CAR_Public/061003.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 3, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 196

                            Headlines

ALMAR SALES: Recalls Bath with Parts Posing Choking Risk to Kids
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: La. Rice Farmers Sue Over Crop Contamination
BELLSOUTH CORP: Reaches $35M Settlement in Ga. Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: L.A. Firefighter Raises Discrimination Complaints
CANADA: Notice of Suit Sent to Families with Special Need Kids

DELL INC: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Tex. Over 401(k) Plan
DENNY'S INC: EEOC Files ADA, Civil Rights Violation Suit in Md.
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Disclosure of Sexual Victims' Info Blocked
E.I. DU PONT: Dec. Hearing Set for Ill. Antitrust Suit Deal
FIA CARD: Continues to Face Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.

FIREPOND INC: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
GILMAN & CIOCIA: March 2007 Hearing Set for Del. Investors' Suit
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls UVs with Defective Steering Knuckles
LANTRONIX INC: Calif. Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 22
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Oct. Fairness Hearing Set for Stock Suit

MASTEC INC: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for $10M Fla. Stock Suit Deal
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Allows Racketeering Complaints
OWENS CORNING: January Hearing Set for MiraVista Suit Settlement
PAYPAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Customer Privacy for $3.5M
PIP/USA INC: Nov. Hearing Set on Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: $400M Stock Suit Settlement in Col. Okayed
ROYAL BOTANICAL: Mother's Day Brunch Lawsuit Settlement Approved
SONY ENERGY: Lenovo Recalls Notebook Batteries Due to Fire Risk
U-HAUL CO: Filipinos, Hispanics Sue for Discrimination in Nevada
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Non-Mormon Workers Sue for Discrimination

UST LIQUIDATING: Calif. Judge Finds No Wrongdoing in Veeder Sale
VITAMIN CASES: Dec. 2006 Hearing Set for $8.834M Antitrust Deal
WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: To Enter Discovery in Sedora Merger Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Yourman Alexander Announces Securities Suit Filing
CONNETICS CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Announces Suit Filing
MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


ALMAR SALES: Recalls Bath with Parts Posing Choking Risk to Kids
----------------------------------------------------------------
Almar Sales Co., of New York, New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
11,000 units of Suave Kids Bath Sets.

The company said the items in the baths sets contain small parts
that pose a choking hazard to young children.  Additionally,
some of the handles on the carrying case are long enough to pose
a strangulation hazard.  Also, the plastic carrying case poses a
danger of suffocation.  No injuries or incidents have been
reported.

This recall involves "Suave" brand bath sets that contain a 3-
in-1 shampoo, bath sponge, and various other toy animal and
character bath products.  The baths sets are packaged in
brightly colored vinyl bags with a clear window.  Style numbers
involved in this recall are: SVK 9498, 9499, 9501, 9506, 9507
and 9508.  The style numbers are located on the back and/or
bottom right corner of the package, above the UPC code.

Picture of the recalled bath sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06267a.jpg

These recalled bath sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from March 2006 through
June 2006 for about $10.

Consumers are advised stop using these bath sets and either
dispose of them or return them to the store where purchased for
a full refund.

For additional information, contact Almar Sales at (800) 251-
2522 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or E-
mail: recall@almarsales.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: La. Rice Farmers Sue Over Crop Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
A farmer from Acadia Parish in Louisiana filed a class action
against Bayer Cropscience LP for allegedly contaminating local
commercial fields with genetically engineered rice strain,
2thdadvocate reports.

Joey Simon, who farms about 1,300 acres of rice in Acadia
Parish, filed the suit on behalf of rice farmers throughout the
state.  The filing follows the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
discovery in August of trace amounts of Bayer's LL601 strain in
long-grain rice at an Arkansas mill that serves several rice-
growing states, including Louisiana.  Bayer's LL601 rice variety
is designed to resist a specific herbicide.

Bayer Cropscience is also facing three other lawsuits filed in
Lafayette by farmers in St. Landry and Evangeline parishes.  The
suits seek damages for falling market prices and to offset the
increased cost of testing rice crops and ensuring that fields
are free of LL601.

The suit is "Simon v. Bayer Cropscience LP, Case No. 6:06-cv-
01609-RTH-MEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana under Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., with
referral to Judge Mildred E. Methvin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Vance R. Andrus of Andrus Boudreaux et al., P O Box
         3347, Lafayette, LA 70502, Phone: 337-233-3075, Fax:
         233-3375;

     (2) Richard J. Arsenault, William S. Neblett and John R.
         Whaley all of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, P O Box 1190,
         Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874, Fax:
         318-561-2591, E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com or
         wneblett@nbalawfirm.com or jwhaley@nbalawfirm.com;

     (3) Dawn Barrios and Bruce S. Kingsdorf all of Barrios
         Kingsdorf & Casteix, 701 Poydras St Ste 3650, New
         Orleans, LA 70139-3650, Phone: 504-524-3300, Fax: 504-
         524-3313, E-mail: kingsdorf@bkc-law.com;

     (4) Jeffrey M. Bassett and Patrick C. Morrow both of Morrow
         Morrow et al., P O Drawer 1787, Opelousas, LA 70571-
         1787, Phone: 337-948-4483, Fax: 942-5234, E-mail:
         jeffb@mmrblaw.com or pmorrow@mmrblaw.com;

     (5) Philip Bohrer and Scott Earl Brady both of Bohrer Law
         Firm, 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Ste B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809,
         Phone: 225-925-5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
         phil@bohrerlaw.com and scott@bradylawfirmllc.com;

     (6) Kirk A. Guidry of Due' Price et al., 8201 Jefferson Hwy
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-929-7481, Fax: 924-
         4519;

     (7) Christopher K. Jones of Keogh Cox & Wilson, P O Box
         1151, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-383-3796, Fax:
         225-343-9612, E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com;

     (8) Hunter W. Lundy and Matthew E. Lundy both of Lundy &
         Davis (LC), P O Box 3010, Lake Charles, LA 70602-3010,
         Phone: 337-439-0707, Fax: 337-439-1029, E-mail:
         hlundy@lundydavis.com or mlundy@lundydavis.com; and

     (9) John Powers Wolff, III of Keogh Cox & Wilson, P O Box
         1151, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-383-3796, Fax:
         225-343-9612, E-mail: jwolff@kcwlaw.com.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Reaches $35M Settlement in Ga. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division held a hearing for the preliminary approval of
a $35,000,000 settlement of the suit, "In re BellSouth
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02142-WSD," on Sept. 25,
2006.

Starting on or about Aug. 1, 2002, eight class action complaints
were filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against defendants alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

On Oct. 17, 2002, by order of the Honorable Judge Willis B.
Hunt, Jr., severa1 of the cases were consolidated as "In re
BellSouth Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-2142-WBH."  

Plaintiffs' lead counsel is Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (F/K/A
Chitwood & Harley LLP) and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP.

On July 17, 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BellSouth from
Nov. 7, 2000 to Feb. 19, 2003, inclusive, including:

        * a subclass consisting of all persons or entities who
          purchased the securities of BellSouth during the class
          period pursuant to or traceable to the registration
          Statement/Prospectus and any supplements thereto (the
          "DRIP Registration Statement") filed with the U.S.
          Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
          BellSouth's Direct Investment Plan (the "DRIP
          Subclass)."  

The complaint generally alleges that BellSouth engaged in a
scheme of aggressive and improper billing and accounting
practices in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles that was designed to inflate its revenues, earnings,
and stock price.

The complaint alleges:

     -- claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
        promulgated thereunder against:

        * BellSouth,
        * F. Duane Ackerman,
        * W. Patrick Shannon, and
        * Ronald M. Dykes;

     -- for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
        against:

        * F. Duane Ackerman,
        * W. Patrick Shannon, and
        * Ronald Dykes;

     -- for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of
        1933 against:

        * BellSouth,
        * F. Duane Ackerman,
        * Ronald M. Dykes,
        * Reuben V. Anderson,
        * J. Hyatt Brown,
        * Armando M. Codina, and
        * Robin M. Smith;

with regard to those class members who invested in the BellSouth
Direct Investment Plan,

     -- for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
        against BellSouth with regard to those class members who
        invested in the DRIP; and

     -- for violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act
        against the Individual Defendants with regard to those
        class members who invested in the DRIP.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing.

On April 3, 2006, the court issued an Order certifying "a class
of:

     -- all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
        acquired BellSouth common stock between Nov. 7, 2000 and
        July 22, 2002, inclusive [the '10(b) Class'], and who
        were damaged thereby; as well as

     -- a subclass of all persons and entities who purchased
        BellSouth securities between Nov. 7, 2000 and Feb. 19,
        2003, inclusive, pursuant to or traceable to BellSouth's
        Direct Investment Plan Registration Statement filed with
        the SEC.

On May 17, 2006, the parties began taking fact depositions, in
accordance with the schedule that had been submitted to the
court on April 12, 2006.

While depositions were being conducted, with the help of the
independent mediator, the Honorable Daniel J. Weinstein, the
parties continued settlement negotiations and an agreement, in
principle, was reached on July 14, 2006

                  The Settlement Consideration

Within seven business days of entry of the Order and Final
Judgment, BellSouth will cause to be paid $35,000,000 in cash,
less any advances for notice and administrative costs, which
shall be deposited in an interest-bearing escrow account backed
by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government or fully
insured by the U.S. Government or an agency thereof.  Interest
will accumulate in favor of the class.  No other interest will
be due and owing from BellSouth to the class on the Settlement
Funds.

Within seven business days of entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order, defendants will cause to be paid, as an advance against
the Settlement Fund, $150,000 in cash to the Settlement Account.  
This $150,000 payment shall be used by the lead plaintiff, class
representatives and their counsel for notice and administrative
costs only.

Plaintiffs' lead counsel may pay from the settlement amount,
without further approval from the defendants or the court, up to
the sum of $150,000 for the reasonable costs and expenses
associated with identifying members of the class, and effecting
mail Notice and Publication Notice to the class, and the
administration of the settlement.

A hearing with the court for the entry of a Preliminary Approval
Order was held on Sept. 25, 2006, and the parties have agreed to
confer further with the court.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available for free at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?12d0

The consolidated suit is "In re BellSouth Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:02-cv-02142-WSD" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey,  
Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309,
Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Peter Quirk Bassett and Teresa  
Thebaut Bonder of Alston & Bird, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One  
Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, E-
mail: pbassett@alston.com and tbonder@alston.com.   


CALIFORNIA: L.A. Firefighter Raises Discrimination Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Fire Department is facing a complaint filed by
an employee on behalf of women worker, minority and gay and
lesbian firefighters, reports say.

The complaint was filed by Capt. Alicia Mathis, a 17-year LAFD
veteran.  It alleges gender discrimination, hostile work
environment and retaliation by the department against employees
who speak out.  It does not seek monetary damages, but reforms
on the treatment of firefighters.  
  
The plaintiff plans to pursue the suit as a class action once
the changes she asked are not implemented, according to the
report.


CANADA: Notice of Suit Sent to Families with Special Need Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 33,000 families with special needs children have been
sent notices regarding the class action "Larcade v. Ontario."

The lawsuit, brought by Anne Larcade and her son Alexandre in
2001, alleges that the Ontario government was negligent and
failed to meet its legal obligation to provide services for
severely disabled children that ought to have been provided
through Special Needs Agreements.

As a result of the Ontario government's negligence, families
were allegedly forced to personally fund services for their
children and, in some cases, relinquish custody of their
children to the government in order to obtain life-saving
services.  The claim seeks damages of $500 million for the
class.

On May 26, 2005, the Ontario Ombudsman released a report
addressing the issue of parents being forced to relinquish the
custody of their special needs children in order to obtain
necessary care.

The report, entitled "Between a Rock and a Hard Place", urged
the Province to remove the moratorium on funding for Special
Needs Agreements and to return the custody of special needs
children to their parents.

Since June 2005, the government has taken steps to return the
custody of special needs children to their parents.  However,
the government has not removed the moratorium and continues to
refuse to enter into any new Special Needs Agreements.  A copy
of the Ombudsman's report may be obtained at http://www.reko.ca.

The Ombudsman's report estimated that there were approximately
300 families who were affected by the decision to eliminate
Special Needs Agreements.  This is in contrast to the almost
33,000 families identified by the Ontario government.
   
                    Certification and Appeal

In May 2005, the Ontario Divisional Court released its unanimous
decision certifying "Larcade v. Ontario" as a class proceeding.

The Ontario government has been granted leave to appeal the
Divisional court's decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.  

The suit is Divisional Court Case No. 400/03 - File No. 02-cv-
22460cp.

The Toronto firm of Roy Elliott, Kim, O'Connor LLP --
http://www.reko.ca/-- is arguing the case on behalf of the  
government of Ontario.


DELL INC: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Tex. Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
against Dell Inc. and various defendants on behalf of the
participants and beneficiaries of the Dell Inc. 401(k) Plan.

The complaint alleges that Dell and the various defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by:

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
         assets;

     (2) failing to provide participants with complete, accurate
         and material information concerning the problems with
         Dell's business and financial condition necessary for
         Participants to make informed decisions concerning the
         prudence of directing the Plan to invest in the Dell
         stock fund; and

     (3) failing to appoint and monitor the performance of the
         other fiduciaries.

For more information on the case, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Erin
Riley, Derek Loeser or Lynn Sarko all of Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Phone: (800) 776-6044, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com,
Website: http://www.erisafraud.com.


DENNY'S INC: EEOC Files ADA, Civil Rights Violation Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
against Denny's Inc., over alleged violations of Title 1 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title 1 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991.

The commission alleges that Denny's committed disability
discrimination in a violation of the ADA by discharging Paula
Hart, a manager at the Denny's in the Baltimore suburb of
Fullerton, because of her disability and by denying her
reasonable accommodation.

The suit specifically alleges that:

     -- since at least Sept. 2000, the defendant has engaged in
        a continuing course of unlawful employment practices at
        its facilities in Maryland and throughout the United
        States in violation of sections 102(a), (b)(1) and
        (b)(5)(A) of the ADA, 42 USC Sections 12112(a, (b)(1) &
        (b)(5)(A); and

     -- since at least Sept. 2000, the defendant has maintained
        a policy and practice of limiting employee medical
        leaves to no more than a maximum of 26 weeks, and in
        some cases 12 weeks, regardless of whether those
        employees are disabled within the meaning of the ADA and
        require additional medical leave, in any combination of
        paid or unpaid, as a form of reasonable accommodation.

According to EEOC lawyer Ron Phillips, Ms. Hart had a leg
amputated in December 2002.  She returned to work in April 2003,
using a walker while recuperating from surgery and awaiting a
prosthetic leg.

She worked for a short time, then was told she posed a safety
risk.  She was fired after using up 26 weeks of medical leave
provided by the company, according to Mr. Phillips.

The commission said Ms. Hart was not a safety risk, except to
herself if she suffered a fall. Even if she was a safety risk,
"there were very obvious reasonable accommodations under the law
that would alleviate that risk," Mr. Phillips said.

The suit asks the court:

    -- to grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its
       officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active
       concert or participation with it, from engaging in
       disability discrimination, including discharge because of
       disability and denial of reasonable accommodation and any
       other employment practice which discriminates on the
       basis of disability;

    -- to order defendant to institute and carry out policies,
       practices, and programs which provide equal employment   
       opportunities for disabled employees and applicants, and
       which eradicate the effect of its past and present
       unlawful employment practices, including but not limited
       to requiring that defendant:

            (i) amend its maximum medical leave and maximum
                intermittent medical leave policy to state that
                defendant shall make exceptions to the policy
                and provide additional medical leave beyond the
                maximum otherwise allowed under that policy when
                required by the ADA as a reasonable
                accommodation for employees with disabilities;

           (ii) publicize that amendment to all present and
                future employees;

          (iii) adhere to the amendment; and

           (iv) notify all former employees discharged under the
                aforementioned policy before it was amended of
                this action, its disposition, and the amendment.

The suit further asks the court for an order requiring Denny's
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by giving
additional medical leave to eligible employees.  It also seeks
lost wages and benefits, and other damages.

Denny's denied it discriminates against people with disabilities
or denies them the opportunity to work, The WBAL Channel
reports.

According to a Denny's statement, the lawsuit was "based on
unfounded accusations of disability discrimination stemming from
the individual instance of one former employee."

The statement said Ms. Hart did not indicate she "would be able
to perform the essential functions of her job in a finite or
reasonable amount of time."

"Given the physical demands of working in our restaurants,
including extensive moving about all parts of the operation with
only intermittent breaks ... Denny's was unable to provide an
accommodation that would have allowed her to continue working in
her position," the statement said.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?12c7

The suit is "EEOC v. Denny's, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02527-AMD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
under Judge Andre M. Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Debra Michele Lawrence and Ronald L. Phillips both of
         the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, City
         Crescent Bldg., 10 S. Howard St. Third Fl., Baltimore,
         MD 21201, Phone: 14109624260, Fax: 14109624270, E-mail:
         debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov; and

     (2) Jacqueline H. McNair of the U.S. Equal Employment
         Opportunity Commission, 21 S. Fifth St. Ste. 400, The
         Bourse Bldg., Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone:
         12154402666, Fax: 12154402674, E-mail:
         jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Disclosure of Sexual Victims' Info Blocked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled on Sept 29 that attorneys
for sex abuse plaintiffs in a case against the Diocese of
Covington do not have to give prosecutors the names of victims,
reports say.

The court set arguments for Oct. 11.

Plaintiff attorneys filed an appeal on Sept. 8 against a ruling
by Senior Judge John Potter ordering the release of personal
information about the victims (Class Action Reporter, April 12,
2006).

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

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

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

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

                         Case Background

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

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

In July 2005, the court initially approved a $85 million
settlement.  On Jan. 31, Judge Potter finally approved the
settlement with 361 victims.  The agreement calls for plaintiffs
to receive between $5,000 and $1 million based on the severity
and duration of the abuse they suffered.  The first monetary
awards were distributed to victims in September (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

                         Attorneys Fees

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

An Oct. 4 hearing to deal with attorneys' fees has been set
before Judge Robert W. McGinnis in Boone Circuit Court.  Judge
McGinnis was assigned to the case in September after the
resignation of Judge Potter (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27,
2006).  


E.I. DU PONT: Dec. Hearing Set for Ill. Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $5 million settlement by E.I. du Pont De Nemours &
Co. of the matter, "In re Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4) Antitrust
Litigation."

The hearing will be held before at the U.S. District Court,
Everett McKinley Dirksen Bldg., 219 South Dearborn St.,
Courtroom 1419, Chicago, IL 60604.

The case involves all persons that purchased sulfuric acid in
the U.S. directly from:

      -- E.I. du Pont Nemours and Co.,
      -- Norfalco, LLC,
      -- Norando, Inc.,
      -- Noranda DuPont, LLC,
      -- Falconbridge, Ltd.,
      -- Pressure Vessel Services, Inc.,
      -- PVS Chemicals, Inc., (Ohio),
      -- PVS Chemical Solutions, Inc.,
      -- PVS Nolwood Chemicals, Inc.,
      -- GAC Chemical Corp.,
      -- Marsulex, Inc.,
      -- Chemtrade Logistics (U.S.), Inc.,
      -- Intertrade Holdings, Inc.,
      -- Koch Sulfur Products Co., and,
      -- Koch Sulfur Products Co., LLC.

The class period is from and including Jan. 1, 1988 to Jan. 16,
2003.  For purposes of this litigation, "Sulfuric Acid" refers
to non-fuming sulfuric acid (chemical formula H2SO4), which is
for illustration purposes -- although not exclusively --
commonly sold at strengths of 93% and 98%, but excluding spent
regenerated sulfuric acid.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC, 55 West
         Monroe, Suite 1111, Chicago, Illinois 60603, Phone:
         (312) 964-0000, Fax: (312) 964-0001;

     (2) Steven O. Sidener, Esq. of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener,
         LLP, 595 Market St., Suite 2300, San Francisco,
         California 94105, Phone: (415) 777-2230, Fax: (415)
         777-5189;

     (3) Steven A. Asher, Esq., Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher,
         LLC, 1846 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,
         Phone: (215) 545-7200, Fax: (215) 545-6535; and

     (4) Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., One
         South Broad St., Suite 2100, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
         19107, Phone: (215) 238-1700, Fax: (215) 238-1968.


FIA CARD: Continues to Face Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FIA Card Services, National Association, remains a defendant in
a consolidated antitrust class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to BA
Credit Card Trust's Sept. 28, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

In June, August, September and November 2005, certain retail
merchants filed numerous purported class actions in federal
courts, alleging that MasterCard and Visa and their member
banks, including the FIA and Bank of America, National
Association (USA), conspired to charge retailers excessive
interchange in violation of federal antitrust laws.

In October 2005, certain of the lawsuits were consolidated in
"In Re: Payment Card Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs.

On April 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated and
amended putative class action complaint re-alleging the claims
in the original complaint and alleging, among other additional
claims, that defendants violated federal and California
antitrust laws by combining to impose certain fees and to adopt
rules and practices of Visa and MasterCard that are alleged to
constitute restraints of trade.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging as additional
claims:

      -- federal antitrust claims arising out of MasterCard's
         initial public offering; and

      -- a fraudulent conveyance claim under New York Debtor and
         Creditor Law.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages and injunctive
relief.


FIREPOND INC: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Firepond, Inc., according to FP Technology, Inc.'s Sept.
28, 2006 Form 10-KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006.

In August 2001, FP Technology's predecessor, Firepond, Inc., was
named as a defendant in a securities class action filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in relation
to its initial public offering in February 2000.  

The lawsuit also named as defendants certain of the underwriters
of the IPO, including:

     -- FleetBoston,
     -- Dain Rauscher, and
     -- SG Cowen, as well as
     -- officers and directors of Firepond, Klaus P. Besier and
        Paul K. McDermott.  

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which have been
included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern
District of New York.  

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from
investors and that some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed
with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Firepond's stock.  

An amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.  Firepond and
the officers and directors identified above were named in the
suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
other related provisions.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified
litigation costs.

In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this litigation was
structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.  

On or about July 30, 2003, a committee of Firepond's Board of
Directors conditionally approved the proposed partial
settlement.  The settlement would provide, among other things, a
release of Firepond and of the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged to be wrongful in the amended complaint.  

Firepond would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against
its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by Firepond's insurance
carriers.

In October 2003, the action involving Firepond was designated
(along with several other actions) as a test or "focus" case for
purposes of class certification and merits discovery in the
actions proceeding against the underwriter defendants.  

The fact that Firepond is a defendant in a "focus" case does not
impact its participation in the settlement, according to FP
Technology's statement.  However, as a "focus" case defendant,
Firepond may be subjected to additional discovery and other
involvement in the proceedings against the underwriter
defendants as compared to other issuer defendants.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  The court granted the
preliminary approval motion on Feb. 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.

The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on Nov.
15, 2005.   The settlement fairness hearing was held on April
24, 2006, and the court reserved decision.   

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


GILMAN & CIOCIA: March 2007 Hearing Set for Del. Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 26, 2007 trial was scheduled for the purported
stockholder's class action against Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., which
is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a Summons and a
shareholder's class action and derivative complaint filed by
Gary Kosseff against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P.
Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H.
Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and Gilman & Ciocia,
Inc., Civil Action No. 188-N.

The action accuses the company, its board of directors and its
management of breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in
connection with the sale of offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors,
LLC in 2002.

The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate
consideration and without a fairness opinion by independent
financial advisors, without independent legal advice and without
a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent committee of
the board of directors.

The action seeks:

     -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors
        and management breached their fiduciary duty and other
        duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the
        purported class;

     -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

     -- unspecified monetary damages; and

     -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,

        including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
        fees.

On March 15, 2004, counsel for the company and for all
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On June 19,
2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 12, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 8,
2005, oral argument was heard on the motion to dismiss, and on
July 27, 2005 the case master delivered his draft report denying
the motion.

The parties filed exceptions to the report and on Aug. 3, 2006,
the master delivered his final report denying the motion to
dismiss.  The parties are proceeding with discovery and the case
is scheduled for trial on March 26, 2007.


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls UVs with Defective Steering Knuckles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., of Irvine, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 400 units of Kawasaki MULE utility vehicles.

The company said these vehicles could have been assembled with
improperly manufactured steering knuckles that could break while
the vehicle is in operation.  This can cause a loss of steering
control and cause a crash resulting in injury or death.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Kawasaki MULE 3000 (KAF620-G), MULE 3010 4x4
(KAF620-E/H), MULE 3010 Trans4x4 (KAF620-J/K) and MULE 3010
Diesel Trans4x4 (KAF950-C) models.  These are 4-wheel off-
highway vehicles featuring side-by-side seating for two or four
people, and automotive-style controls.

Pictures of the recalled utility vehicles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06582a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06582b.jpg

The recalled MULE utility vehicle were manufactured in the U.S.
and are being sold by Kawasaki dealers sold these MULE utility
vehicles from August 2006 through September 2006 for between
$8,800 and $10,800.

Consumers are advised to stop using the MULE utility vehicle
immediately and contact their local Kawasaki dealer to schedule
an appointment for an inspection of the steering knuckles and a
free replacement, if necessary.

For more information, contact your local Kawasaki dealer or call
Kawasaki toll-free at (866) 802-9381 between 8:30 a.m. and
4:45p.m. PT Mon. thru Fri., or visit: http://www.kawasaki.com.


LANTRONIX INC: Calif. Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold on Nov. 22, 2006 at 3 p.m. a final fairness hearing in
the settlement of the class action, "In re Lantronix, Inc.
(LTRX) Securities Litigation, Master File No.: CV-02-3899 GPS
(JTLx)."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or acquired the
common stock of Lantronix from Aug. 4, 2000 through May 30,
2002.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court, Central District
of California, in the courtroom of the Honorable George P.
Schiavelli.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Nov. 8, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Jan. 6, 2007.

Beginning on May 15, 2002, a number of securities class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and former officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws, consolidated into a single action
entitled, "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS."

After the court appointed a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff filed
amended complaints, and the defendants filed various motions to
dismiss directed at particular allegations.  Through that
process, the court dismissed certain of the allegations.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed the third amended
complaint, which was the operative complaint in the action.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

The Securities Act claims are brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased common stock of Lantronix pursuant or traceable to
the company's Aug. 4, 2000 initial public offering.  

The Exchange Act claims are based on alleged misstatements
related to the company's financial results that were contained
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO.

The claims brought under the Exchange Act are brought on behalf
of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Lantronix
securities from Nov. 1, 2000 through May 30, 2002.  

The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the business and financial
condition in order to allegedly inflate the value of the
company's securities during the class period.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Lantronix
overstated financial results through improper revenue
recognition and failure to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

While the complaint did not specify the damages plaintiff may
seek on behalf of the purported classes of stockholders, a
recovery by the plaintiff and the plaintiff classes could have a
material adverse impact on the company.

The proceeds from certain insurance policies have funded and
continue to fund much of the company's defense to the lawsuit.

Recently, the company reached an agreement with plaintiffs to
settle the lawsuit.  The company has also reached agreements
with its relevant insurance carriers with respect to the funding
of the cash portions of the settlement with plaintiffs.

Under the terms of the agreement with the plaintiffs, the
company will not be required to contribute any cash to the
settlement, as all cash contributed would be from the company's
insurance carriers.

However, as part of the agreement with the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, the company has agreed to issue certain Lantronix
securities to the plaintiffs.

On Aug. 29, 2006, the court held a hearing to consider a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement.  It granted
preliminary approval on Sept. 8, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 18, 2006).

The suit is "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire Blvd.
         - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone: 310-725-
         6400 and 310.208.2800, Fax; 310.209.2348, E-mail:
         valexander@yaplaw.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         andrewb@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Karnit Daniel of Weiss and Lurie, 10940 Wilshire,
         Boulevard, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
         310-208-2800, E-mail: service@wyca.com.

Representing the defendants are, Keith E. Eggleton, Boris
Feldman, Kelley E. Moohr and Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Oct. Fairness Hearing Set for Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 13, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for
the proposed $8 million settlement in the matter, "Ligand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-
01620-DMS-CAB."

The hearing will be held before Judge Dana M. Sabraw, at the
U.S. Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San Diego, California.

Deadline for filing a proof of claim is on or before Oct. 20,
2006.  Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement were
due Sept. 10, 2006.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, covers all
persons who purchased Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock,
Ligand notes or Ligand call options, or who sold Ligand put
options between March 19, 2001 and May 20, 2005.  It resolves
all claims by the parties, including those asserted against the
company and the individual defendants in these cases.  

As summarized by the company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2006, several purported class actions
were consolidated and lead plaintiffs appointed.  

The plaintiffs then filed a consolidated complaint in March
2005.  On Sept. 27, 2005, the court granted the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with leave for plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint again alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.  Defendants filed their motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint in January 2006.  
No trial date has been set.

The original complaint charges Ligand Pharmaceuticals and
certain of its directors and officers with violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

      -- that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that inventory de-stocking, at the wholesale level, was
         occurring because the company was unloading Avinza
         inventory, which was set to expire, onto wholesalers in
         order to show strong demand for Avinza and to meet
         sales expectations that they had set;

      -- that overall demand of the company's products,
         including Avinza, was down because of inventory de-
         stocking by wholesalers;

      -- that Medicaid prescriptions were increasing and thereby
         causing the company to pay excessive amounts of rebates
         to Medicaid;

      -- that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that increases in Medicaid rebates were not a one-
         time occurrence but were a trend that was going to
         continue to have a negative effect on the overall sales
         of Avinza; and

      -- that as a result of the above, the company's positive
         statements concerning its financial outlook was lacking
         in any reasonable basis when made.

On Aug. 3, 2004, company made two separate and shocking
announcements, that its second-quarter loss widened, missing
analysts' expectations by a huge margin, and that its
independent auditor resigned after a four-year relationship.

News of this shocked the market.  Shares of Ligand plunged
almost 40 percent, or $5.405 per share, to close at $8.175 per
share on unusually high trading volume on Aug. 3, 2004.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
         The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O.
         Box #6419, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 581-
         3274, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;

     (2) Andrew Zivitz and Kay E. Sickles Schiffrin & Barroway,
         LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087,
         Phone: (610) 667-7706;

     (3) Ramzi Abadou of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and
         Robbins, 655 West Braodway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058; and

     (4) Peter Arthur Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160.


MASTEC INC: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for $10M Fla. Stock Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida set
a Nov. 6, 2006 hearing for the $10 million settlement in the
consolidated securities class action, "In Re: MasTec, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-20886."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or acquired the
common stock of MasTec, Inc. from Aug. 12, 2003 through May 11,
2004, inclusive.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, in the courtroom of the Honorable Federico
A. Moreno.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 20, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Dec. 18, 2006.

In the second quarter of 2004, purported class action complaints
were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  These cases have been
consolidated by court order in the Southern District of Florida.

The complaints allege certain violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
related to current and prior period earnings reports.  

On Jan. 25, 2005, a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint was filed by plaintiffs, which the court granted.
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Feb. 22,  
2005.   

Plaintiffs contend that the company's financial statements
during the purported class period of Aug. 12, 2003 to May 11,
2004 were materially misleading in these areas:  

     (1) the financials for the third quarter of 2003 were  
         allegedly overstated by $5.8 million in revenue from  
         unapproved change orders from a variety of the  
         company's projects; and  

     (2) the financials for the second quarter of 2003 were  
         overstated by some $1.3 million as a result of the  
         intentional overstatement of revenue, inventories and  
         work in progress at the company's Canadian subsidiary.  

Plaintiffs seek damages, not quantified, for the difference
between the stock price plaintiffs paid and the stock price
plaintiffs believe they should have paid, plus interest and
attorney fees.  The company filed a motion to dismiss that was
denied on Sept. 30, 2005.

In April 2006, the company settled the lawsuit for $10 million
in cash.  On June 30, 2006, the parties executed a Stipulation
of Settlement and filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval
of the settlement of the federal securities class action (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006).

The suit is "In Re: MasTec, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-20886, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
     (1) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,  
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com;
  
     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Boca Raton), 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200,  
         Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-
         750-3364, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;
  
     (3) Vianale & Vianale, LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355
         Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561-
         391-4900, Fax: 561-368-9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com; and
  
     (4) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,  
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone: 310-725-
         6400, Fax: 310-725-6420.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Allows Racketeering Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta allowed a
lawsuit filed against Mohawk Industries over allegations it
violated racketeering laws by hiring illegal immigrants,
Associated Press reports.

The court previously allowed plaintiffs to sue the company under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, but the
U.S. Supreme Court ordered it to reconsider its certification of
the suit in June.  

The company is accused by current and former workers of hiring
thousands of illegal immigrants to keep wages low, violating
immigration laws, and forging documents.  The suit was filed in
2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

After hearing arguments on April 26, the Supreme Court ruled
that the appeals court should reconsider the case in light of a
separate opinion issued on the same day.  In an 8-1 vote,
justices voted to throw out a suit filed under RICO by Ideal
Steel Supply Corp. against National Steel Supply Inc., alleging
that its competitor underpays New York taxes.  Ideal Steel
claims it lost sales as a consequence of being undersold.

But the justices said Ideal Steel Supply could not use a RICO
lawsuit to recover damages because it had not suffered "direct"
injury, according to the report.  

In the Mohawk suit, the point being argued is whether Mohawk and
its recruiters illegally formed a separate "enterprise."  Mohawk
denies this saying a contract with another company which acted
as recruiter, does not constitute a racket.

The case raises the three pivotal questions in the immigration
debate:   

     (1) Are immigrants, legal or not, coming to work in the   
         U.S. because the economy needs them or because   
         companies exploit cheap labor to the detriment of U.S.-  
         born workers?;    

     (2) Should the front-line controls on illegal immigration   
         be the personnel offices of manufacturers?; and  

     (3) Will stricter checks on hiring documents for applicants   
         who look or sound foreign discriminate against all   
         Hispanics?

Plaintiff attorneys said they would pursue the suit as a class
action on behalf of any worker employed by Mohawk between when
the case was filed in January 2000 and the time the case goes to
trial.

The original suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries,  
Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of North Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370,  
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E-  
         mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net;     

     (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone   
         and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201   
         West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center,  
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail:  
         doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com,    
         iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com;     

     (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St.,   
         Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E-  
         mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and  

     (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree &   
         Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave.,  
         Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail:   
         mattatty@alltel.net.     

Representing the defendants are, Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan P.   
Morillo and Virginia A. Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,   
1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-  
mail: scottreau@sidley.com; and R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C.   
Lumpkins of Constangy Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W.,   
2400 Peachtree Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone: 404-  
525-8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com.    


OWENS CORNING: January Hearing Set for MiraVista Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware will hold
a fairness on Jan. 23, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the proceedings, "Owens Corning Chapter 11 Case
No. 00-3837 (JKF): MiraVista Settlement."

The fairness hearing will be held before Judge Judith K.
Fitzgerald, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 824
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
filed by Dec. 11, 2006.

The proposed settlement concerns two lawsuits relating to
MiraVista manufactured by Owens Corning and others.  Owens
Corning made and sold MiraVista.  

MiraVista is a composite product made from fiberglass resin and
inorganic fillers.  It was manufactured between 1996 and 2002.

Two lawsuits claim that MiraVista is defective and causes damage
for which people should be paid.  The first lawsuit was filed by
a group of homeowners through the submission of "Proofs of
Claim" in the Bankruptcy Court where Owens Corning filed a
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition on Oct. 5, 2000.  The Proofs of
Claim were submitted on behalf of a class of people who
purchased MiraVista before Owens Corning's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
petition was filed.

The second lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MiraVista by the same homeowners and others in
state court in California against Owens Corning and two other
companies that manufactured MiraVista, Molded Fiberglass
Companies and Molded Fiberglass Companies/West.

That suit was moved from the California Court to the Bankruptcy
Court, and is named, "Sherry McIlhargie, et al., plaintiffs v.
Molded Fiber Glass Co., et al., defendants, Adversary Proceeding
No. 05-50058."

Both sides have agreed to the settlement to avoid the risks and
costs of further litigation, and to ensure that class members
receive money.

Further litigation would have included a hearing on class
certification and, if a class had been certified, a trial on the
lawsuits and possible appeals of the trial result.

The settlement also avoids possible litigation of issues in
Owens Corning's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding about how
claims relating to MiraVista would be paid under Owens Corning's
Chapter 11 plan.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants engaged in
extensive settlement negotiations with the help of a retired
judge, the Honorable Coleman F. Fannin.  The Bankruptcy Court
has given preliminary approval to the settlement.  

The settlement class is defined as anyone who owns or used to
own a home or other building on which a MiraVista roof is or was
installed.  Also included are property owners who have replaced
MiraVista.

The court declared that there are two groups, or "subclasses,"
in the class.  Members of the "Pre-Petition Subclass" include
those purchased MiraVista roof before Oct. 5, 2000.  Members of
the "Post-Petition Subclass" include those purchased MiraVista
roof on or after Oct. 5, 2000.

For more details, call 1-800-947-4460 or visit:
http://www.miravistaclassaction.com.


PAYPAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Customer Privacy for $3.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal reached a preliminary settlement agreement with a
proposed class of PayPal customers in an action pending in U.S.
District Court in Brooklyn, New York.  The suit was filed in
2005 on behalf of a class alleging that PayPal did not clearly
communicate information about its consumer protection programs
related to specific types of transactions.

The settlement fund, which will be paid by PayPal, will total
$3.5 million, less administrative costs and any amount awarded
to plaintiffs' counsel by the court.  The settlement will be
presented for preliminary approval to the District Court in the
coming months.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, PayPal is not
admitting any liability for any of the allegations in the two
cases.

PayPal ALSO signed an agreement with 28 U.S. Attorneys General.

In this voluntary agreement, PayPal will, among other things,
shorten and streamline its user agreement and communicate more
information relating to its protection programs.  PayPal has
already complied with many of the terms in the agreement.

To cover the cost of the investigation, PayPal will pay $1.7
million to the Attorneys General.  The Attorneys General
involved in this agreement represent: Alabama, Arizona,
California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, and West Virginia.

PayPal, an eBay Co. -- https://www.paypal.com/ -- enables any
individual or business with an E-mail address to securely,
easily and quickly send and receive payments online.  PayPal's
service builds on the existing financial infrastructure of bank
accounts and credit cards and utilizes the world's most advanced
proprietary fraud prevention systems to create a safe, global,
real-time payment solution.  Founded in 1998, PayPal has more
than 114 million accounts and is available to users in 55
markets around the world.


PIP/USA INC: Nov. Hearing Set on Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery, will hear
on Nov. 1, 2006 a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action against PIP/USA, Inc. over allegations the company
violated the state's Consumer Fraud Act.   

The initial five lawsuits filed against the company are:

      -- "Peggy Williams v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No. 03 CH 9654,"

      -- "Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.,    
         Case No. 03CH07239,"

      -- "Dawn Marie Cooper, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH11316,"

      -- "Miriam Furman, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH10832"; and  

      -- "Karen S. Witt, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH12928"

Counsel for "Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.,"
amended her complaint to include plaintiffs from the other four
cases, and each of the others has been voluntarily dismissed.  

The consolidated amended complaint contains counts alleging
product liability, breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and third-party beneficiary
status.  Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees and costs are sought.  

On Jan. 26, 2006, PIP.America, which was a defendant in the
action, won dismissal of all counts in these cases but the
third-party beneficiary claims.  Plaintiffs have amended and
refiled their complaint seeking the same damages against
PIP.America.  PIP.America has filed another motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' latest third amended complaint.

PIP.America's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and will
be heard on Nov. 1, 2006.  Poly Implant Protheses, S.A., a
defendant in the Schnebel litigation, has agreed to indemnify
PIP.America for any losses PIP.America may suffer as a result of
the Illinois litigation.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: $400M Stock Suit Settlement in Col. Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted
final approval to the $400 million settlement of the
consolidated securities class action against Qwest
Communications International, Inc., reports say.

According to an Aug. 7, 2006 issue of the Class Action Reporter,
under the proposed settlement, the company would pay a total of
$400 million in cash:

     -- $100 million of which was deposited in an escrow account
        30 days after preliminary approval of the proposed
        settlement by the court;

     -- $100 million of which would be so deposited 30 days
        after final approval of the settlement by the court; and

     -- $200 million of which would be so deposited on Jan. 15,
        2007, plus interest at 3.75% per annum on the $200
        million between the date of final approval by the court
        and the date of payment.

Originally, 12 putative class actions were brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
May 24, 1999 and Feb. 14, 2002.  The suits were consolidated as
one class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of  
Colorado.

The suits allege, among other things, that defendants issued
false and misleading financial results and made false statements
about the company's business and investments, including making
materially false statements in certain of the company's
registration statements.   

On Nov. 23, 2005, the company and certain other defendants, and
the putative class representatives entered into and filed with
the court a Stipulation of Partial Settlement to settle the
consolidated securities action against the company and certain
other defendants.  

On Jan. 5, 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and certifying a settlement
class on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002.   

The suit is "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm. Int'l.  
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Robert   
E. Blackburn.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,   
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-  
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite   
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,   
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net;
   
     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,   
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San   
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:   
         support@milberg.com; and

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP-SD  
         CA, 655 West Broadway, #1900, San Diego, CA 92101,  
         U.S.A, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web  
         site: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


ROYAL BOTANICAL: Mother's Day Brunch Lawsuit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Justice Crane of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice approved the CN$2 million dollar settlement of class
actions over salmonella contaminated-food served at the Royal
Botanical Gardens' Mother's Day Brunch on May 8, 2005, the
Hamilton's News Talk Leader reports.

Lawsuits were commenced by individuals who consumed food
contaminated with salmonella and fell ill shortly after
attending the Brunch (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 11, 2006).

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Royal Botanical Gardens, and
     -- 1242238 Ontario Inc., operating as Compton & Greenland  
        Fine Foods and Catering Ltd.

Approximately 155 individuals suffered the salmonella poisoning.
The proposed settlement allows individuals who consumed the food
contaminated with salmonella and who fell ill, to apply for
compensation based on the severity of their symptoms.

Class members are classified as:

      Category 1 - class members who suffered mild symptoms of  
                   salmonella poisoning or other illness.  Mild  
                   symptoms last no more than 72 hours and do  
                   not involve the class member having been  
                   hospitalized and/or having sought and  
                   received medical treatment.

      Category 2 - class members who suffered moderate symptoms  
                   of salmonella poisoning or other illness.   
                   Moderate symptoms last more than 72 hours but  
                   no more than 15 days and may, but need not  
                   necessarily, involve the class member having  
                   been hospitalized and/or having sought and  
                   received medical treatment.

      Category 3 - class members who suffered serious symptoms  
                   of salmonella poisoning or other illness.  
                   Serious symptoms last more than 15 days but  
                   not more than 60 days and involve the class  
                   member having been hospitalized or having  
                   sought and received medical treatment.  These  
                   symptoms may, but need not necessarily,  
                   involve complications or other medical  
                   difficulties or residual effects as a result  
                   of the salmonella poisoning/other illness.

      Category 4 - class members who suffered severe symptoms of  
                   salmonella poisoning or other illness.   
                   Severe symptoms last more than 60 days and  
                   involve the class member having been  
                   hospitalized or having sought and received  
                   medical treatment.  These symptoms may, but  
                   need not necessarily, involve complications  
                   or other medical difficulties or residual  
                   effects as a result of the salmonella  
                   poisoning/other illness.

Under the settlement:

     -- Category 1 class members shall be entitled to  
        compensation of $500.00 as general damages, plus any  
        special damages as awarded by the Adjudicator;

     -- Category 2 class members shall be entitled to  
        compensation of $3,000.00 as general damages, plus any  
        special damages as awarded by the Adjudicator;

     -- Category 3 class members shall be entitled to  
        compensation of $5,000.00 as general damages, plus any  
        special damages as awarded by the Adjudicator;

     -- Category 4 class members shall be entitled to  
        compensation of at least $5,000.00 as general damages,  
        but not more than $50,000.00, such general damages  
        amount to be determined by the Adjudicator, plus any  
        special damages as awarded by the Adjudicator.

Family Class Members shall be entitled to Family Class
compensation as awarded by the Adjudicator.  Family Class
Members shall be entitled to an award of compensation only where
the related class member has already been awarded Category 4
relief.

The maximum award in favor of a Family Class Member where the
related class member has been awarded Category 4 relief is
$10,000.00, plus any special damages as awarded by the
Adjudicator.

The notice of the settlement will be published in local
newspapers, where individuals will be urged to make a claim for
compensation to take advantage of the settlement benefits.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Nov. 9, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Dec. 1, 2006.

Royal Botanical Gardens Class Action Claim on the net:  
  
              http://www.classactionlaw.ca/

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

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?113a
  
The suit is "Jones v. Royal Botanical Gardens et al., Court File  
No. 05-CV-290254CP," filed in the Ontario Superior Court of  
Justice under the Honorable Justice Crane.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Thompson of Scarfone Hawkins LLP, Hamilton, 1  
         James St. S., 14th Floor, P.O. Box 926, Depot #1,  
         Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3P9, Phone: 1-905-523-1333, Fax:  
         1-905-523-5878, E-mail: classactionlaw@shlaw.ca; and

     (2) Minden Gross Grafstein & Greenstein LLP, 111 Richmond  
         St W, Ste 700, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2H5, Canada, Phone:  
         (1-416) 362-3711, Fax: (1-416) 864-9223, Email:  
         meritas@mindengross.com, Web Site: www.mindengross.com.

Law firm representing the defendants is Agro, Zaffiro, Parente,  
Orzel & Baker LLP, PO Box 2069, LCD 1, Hamilton, ON L8N 3G6,  
Phone: 905-527-6877, Fax: 905-527-6169, E-Mail:  
mail@agrozaffiro.com, Website: http://www.agrozaffiro.com.


SONY ENERGY: Lenovo Recalls Notebook Batteries Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
and International Business Machines Corp., of Armonk, New York,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
are recalling about 168,500 battery packs and an additional
357,500 battery packs of rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries
used in ThinkPad notebook computers that were manufactured by
Sony Energy Devices Corp., of Japan.

The company said these lithium-ion batteries can cause
overheating, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Lenovo has received one confirmed report of a battery
overheating and causing a fire that damaged the notebook
computer.  The incident, which occurred within an airport
terminal as the user was boarding an airplane, caused enough
smoking and sparking that a fire extinguisher was used to put it
out.  There was minor property damage and no injuries were
reported.

The recalled lithium-ion batteries were sold with or sold
separately to be used with ThinkPad notebook computers: T Series
(T43, T43p, T60); R Series (R51e, R52, R60, R60e); and X Series
(X60, X60s).  The recalled batteries have the following part or
model numbers, which can be found on the battery label:

Part         Model Number

ASM P/N        FRU P/N
92P1072        92P1073
92P1088        92P1089
92P1142        92P1141
92P1170        92P1169 or 93P5028
92P1174        92P1173 or 93P5030

Lenovo and IBM's Web sites, telephone and direct sales, and
Lenovo and IBM authorized distributors between February 2005 and
September 2006 as an accessory for between $150 and $180 and as
part of a ThinkPad notebook computer for between $750 and $3500.

Pictures of the recalled lithium-ion batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06270a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06270b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06270c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06270d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06270e.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled batteries
immediately and contact Lenovo to receive a replacement battery,
free-of-charge.  Until a replacement battery arrives, consumers
can continue to use their computer by turning off the system,
removing the battery, and plugging in the AC adapter and power
cord. Consumers should use only genuine ThinkPad batteries
obtained from either Lenovo or an authorized reseller.

For more information, contact Lenovo at (800) 426-7378 anytime
or log on to: http://www.lenovo.com/batteryprogramto determine  
if the battery is part of the recall and to receive a
replacement battery.


U-HAUL CO: Filipinos, Hispanics Sue for Discrimination in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
against U-Haul Co. of Nevada, Inc. and its officers under title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
rights Act of 1991.

The defendant is accused of subjecting Hispanic and Filipino
employees to disparate treatment in promotion, work assignments
and frequent verbal harassment, including epithets of "wetback"
and "beaner", based on their race (Hispanic) and harassment
based on their national origin and race (Filipino, Asian).

Filipino and Hispanic workers named plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- Alberto A. Banico,
     -- Salvador Campos,
     -- Nelson Castro,
     -- Johnny DeGuzman,
     -- Jorge L. Garcia,
     -- Jesus Jacobo,
     -- Alfred J. Magana and
     -- Jimmy Pagtulingan.

The suit asks the court to:

     -- grant permanent injunction enjoining u-haul, its
        officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active
        concert or participation with them, from engaging in
        harassment and disparate treatment and any other
        employment practice which discriminates on the basis of
        national origin;

     -- order u-haul to institute and carry out policies,
        practices and programs which provide equal employment
        opportunities for Hispanics and Filipinos, and which
        eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful
        employment practices;

     -- provide appropriate back-pay with prejudgment interest,
        in amounts to be determined at trial and other
        affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of
        their unlawful employment practices, including but not
        limited to front pay; and

     -- provide compensation for past and future pecuniary
        losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices,
        including relocation expenses, job search expenses, and
        medical expenses not covered by the employer's employee
        benefit plan, in amounts to be determined at trial.

A copy of the complaint is available free charge at:

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

The suit is "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. U-
Haul Co. of Nevada, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-01209-JCM-RJJ," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under
Judge James C. Mahan, with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs is Anna Park of the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 255 East Temple Street, 4th
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Phone: 213-894-1083, E-mail:
anna.park@eeoc.gov.


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Non-Mormon Workers Sue for Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit
against the University of Phoenix and its owner, Apollo Group,
for alleged employment discrimination against non-Mormon
employees

The suit was filed as a class action in U.S. District Court in
Phoenix on behalf of four employees Robert Lein, William Davis,
Harry Hamilton and Darry Thornton.

The complaint alleges that the university favor admissions
counselors who belong to the Jesus Christ of the Latter-day
Saints over those who do not.  Non-members are allegedly treated
"less favorably" in enrolment leads, tuition waivers, and
reprimands.

The complaint also alleges that the university retaliated
against the four men after they complained internally,
transferring all of them and ultimately dismissing one of them.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the suit seeks an injunction
barring the university from discriminating based on religion and
from retaliating based on complaints about unlawful practices;
an order instructing the institution to set up policies to
provide equal employment opportunities for non-members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; a written apology;
financial compensation and reinstatement for the affected
employees; and unspecified punitive damages.

The case is before Judge Earl Carroll.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Mary Jo O'Neill, attorney of the Phoenix office of
the EEOC.


UST LIQUIDATING: Calif. Judge Finds No Wrongdoing in Veeder Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court found no ground for breach of fiduciary duty
against UST Liquidating Corp. when it sold Veeder-Root Service
Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher Corp.

In June 2000, a class action complaint was filed against the
company and certain other parties on behalf of common
shareholders of the company.  

The complaint alleged that the company and other parties
breached their fiduciary duty to the company's common
shareholders in connection with the Veeder-Root sale
transaction.

After filing the complaint, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary
injunction, which was denied.  Subsequently, defendants'
demurrer to the complaint was sustained, without leave to amend.

The court of appeal reversed the order, though it did limit the
scope of the plaintiffs' case, and the parties have been
litigating the case following the appellate court reversal.  

A trial was held in March and April 2006.  In July 2006, the
court issued its decision, finding no liability on behalf of the
company.  

The court issued a statement of decision ruling that the
business judgment rule applied, because there were disinterested
directors in the decision process and that even if the case is
analyzed under the inherent fairness test, the transaction was
fair and the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving
breach of duty.


VITAMIN CASES: Dec. 2006 Hearing Set for $8.834M Antitrust Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, County of San Francisco will hold
a fairness hearing on Dec. 13, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed $8,834,900 settlement of the consolidated class action,
"Vitamin Cases, No. 301803."

The court will hold the hearing at the superior Court for the
City and County of San Francisco, Dept. 505, 400 McAllister St.,
San Francisco, California 94102-4514.

Deadline for submission of any proof of claim is on or before
Dec. 16, 2006.  Any objections and exclusions to and from the
settlement must be filed by Nov. 8, 2006.

In the suit plaintiffs claim that class members paid more for
vitamins, because defendants violated the antitrust and consumer
protection laws of California.  

The settling defendants are:

      -- E. Merck,
      -- EM Industries, Inc., (n/k/a EMD Chemicals, Inc.),
      -- Merck KGaA,
      -- Akzo Nobel, Inc.,
      -- Degussa AG and Degussa Corp.,
      -- Lonza AG,
      -- Nepera, Inc.,
      -- Reilly Industries, Inc., and Reilly Chemicals S.A.,
      -- Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc. and Sumitomo Chemical
         Co., Ltd.,
      -- Tanabe Seiyaku Co., Ltd., and Tanaba U.S.A., Inc., and
      -- UCB Pharma, Inc.

Indirect Vitamin Products include:

      -- vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3 (Niacin       
         and niacinamide), B4 (choline chloride), B5 (calpan),    
         B6, B9 (folic acid), B12 (cyanocobalamine pharma), C,       
         E, or H (biotin) astaxanthin, beta-carotene, or
         canthaxanthin;

      -- products containing or constituted of any of the
         vitamins listed above, including bends and mixes; and

      -- products derived from animals that consumed any of     
         vitamin or product listed above.

Two classes are defined in the case.  One class is the Consumer
Settlement Class that includes all California residents who
purchased indirect vitamin products between Jan. 1, 1990 and
Dec. 31, 1999 for their own sale and not for resale.  

The other class is the Commercial settlement class, which
includes all persons and entities that made any Qualifying
Purchases.

The Qualifying Purchases is a purchase between Jan. 1, 1990 and
Dec. 31, 1999 of indirect vitamin products for resale, for
incorporation into another product for resale, or for use in the
manufacture, processing or development or another product
(including the feeding of an animal) for resale, where the
purchase was:

      -- by a purchaser in California;

      -- from a seller in California; or

      -- delivered by or on behalf of the seller to the
         purchaser in California, if the buyer's principal place
         of business is in California.

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


WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: To Enter Discovery in Sedora Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westland Development Co., Inc. remains a defendant in the
purported class action filed by Maria Elena A. Rael on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on
behalf of Westland Development, Inc., against company directors:

     -- Barbara Page,
     -- Sosimo S. Padilla,
     -- Jose S. Chavez,
     -- Josie Castillo,
     -- Charles V. Pena, Georgia Baca,
     -- Troy K. Benavidez,
     -- Ray Mares, Jr.,
     -- Randolph M. Sanchez, and
     -- Doe Defendants 1-100, and
     -- Westland Development Co., Inc., nominal defendant

The case is CV-2006-01756.

The suit was filed on March 2, 2006 in the state of New Mexico,
County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District.  It purports to
be a shareholder class and derivative action on behalf of all
shareholders of Westland and Westland.  

The action seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
compensatory and punitive damages arising out of Westland's
then-proposed merger with Sedora Holdings of New Mexico (SHNM).  
The individual defendants are all directors of Westland.

The complaint purports to allege ten claims for relief against
certain individual director defendants including:

      -- that they breached their fiduciary duty by entering
         into the merger agreement with SHNM;

      -- that they acquired Westland common stock while in
         possession of inside information;

      -- that they misappropriated information relating to
         Westland's financial condition;

      -- that they conspired with one another to perform the
         wrongful acts listed in the complaint; and

      -- that they engaged in corporate waste by awarding some
         director defendants lucrative severance contracts,
         enhanced indemnification provisions, obtaining
         additional director's and officer's liability insurance
         by removing restrictions on the transferability of
         certain shares of Westland stock and agreeing to
         severance payments.

In addition, plaintiff sought an order requiring Westland to
hold its annual meeting of shareholders and seeks an order in
the complaint to inspect certain corporate records under the New
Mexico Business Corporation Act.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief
including:

      -- declaring that the individual defendants breached their
         fiduciary duties when they entered into the merger
         agreements with ANM Holdings, Inc. and later with SHNM
         and that the agreements are "unlawful and
         unenforceable";

      -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the then-
         proposed merger with SHNM, "unless and until Westland
         adopts and implements a fair sale procedure or
         process";

      -- imposing a constructive trust in favor of Westland's
         shareholders over all oil and gas rights owned by
         Westland;

      -- ordering defendants to create and fund a permanent
         cultural heritage committee to oversee the creation and
         operation of a museum of Atrisco history as well as
         publishing certain information about Atrisco history;

      -- ordering the defendants to ensure the perpetual
         operation of the cemeteries;

      -- ordering the publication of all documents associated
         with the then-proposed merger with SHNM in Spanish as
         well as English;

      -- ordering defendants to hold an annual shareholder
         meeting;

      -- awarding an unspecified amount of compensatory damages;
        
      -- awarding an unspecified amount of punitive damages; and
     
      -- awarding plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys'
         fees.

Discovery was stayed by the court on July 17, 2006, and until
the publication of the proxy statement relating to the current
merger agreement.  Since the proxy has been published, discovery
is again underway, and depositions are expected to occur in
October.  The parties have agreed upon a scheduling order.

Westland and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
original complaint.  Shortly before the hearings scheduled to
address the motions, plaintiff decided to file an amended
complaint, which is expected to assert claims similar to the
claims raised by the original complaint.

Westland Development Co., Inc. -- http://www.westlandnm.com/--  
is engaged principally in the development, marketing and leasing
of its real estate holdings, most of which are located near
Albuquerque, New Mexico.  Revenue consists primarily of proceeds
from land sales and governmental condemnations and rentals from
developed properties, such as single-tenant retail stores and
office space.  Land sales are primarily to commercial developers
and others in the Albuquerque area and certain governmental
agencies.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO 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 ADVO, Inc., during the period July 6, 2006 through Aug. 30th,
2006.  The matter is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to present the true financial
condition of ADVO in order to attempt to accomplish a buyout
transaction of all of ADVO's assets by Valassis Communications,
Inc.

The false and misleading information presented caused investors
to believe that the buyout transaction would occur, and caused
ADVO's stock to reach a high of $36.80.

On Aug. 30, 2006, Valassis announced that it had filed an action
to rescind its merger agreement with ADVO based upon ADVO's
false and misleading financial statements.  

This announcement caused ADVO's shares to plummet to
approximately $29 per share, from which the shares have not
recovered.

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

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.


CONNETICS CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Sept. 18, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Connetics Corp.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from June 28, 2004 through May 3, 2006.

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

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Announces Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.
between Feb. 19, 2004 and Mar. 24, 2006.  

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  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 business and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Encysive securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Nov. 27,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.


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.


MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing  
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Meade Instruments, Inc.
between Sept. 27, 2001 and Aug. 29, 2006.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Nov. 27,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


                            *********


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  * * *