluded, and the
court of appeals heard oral arguments on April 4, 2006.  In the
mandamus proceeding, the court of appeals denied the mandamus
petition in January 2006, and denied rehearing on March 15,
2006.  The company is considering further steps, including the
option of pursuing mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of
Texas.

Houston, Texas-based Service Corp. International (NYSE: SCI) --
http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products  
and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries.  
At December 31, 2005, the company operated 1,058 funeral service
locations, 358 cemeteries and 130 crematoria throughout North
America.  SCI also owns a 25% equity interest in AKH Luxco,
S.C.A., known as Pompes Funebres Generales, a provider of
funeral services in France.  The company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Kenyon International Emergency Services, specializes
in providing disaster management services in mass fatality
incidents.  It also owns funeral homes in Germany and Singapore.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the company disposed of its
funeral and cemetery operations in Argentina and Uruguay, and
disposed of its cemetery operations in Chile.


SNACK ALLIANCE: Recalls Tortilla Chips Due to Undeclared Soy
------------------------------------------------------------
Snack Alliance, Inc. of Hermiston, Oregon, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 32,000 cases of nacho flavored tortilla
chips because they may contain undeclared soy protein.

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

Packages of Nacho flavored tortilla chips having a best by date
(which can be found in the upper right hand corner of packages)
prior to and including Feb. 7, 2007 distributed in retail stores
under the brands:

     -- Laura Lynn Nacho Flavored Tortilla Chips, 13 ounce
        package distributed in the Southeastern US;

     -- Southern Home Nacho Flavored Tortilla Chips, 13 ounce
        package distributed in the Southeastern US;

     -- Filler Brand Nacho Flavored Tortilla Chips, 1, 1.5, and
        9 ounce packages distributed in Puerto Rico;

     -- Kid Connection Nacho Flavored Tortilla chips as a
        component in Kid Connection variety snack sacks, 1 ounce
        packages with Julian code dates of 17706 to 19106
        distributed nationally WAL-MART;

     -- Food Lion Nacho Flavored Tortilla Chips as a component
        in Food Lion variety snack sacks, 1 ounce packages
        distributed in the Eastern US; and

     -- Food Express Cantina Style Nacho Tortilla Chips, 16
        ounce packages distributed in Ohio.

There have been no consumer illnesses reported due to
consumption of this product.

The problem was discovered as a result of information obtained
during a label review in which the soy protein was found to be
in the seasoning that is applied on the tortilla chip.  As a
result, Snack Alliance has begun a full review of the company's
supplied ingredients and will institute new policy and
procedures for the receiving of ingredients.

The above products may be returned to the point of purchase for
a full refund Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 1-800-665-3880.


STAPLES INC: March 2007 Trial Set in Calif. Labor Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative March 2007 trial was scheduled for the purported
class actions alleging violations of California's "wage and
hour" laws against Staples, Inc.

Initially, various class actions have been brought against the
company for alleged violations of what is known as California's
"wage and hour" law.  

The plaintiffs have alleged that the company improperly
classified both general and assistant store managers as exempt
under the California wage and hour law, making such managers
ineligible for overtime wages.

They are seeking to require the company to pay overtime wages to
the putative class for the period from Oct. 21, 1995 to the
present.  The court has granted class certification to the
plaintiffs.  The court's ruling is procedural only and does not
address the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations.  

The trial date for the case has been scheduled for March 2007,
according to the company's Aug. 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
July 29, 2006.

Framingham, Massachusetts-based Staples, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLS) --
http://www.staples.com/-- is an office products company.  It  
sells a variety of office supplies and services, business
machines and related products, computers and related products,
and office furniture.  


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Sherman Act Violation Charges in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Stafford, owner of Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange Inc.,
filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against Starbucks Corp. over
alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

Ms. Stafford brought the action under Federal rule of civil
procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on her own behalf and all persons
and entities residing in Seattle or Bellevue, Washington who own
and operate specialty coffeehouse businesses with espresso
pieces who desire to lease and occupy retail space in commercial
office buildings located in the core business districts of
either Seattle or Bellevue so as to be able to compete
effectively in the Specialty Coffeehouse business.

This action arises from the insatiable and unchecked ambition of
the world's largest multinational chain of specialty coffee
shops to continue to dominate the market for specialty coffee.

The suit alleges that Starbucks' abuse of monopoly power in the
specialty coffee retail market stifles competition via a series
of predatory practices including exclusive lease agreements,
"cluster bombing" of stores and competitor buy-outs, limiting
consumer choice.

The complaint cites a number of other predatory tactics used by
Starbucks, including reports in which Starbucks offers to buy
out competitors at below- market prices, and threatens to open
stores nearby if the offer is rejected.

The complaint also cites instances in which Starbucks uses its
huge financial power to purchase other independent providers in
an effort to squash any presence of independent coffee
purveyors.

The common questions of law and fact common to the class that
the plaintiff raises are:

     -- whether Starbucks possessed monopoly power in the
        relevant market since at least Jan. 1, 2003;

     -- whether Starbucks acquired or maintained monopoly power
        within the relevant market through anti-competitive
        activity;

     -- whether Starbucks' unlawful conducts has enabled
        Starbucks to increase, maintain, and stabilize above
        competitive levels, its share of the relevant market to
        the exclusion of class members; and

     -- whether Starbucks engaged in exclusionary or
        anti-competitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of
        the Sherman Act.

The suit is asking the court:

     -- that Starbucks' conduct alleged in the complaint be
        adjudged and decreed to violate Section 2 of the Sherman
        Act;

     -- that Starbucks, its affiliates, successors, transferees,
        assignees, and the officers, directors, partner agents,
        and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or
        claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined
        and restrained from in any manner continuing,
        maintaining, or renewing its anti-competitive conduct
        adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
        device having a similar purpose or effect, and that any
        exclusionary conduct be declared invalid;

     -- that plaintiff and class members recover their costs of
        this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as
        provided by law; and

     -- the plaintiff and class members have such further relief
        as the case may require and the court may deem just and
        proper under the circumstances.

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1253

The suit is "Stafford v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-
01382-JCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge John C Coughenour.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman and George
Warren Sampson both of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 5th
Ave., Ste 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax:
206-623-0594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com or george@hbsslaw.com.


TRIBUNE CO: Investors Withdraw Lawsuit Over Buyback Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur said that shareholders had
dropped a lawsuit filed against eight directors of Tribune Co.,
according to the Journal Gazette & Times Courier.

An investor of the company filed the suit in U.S. District Court
in Chicago on Sept. 19, seeking class-action status.  On Sept.
27, the plaintiff decided to abandon the case, after Judge
Shadur questioned in an order, the jurisdiction of the case.  

Faced with circulation declines at its newspapers, the company
is refusing calls for a sell-off of prize properties, and
instead, is launching a $2.4-billion buyback of its stock this
summer.

The directors are accused of "erecting draconian defensive
barriers that prevent any potential acquirer," in an attempt to
buy the company directly from shareholders.  The buyback program
is allegedly a ploy for directors to "maintain their dominion"
over the media holding company.  President and Chief Executive
Denis FitzSimons is also named as defendant in the suit.

The suit sought class-action status on behalf of all
shareholders "similarly situated" and asked the court:

     -- to order the company to "redeem the poison pill," put an
        end to other alleged defensive measures on the part of
        the board;

     -- to create an independent committee of directors with
        outside financial advisers to examine Tribune strategy
        and look for alternatives; and

     -- to award the plaintiffs both compensatory and punitive
        damages.

The Tribune did not file a response to the suit.


TRIPLE B: Recalls Spinach Products for E. coli Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Triple B Corp. (d/b/a S.T. Produce) of Seattle, Washington, is
initiating a northwest states voluntary recall of certain salad
products that may contain spinach with a Use by Date of Aug. 22,
2006 thru Sept. 20, 2006.

The S.T. Produce items with spinach are:

     -- NWG Spinach Salad (5 oz.),
     -- Spinach Salad, QFC (5 oz.),
     -- Charlie's Spinach Salad (5 oz.),
     -- Charlie's Tabouli & Goat Cheese Salad (10 oz.),
     -- NWG Tabouli & Goat Cheese Salad (10 oz.),
     -- Tabouli & Goat Cheese Salad, QFC (10 oz.),
     -- T/H Spring Mix Salad (5.5 oz.),
     -- T/H Mozzarella Spring Mix Salad (5.5 oz.),
     -- T/H Baby Spinach Salad (5.5 oz.),
     -- Walnut and Blue Cheese Salad w/ Grilled Chicken Breast
        (6.5 oz.),
     -- Larry's Market Tabouli & Goat Cheese Salad (10 oz.),
     -- Charlie's Seasonal Greens Salad (2.5 oz.),
     -- Charlie's Seasonal Greens Salad (4 oz.),
     -- Charlie's Baby Spinach Salad (6 oz.),
     -- Charlie's Baby Spinach Salad (5oz),
     -- Caesar Bowtie Noodle Salad Kit with Grilled Chicken
        Breast (6.9lbs)

Spinach used in these products may have been supplied from
Natural Selections Foods, a California grower and processor, to
S.T. Produce.

This recall was initiated when Natural Selections Foods issued a
nation-wide recall of all their products that contain spinach
because they may be contaminated with Escherichia coli 0157:H7
bacteria.

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.  HUS 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 Washington, Oregon,
Idaho and Montana to Retail stores and Deli's.  The salad
products were sold in a hard plastic clamshell container with a
"Use By" date of Aug. 22, 2006 thru Sept. 20, 2006 located on
the bottom of the container.

An investigation by the FDA, 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 the company Monday to
Friday through Bill Bagley, Food Safety Director, Phone: 206-
625-1412.


WEST VIRGINIA: Health Dept. Settles Suit Over Medicaid Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state Department of Health and Human Resources agreed on
Sept. 20 to settle a lawsuit over cuts it made to a program for
seniors and disabled people, according to reports.  It has
agreed to restore hundreds of West Virginians to its Medicaid
in-home care program.

In November 2005, the state implemented a new guideline that
prohibits aged and disabled from remaining in their homes.

On July 3, Bren Pomponio of the non-profit group, Mountain State
Justice, filed a class action on behalf of Jackie Fleshman, a
mildly mentally retarded man, who originally qualified for the
Disabled Waiver Program.  The suit claims that his Medicaid Home
and Community-based ADWP benefits were unfairly taken from him.

The lawsuit says modifications to several of the requirements
that Mr. Fleshman previously met left him, and several others,
without care.

The complaint was filed in Kanawha Circuit Court.  It claims
that the health department discriminates against applicants with
mental disabilities, a violation of the West Virginia
Constitution and the West Virginia Human Rights Act, by making
changes in the areas of:

      -- the ability to vacate premises in case of emergency,
         continence, transfer (requiring one or two persons'
         assistant in the home at all times);

      -- walking; and

      -- the ability to self-administer medications.

The suit seeks:

      -- the DHHR being found in violation of equal protection
         and the West Virginia Human Rights Act;

      -- the DHHR being found of denying due process;

      -- an order enjoining the DHHR from terminating the ADWP
         benefits to any member of the plaintiff class; and

      -- forward adjustments of benefits.

On July 21, Deputy Attorney General Charlene Vaughan and
Assistant Attorney General Alva Page III removed the case to
federal court arguing that the ADWP involves the federal
Medicaid program.

However, on Aug. 7, 2006, The U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia sent the case back to Kanawha
Circuit Court, where Judge Charlie King was originally assigned
to it (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).

The suit is "Fleshman v. Walker, Case No. 2:06-cv-00573."

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Bren J. Pomponio and Daniel F. Hedges of
         Mountain State Justice, Inc., 922 Quarrier Street,
         Suite 525, Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: (304) 344-3144,
         Fax: (304) 344-3145, E-mail: bren@msjlaw.org and
         dan@msjlaw.org; and

     (2) [Defendants] Charlene A. Vaughan and Alva Page, III,
         Office Of The Attorney General, State Capitol Complex,
         Building 3, Room 210, Charleston, WV 25305, Phone: 304-
         558-2131, E-mail: cvaughan@wvdhhr.org and
         apage@wvdhhr.org.


YAHOO HOLDINGS: May Face Suit in U.S. Over Privacy Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for a Chinese journalist currently in prison is
preparing a suit over privacy rights violation against Yahoo
Inc.'s subsidiary in China, Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong),
according to IDG News Service.

Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "divulging state
secrets" by Beijing due in part to a 2004 e-mail message from a
Yahoo account warning a pro-China democracy Web site in New York
to be on guard for unrest and dissident activity ahead of the
15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.  

His lawyer, Albert Ho, has filed a complaint to Hong Kong
authorities against Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) on behalf of Tao.  
According to the report, Mr. Ho said in a telephone interview
his party is "trying to line up other victims for a class
action" that could be filed within the next few months.  It will
likely be filed in either New York or California.

"Internet companies should not disclose personal information
that could violate the basic human rights of their users," Mr.
Ho said.

According to him, Mr. Tao, who is not a U.S. citizen, could file
a lawsuit in the country under the Alien Tort Claims Act of
1789.  The group has not yet decided on a U.S. law firm to
retain for the case, nor would Mr. Ho divulge the specific
strategy or damages the group intends to seek, the report said.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CONNECTICS CORP: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action was filed on behalf of shareholders that purchased
publicly traded securities of Connetics Corp. between June 28,
2004 and May 3, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's financial performance and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Connetics
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

The firm reminds investors that they have until Nov. 17, 2006 to
file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


CONNETICS CORP: Continues to Face Securities Act Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Alto-based Connetics Corp. (NASDAQ:CNCT) is a defendant in
a shareholder class action alleging violations of federal
securities laws, the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal
reports.

The suit, filed by Oklahoma law firm Federman & Sherwood,
alleges the company issued "a series of material
misrepresentations to the market" which artificially inflated
the company's market price.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
common stock of Connetics, between June 28, 2004 and May 3,
2006.

In April, the company said the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission was conducting a formal investigation into whether
the company or any of its employees, officers or directors may
have violated federal securities laws, the report said.

That investigation was linked to a civil suit filed on March 28
against a vice president, Alexander J. Yaroshinsky, who was
charged with using his knowledge of the April 2005 rejection of
the acne drug Velac by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
make at least $680,000.

Mr. Yaroshinsky was terminated and was not named as a defendant
in the suit.

For more information on the case, contact Federman & Sherwood,
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112.


DELL INC: Yourman Alexander Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Dell, Inc. during the period Feb. 13, 2003 through Sept. 8,
2006, inclusive.  The matter is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to present the true financial
condition of Dell and reaped the rewards therefrom through the
granting of lucrative stock options.  

The complaint further alleges that the defendants concealed that
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating
Dell's revenue recognition and accounting practices.

On Sept. 11, 2006, Dell finally told its shareholders that it
would not be able to file its interim financial report for its
second quarter of 2007 due to the ongoing internal investigation
of its historical financial results and the inquiries regarding
the same posed by various government entities.

The firm reminds investors that they have until Nov. 13, 2006 to
file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Vahn Alexander and Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, Phone: (800) 725-6020, E-mail:
bparekh@yaplaw.com, Web site: http://www.yaplaw.com.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set November 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, is encouraging persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Jabil Circuit, Inc.
(JBL) between Sept. 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006 to contact Kip B.
Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP at 1-800-711-6483 or via email at
KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or their counsel of choice, concerning
their rights and interests as potential class members in the
shareholder class action recently filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, misrepresenting Jabil
Circuit's financial results to the market.

The firm reminds investors that they have until Nov. 20, 2006 to
file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.com.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp., Newsbytes reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of Vonage's stock,
alleges the company's executives violated securities laws by
making "false and misleading" statements about the company's
financial condition in its prospectus.

The company's Initial Public Offering on May 24, 2006, raised
$531 million but the stock recently closed at $12.32.

As a result of this alleged illegal conduct, shares of Vonage
sold in the IPO declined more than 30%, which displeased some
Vonage subscribers who signed up for a "directed share program"
that allowed eligible Vonage customers to purchase up to 5,000
shares each at the opening.

Some customers balked and said they would not pay for the
shares, the report said.  Vonage said it would cover costs for
its underwriters if customers back out of their purchase
commitments but also insisted it was not offering to repurchase
the shares from customers.

According to Vonage's vice president for regulatory affairs,
Chris Murray, the company might have violated securities law by
not including a link to its prospectus on a Web site it created
to inform its customers about the stock-purchase plan. Vonage
believed it had adequate defense against such a charge.

Vonage has not yet been served with the lawsuit.

For more information, contact Motley Rice, LLC, Phone: 404-201-
6910, Web site: http://www.motleyrice.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  * * *