CAR_Public/061011.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 202

                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Salaried Non-Exempt Retirees Yet Undecided on Action
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Pa. Securities Suit
BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif.
CANADA: BC Teachers' Federation Faces Lawsuit Over 2005 Protest
CARMAX INC: Faces Dealers' Act Violations Litigation in S.C.

CARRIER CORP: Faces Consumer Suits in Canada, Wis. Over Furnaces
CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: New Judge Assigned to La. Fraud Suit
CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Execs. Sued in Wake of Accounting Review
CONAGRA FOODS: Court Dismisses Stock Suits Without Prejudice
DINNER BELL: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli Contamination

FIRST DATABANK: Settles Mass. Litigation Over Medicine Prices
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholders Challenge $15.1B Sale
ILLINOIS: Suit Over Special Education Budget Cuts Goes to Court
ILLINOIS: Chicago Faces Lawsuit Over Red Light Camera Program
IMMUCOR INC: Ga. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

INDIAN TRUST: Lawyer Harper Carps About Pace of Settlement Bill
LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Ohio City Sued Over Plan to File Lawsuit
MANDATORY POSTER: May Face Lawsuit Over Hand-Washing Campaign
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Suit Over False Advertising in Calif.
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: New Complaint Filed in Calif. Stock Lawsuit

MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit Over Sale to Private Equity Firms
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Judge Sets Deadline for $5M Settlement Report
OHIO: Settlement Reached for Extra Medicaid Community Services
PALM INC: N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
PALM INC: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Suits Over Treo Products

POLYMEDICA CORP: Court Denies Certification of Disputed Period
PT PERTAMINA: Indonesian Agents Plan Lawsuit Over Supply Cuts
SINA CORP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: FJC Report Says CAFA's Impact Swift, Significant
WELLS FARGO: Settles Calif. Overtime Wage Lawsuit for $12.8M


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IMAX CORP: Bruce G. Murphy, Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Lawsuit
TVIA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


AK STEEL: Salaried Non-Exempt Retirees Yet Undecided on Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 50 people attended an Oct. 5 information meeting for
non-exempt retirees of AK Steel Corp. who were left off a
preliminary injunction barring the company from implementing
increases in its former workers' health-insurance costs.

AK Steel is facing a class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking preliminary
injunction against planned increases in pensioners' insurance
cost.  AK Steel retirees used to co-pay office visits and
prescription drugs only.  But in June, the company informed
retirees that they have to pay premiums for their health
benefits.  

The change was to take effect Oct. 1, but Judge Michael R.
Barrett upheld a preliminary injunction barring AK Steel Corp.
from doing so (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

The salaried non-exempt and hourly employees are included as
plaintiffs in the civil suit; however, those retirees were left
off the preliminary injunction because they "didn't have all the
facts and the means to file anything on behalf of those folks."

Lead attorney Sally Tedrow, of the Washington D.C.-based
O'Donoghue and O'Donoghue law firm, would not speculate on the
time line on the suit, the Middletown Journal reports.

According to Ms. Tedrow, the case is still in the discovery
phase following an appeal of the preliminary injunction by the
company.  She also refused to speculate whether an additional
preliminary injunction would be filed on behalf of the salaried
non-exempt retirees.

In July, nine retirees filed a suit in Cincinnati alleging
breach of labor contracts and of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act welfare plans.   

AK Steel also filed a lawsuit seeking judgment on the legality
of its planned changes, but later withdrew the case to
facilitate a "rapid resolution" to the case.

The retirees' complaint seek to represent two classes consisting
of:

     -- hourly production, maintenance and service employees;  
        and

     -- salaried non-exempt employees.

Included are spouses, surviving spouses and or dependents of
individuals, who worked under collective bargaining agreements
negotiated between the company and the Armco Employees
Independent Federation or a predecessor, who retired from such
employment between 1950 and the present, and whose retiree
benefits the company proposes to unilaterally change or
eliminate or seeks a declaration of its rights to do so.

The suit alleges violations of both the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

AK Steel has filed an appeal, said Alan McCoy, the company's
vice president, government and public relations.  An appeal
hearing has not been scheduled.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfa

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing the plaintiffs are David Marvin Cook and Stephen A.
Simon, 22 West Ninth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
721-6500 and 513-721-7500, E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com and
ssimon@dmcllc.com.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Pa. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Amkor Technology, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action, "Nathan
Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.," was filed in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.  Subsequently, other law firms have filed related
cases, which will likely be consolidated with the initial
complaint.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that Amkor engaged in
"channel stuffing" and made certain materially false statements
and omissions in its disclosures during the putative class
period of October 2003 to July 2004.

On Aug. 15, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional officer, director and former director defendants and
alleging improprieties in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly
recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles and made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in
violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from
July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Civil Procedure 23 of the Federal Rule, compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, and such other further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "In Re: Amkor Technology Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00610-LP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Louis H. Pollak
with referral to Judge M. Faith Angell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, P.O. Box
         30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235, E-
         mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com; and

     (2) Evan J. Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
         Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-6200,
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Patrick Loftus of Duane Morris, LLP, 30 South 17th
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396, Phone: 215-979-
         1367, E-mail: loftus@duanemorris.com; and

    (ii) Karen T. Stefano of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, US, Phone:
         650-849-3405, E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. remains a defendant in a purported sex and
race discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, according to its
Oct. 5, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Aug. 26, 2006.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the suit, "Jasmen Holloway, et al. v Best Buy  
Co., Inc.," was filed, alleging that the company discriminates  
against women and minority individuals on the basis of gender,  
race, color and/or national origin with respect to the company's  
employment policies and practices.  

The action seeks an end to discriminatory policies and  
practices, an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and  
injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class  
members.  

The suit is "Holloway et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No.  
3:05-cv-05056-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California under Judge Maria-Elena James.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joshua Konecky, Clint J. Brayton, Todd M. Schneider and  
         W.H. Hank Willson, IV of Schneider & Wallace, 180  
         Montgomery St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104,  
         Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax: (415) 421-7105, E-mail:  
         jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com,  
         cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com,  
         tschneider@schneiderwallace.com and  
         wwillson@schneiderwallace.com; and  

     (2) Eve H. Cervantez, James M. Finberg, Bill Lann Lee,  
         Daniel M. Hutchinson and Gena E. Wiltsek of Lieff,  
         Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Embarcadero Center
         West, 275 Battery St., 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA  
         94111, Phone: 415/956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-
         mail: ecervantez@lchb.com, JFinberg@lchb.com and  
         blee@lchb.com.


CANADA: BC Teachers' Federation Faces Lawsuit Over 2005 Protest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria lawyer R. Bruce Hallsor initiated a class action in
Victoria against the British Columbia Teachers' Federation over
an illegal strike it held last year, the Vancouver Province
reports.

Seven people, who claim they lost money when teachers walked off
the job last fall, are named in the suit:

     -- Patricia Anderson,
     -- Ruth Balfour,
     -- Roy Bernard,
     -- Ivy Bogaert,
     -- Helen Brand,
     -- Christine Gruber and
     -- Bobbie Laware.

According to the statement of claim, plaintiffs are seeking
damages that range from a few hundred dollars, up to nearly
$9,000.

Ms. Bogaert has claimed a loss of $8,800 for wages lost when she
was unable to accept a job offer because she had to stay home
with her two children.

Meanwhile, Ms. Brand is claiming a loss of US$127 in lost
business and CDN$30 in extra school supplies for her Grade 1
son.

On Oct. 7, 2005, 38,000 teachers in British Columbia walked off
the job and stayed out for 10 days to protest Bill 12, the
Teachers Collective Agreement Act, which froze their expired
contract to June 2006.

The union has yet to file a statement of defense.


CARMAX INC: Faces Dealers' Act Violations Litigation in S.C.  
------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action filed in
the Court of Common Pleas in Aiken County, South Carolina, which
alleges that the company is violating the state's Regulation of
Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act or otherwise known
as Dealer's Act.

On Aug. 29, 2006, Heather Herron, and others, filed the putative
class action against 51 South Carolina automobile dealers,
including CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.  The company operates
two of its 71 superstores in the state of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants are violating South
Carolina's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers
Act by:

      -- presenting their respective processing fees in a manner
         that gives consumers the impression that charging the
         processing fees is required by law; and

      -- excluding their respective processing fees from the
         advertised prices of their vehicles.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages equal to two times
actual damages and punitive damages equal to three times actual
damages.  The complaint, however, does not specify a dollar
amount of damages.  

Plaintiffs alternatively seek equitable relief in the form of a
permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from deceptively
charging future consumers such processing fees and the
disgorgement of all such processing fees collected since Aug.
29, 2002.  They also seek to recover attorneys' fees.

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, CarMax, Inc. (NYSE: KMX) --
http://www.carmax.com-- is a retailer of used cars in the U.S.   
The company purchases, reconditions, and sells used vehicles.  
As of Feb. 28, 2006, CarMax had 67 superstores in 31 U.S.
markets.  CarMax also sells new vehicles under franchise
agreements with four new car manufacturers.  During the fiscal
year ended Feb. 28, 2006 (fiscal 2006), new vehicles comprised
7% of the company's total retail vehicle unit sales.  CarMax
provides its customers with a range of related products and
services, including the financing of vehicle purchases through
CarMax Auto Finance, the company's own finance operation, and
third-party lenders, the sale of extended service plans and
accessories, the appraisal and purchase of vehicles directly
from consumers, and vehicle repair service.


CARRIER CORP: Faces Consumer Suits in Canada, Wis. Over Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners in Wisconsin and Ontario filed separate class actions
against Carrier Corp., the manufacturer of Carrier and Bryant
condensing furnaces.  The furnaces are also marketed under the
brand names "Day & Night" and "Payne."

The homeowners allege that beginning in the mid-1980s, Carrier
started manufacturing its high-end furnaces out of inferior
material that corrodes and prematurely fails, without disclosing
that fact to consumers.

"In Canada, homeowners run their furnaces for at least five
months of the year," stated Joel Rochon, counsel for plaintiffs
in the action filed in Toronto, Ontario.  "It is of great
concern that Carrier would sell a furnace that could potentially
malfunction in the dead of winter."

"The technician who examined my furnace could not believe the
extent to which the heat exchangers were corroded," commented
Robert Andress of Brockville, Ontario, one of the plaintiffs in
the Ontario lawsuit.

"Carrier's warranty does not cover labor charges for replacement
of the failed part," stated Lester A. Pines, counsel for
plaintiff in the Wisconsin class action.  "Often homeowners are
faced with spending more than a thousand dollars to repair their
furnace, or they must buy a brand new furnace."

These lawsuits mark the second and third class actions filed
against Carrier Corp. for failing to disclose defects in its
furnaces.  In 2005, homeowners in the State of Washington filed
suit.

The complaints in each case allege that in the mid-1980s Carrier
stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor
of cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel.  Carrier switched
to the cheaper product despite the fact that the industry
standard was (and still is) to use stainless steel parts to
prevent corrosion.

Plaintiffs allege that the polypropylene separates from the
steel and degrades due to the high temperatures in the furnace,
exposing the underlying mild steel to acidic condensate.  In
some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger.

In the U.S., Carrier warrants the heat exchanger for the
lifetime of the original purchaser and for 20 years for
subsequent purchasers.  In Canada, Carrier warrants the heat
exchanger for 20 years.  Despite these warranties, plaintiffs
allege that Carrier's condensing furnaces fail prematurely and
well before their warranted and expected life.

The class action filed in Toronto, Ontario is brought on behalf
of all Canadians with the allegedly defective Carrier, Bryant,
Day & Night, or Payne furnaces.

The class action filed in Madison, Wisconsin brought on behalf
of the estimated 200,000 Wisconsin residents that own Carrier,
Bryant, Day & Night, or Payne furnaces.

Carrier/Bryant Condensing Furnace Consumer Protection Class
Actions on the Net: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/furnace.htm.

Representing plaintiffs in the Wisconsin action are attorneys
Lester A. Pines and Kira E. Loehr of Cullen Weston Pines & Bach
LLP, Phone: 608-251-0101; Lori Andrus of Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000; and the law firms Tousley
Brain Stephens PLLC, and Edward & Hagen PS.

In the Ontario action, Joel P. Rochon of Rochon Genova LLP,
Phone: 416-363-1867, serve as solicitors for plaintiffs.


CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: New Judge Assigned to La. Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new judge was assigned in a purported class action pending in
Louisiana state court against Centennial Communications Corp.,
according to the company's Oct. 5, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Aug. 31, 2006.

In one of several lawsuits against the company, plaintiffs have
alleged, depending on the case, breach of contract,
misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating to its
billing practices, including rounding up of partial minutes of
use to full-minute increments, billing send to end, and billing
for unanswered and dropped calls.  

The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific
monetary damages and are seeking certification as a class
action.

A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held
on Sept. 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana.  Subsequent to
such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the
plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class-action status in
December 2004.  The decision of the court with respect to class
certification is still pending.  In 2006, a new judge was
assigned to the case.

Wall, New Jersey-based Centennial Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:
CYCL) -- http://www.centennialcom.com-- is a regional wireless  
and broadband telecommunications service provider serving
approximately 1.4 million wireless customers and approximately
337,700 access line equivalents in markets covering over 21
million Net Pops in the U.S. and the Caribbean.  In the U.S.,
Centennial is a regional wireless service provider in small
cities and rural areas in two geographic clusters covering parts
of six states in the Midwest and Southeast.  In the company's
Puerto Rico-based Caribbean service area, which also includes
operations in the Dominican Republic and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Centennial is a facilities-based, integrated
communications service provider offering both wireless and, in
Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, broadband services.


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Execs. Sued in Wake of Accounting Review
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a derivative
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of nominal defendant
Chordiant Software, Inc., against certain executive officers and
directors of Chordiant, the Phil Law Weblog reports.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Chordiant announced that it was requesting a
hearing before the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel in
response to the receipt of a NASDAQ staff determination letter
that was issued when Chordiant's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2006 was delayed.

As previously announced on July 24, 2006, the audit committee of
the company's board of directors is conducting an independent
review of Chordiant's historical stock option grant practices
and related accounting.

For more information, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal-Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Phone: (800) 776-6044, E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com, Website:
http://www.seattleclassaction.com.


CONAGRA FOODS: Court Dismisses Stock Suits Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of Nebraska granted
defendants' motion to dismiss several securities fraud lawsuits
against ConAgra Foods, Inc.  The court, though, granted leave
for plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Three purported class actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska:

      -- "Berlien v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No.
         805CV292," filed on June 21, 2005,

      -- "Calvacca v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No.
         805CV00318," filed on June 30, 2005, and

      -- "Woods v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No.
         805CV493," filed on July 26, 2005.

Each lawsuit is against the company and its former chief
executive officer.  The suits allege violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the events resulting in the
company's April 2005 restatement of its financial statements and
related matters.

Each complaint seeks a declaration that the action is
maintainable as a class action and that the plaintiff is a
proper class representative, unspecified compensatory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief deemed proper by
the court.  

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss these lawsuits with leave for plaintiffs to amend their
complaint, according to its Oct. 5, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Aug. 27, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "David P. Berlien, et al. v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al." filed in the U.S. District Court
for District of Nebraska.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

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

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

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

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

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

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


DINNER BELL: Recalls Beef Products Due to E. Coli Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dinner Bell Meat Products, Inc. of Lynchburg, Virginia, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 909 pounds of beef that may be contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7.

The products subject to recall are:

     -- 10-pound bags of "Dinner Bell Ground Beef."  The
        products were produced between July 31 and Aug. 17,
        2006;

     -- 10-pound box of "Dinner Bell Cubed Steak."  The product
        was produced on Aug. 9, 2006; and

     -- 80-pound box of "Dinner Bell Boneless Beef."  The
        product was produced on Aug. 14, 2006.

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 7440" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The problem was discovered through company testing.  FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
this product.

The products were distributed to retail establishments and a
distributor in southern Virginia.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to food borne illness.

Media with questions about the recall may contact company owner
G.D. Gilliam at (434) 847-7766.  Consumers with questions about
the recall may contact the company HACCP coordinator Maggie
Hancock at (434) 847-7766.


FIRST DATABANK: Settles Mass. Litigation Over Medicine Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
First DataBank, Inc., a publisher of prescription drug prices,
reached a tentative settlement in the class action, "New England
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First Databank, Inc.,
et al.," which alleges that it had conspired to increase the
price of medicines, The Associated Press reports.

As part of the settlement, filed on Oct. 5, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the company
has agreed to eventually stop publishing its controversial list
of wholesale medicine prices that several critics have blamed
for driving up drug costs.

The suit's plaintiffs, the New England Carpenters Health
Benefits Fund and the AFSCME District Council 27 Health and
Security Plan, say that the settlement will save health plans $4
billion.  It still requires court approval though.

Filed on June 2, 2005, the suit alleges that the company, which
produces a list of the average wholesale price of numerous
drugs, conspired with drug wholesaler McKesson Corp. to
manipulate the price of medicines to benefit that company's
customers.  

McKesson Corp. is not part of the settlement.  In a press
statement, it maintains that it did not conspire with First
DataBank to raise the published average wholesale prices of
drugs.

Under the settlement, First DataBank, a unit of Hearst Corp.,
also agreed to lower the list of average wholesale prices.  That
in turn will reduce the spread between what pharmacies pay for
drugs and what health plans pay pharmacies.  Essentially, the
smaller spread means lower prices for health plans.

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) George E. Barrett of Barret Johnston & Parsley, 217
         Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601, Phone: 615-
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com;

     (2) Jennifer Fountain Connolly of The Wexler Firm, LLC,
         2000 One LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
         346-2222, Fax: 312-346-0022, E-mail: jfc@wtwlaw.us;

     (3) Barbara Mahoney of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, US,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         barbaram@hbsslaw.com; and

     (4) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., 1818 Market Street,
         Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-496-
         0300, Fax: 215-496-6611,
         E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site:
         http://www.srk-law.com.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholders Challenge $15.1B Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
Two Harrah's Entertainment Inc. investors filed a suit in
Delaware Chancery Court challenging the sale of the company to
Apollo Management and Texas Pacific Group, The Salt Lake Tribune
reports.

Henoch Kaiman and Joseph Weiss consider the $15.1 billion offer
from the buyout firms as too low.  Their suit alleges that the
transaction is an "apparent camouflaged management buyout."

Shareholders contend that chairman Gary Loveman "expects to be
part of an eventual deal."

"Private equity investors are looking to capitalize on the
company's bright future while excluding stockholders from
realizing similar returns," the shareholders said, according to
the report.

Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, Harrah's Entertainment,
Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary, Harrah's Operating
Co., Inc., operates 37 casinos, primarily under the Harrah's,
Caesar's, and Horseshoe brand names.  Revenues for the twelve-
month period ended June 30, 2006 were approximately $9 billion.


ILLINOIS: Suit Over Special Education Budget Cuts Goes to Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge heard arguments in a class action seeking to
reverse special education budget cuts by the Chicago Public
Schools, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Plaintiffs argue the cuts violate a 1999 settlement agreement
prohibiting segregation of special ed students.

Access Living, Designs for Change, Equip for Equality and Family  
Resource Center on Disabilities filed a federal complaint with
the court-appointed monitor in the class action, "Corey H., et
al. v. Bd. of Education, et al., Case No. 1:92-cv-03409" (Class
Action Reporter, July 3, 2006).

The advocacy groups for children with disabilities alleged in
its complaint that the elimination of 200 special education
teachers and 750 teacher aides in the Chicago Board of Education
fiscal year 2007 budget is illegal because it violates the
case's settlement agreements.

According to the groups' press release, the Chicago Board is
seeking to balance its budget by cutting $26.5 million in staff
services to the group of students who are already the most
vulnerable and lowest achieving in the school system.

                       Case Background

Filed on May 22, 1992, the class action was brought on behalf of
all children who are or will be identified by the Chicago Public
Schools as having a disability and who are entitled to receive
special education services.   

It was brought against both the Board of Education of the City
of Chicago and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)
claiming that, as a result of their policies and practices,
children with disabilities were not educated in the least
restrictive environment as required by federal law.  On Feb. 1,
1993, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.   

In August 1997, the plaintiffs and the defendant Chicago Board
reached a tentative settlement.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement with the Chicago Board on Oct. 23, 1997.   

The court conducted a fairness hearing regarding the proposed
settlement on Jan. 16, 1998, and entered an order approving the
settlement agreement on that date.

From Oct. 20, 1997, through Oct. 23, 1997, the case against ISBE
went to trial.  In February 1998, the court issued findings of
liability against ISBE.

In mid-December 1998, the plaintiffs and ISBE reopened
negotiations regarding possible settlement.  On March 24, 1999,
the court preliminarily approved the ISBE agreement.  A fairness
hearing was held on June 18, 1999, following which the proposed
agreement was approved and finalized.

For more details, contact Laura Rhyner, or Donald R. Moore, Ed.  
D., Phone: 312-236-7252 ext. 242 and 312-236-7252 ext. 236, E-
mail: lrhyner@designsforchange.org and
donmoore@designsforchange.org.   


ILLINOIS: Chicago Faces Lawsuit Over Red Light Camera Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Bloomingdale resident and two local businesses filed a lawsuit
challenging the city of Chicago's "Red Light Camera" enforcement
program.

The suit was filed in Circuit Court of Cook County by Parveen
Idris, Binder Electric Service Co. of Skokie, and KJJ Enterprise
Inc. of Bensenville, against:

     -- the city of Chicago,
     -- Chicago Office of Emergency Management and
        Communications,
     -- Chicago Dept. of Revenue,
     -- Chicago Dept. of Administrative Hearings, and
     -- city Mayor Richard Daley

The case claims the camera program violates their civil rights
because, among other things, it metes out $90 tickets to car
owners regardless of whether they were behind the wheel at the
time of the offense.  It also claims violations of Illinois
Statues, due process provisions of the Illinois Constitution,
Equal Protection Provisions of the Illinois Constitution
(Leasing Classification, Ordinance Prosecution Classification,
Procedural).  It also alleges that the program is in conflict
with Chicago Municipal Code.

The suit seeks to certify a class of: persons of entities who,
prior to May 22, 2006 received a complaint for Red Light
Violation; persons of entities who, on or after May 22, 2006
received a complaint for Red Light Violation; and all persons
and entities who have been charged an additional fine of $90.00
for have not timely complied with the payment provisions
required under any section or subpart of Title 9, Chapter 102 of
the Municipal Code of Chicago.

It wants the defendants to disgorge all wrongfully taken funds
with pre-judgment interest.

A copy of the complaint is available for free at:
  
          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1332

Representing the plaintiff is Robert A. Holstein, Holstein Law
Offices, 19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 906-8000; C. Corey S. Berman, Law Office of C. Corey S.
Berman, Ltd., 19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL
60603 (312) 263-0133.  


IMMUCOR INC: Ga. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action against Immucor, Inc.

Between Aug. 31 and Oct. 19, 2005, a series of 10 class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers alleging violations of the
securities laws.

The court has consolidated these cases for disposition as, "In
re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276-
WSD," designated lead plaintiffs, permitted the filing of an
amended consolidated complaint, and established a schedule for
briefing the company's motion to dismiss the claims.

The consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between
Aug. 16, 2004 and Aug. 29, 2005, alleges that company stock
prices during that period were inflated as a result of material
misrepresentations or omissions in the company's financial
statements and other public announcements regarding its
business.

On Mar. 7, 2006, the company timely moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Oct. 4, 2006, the court denied the
company's motion to dismiss, according to the company Oct. 5,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Aug. 31, 2006.

Discovery has not yet begun.  The court made no determination
whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be
allowed to proceed as a class action.

The suit is "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No.
1:05-CV-2276-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, e-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;

     (2) Michael Ira Fistel, Jr. of Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 1117
         Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338,
         Phone: 770-392-0090, e-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com;

     (3) Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco, 1360 West 9th
         Street, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: 216-522-
         9000, e-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Emmet J. Bondurant, II and
Jeffrey O. Bramlett of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West
Peachtree Street, N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA
30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4126 and 404-881-4100, E-mail:
bondurant@bmelaw.com and bramlett@bmelaw.com.


INDIAN TRUST: Lawyer Harper Carps About Pace of Settlement Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Harper, the attorney who is deeply involved in the
protracted class action, "Cobell v. Norton," which involves
billions of dollars owed to Native American landowners said that
it won't surprise him if the Interior Department drags its feet
long enough to derail a legislative settlement, Indian Country
Today reports.  

Formerly with the Native American Rights Fund and now a partner
at the law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton, Mr. Harper though
believes that a settlement is still possible.

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its chairman Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz, came up with the deal, which would offer $8
billion to the plaintiff class in return for a settlement of
claims against the government.

However, the Interior Department has been slow to respond to the
proposal, which in turn has earned the criticism of Sen. McCain.  
The senator took over the SCIA chairmanship in 2005, promising
to make trust reform a priority during his stint.  In January
though he is expected to move on to the chairmanship of the
Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Harper, who is representing the lead plaintiff in the case,
Elouise Pepion Cobell, has said that the likelihood of anything
getting enacted this year is very slim (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 10, 2006).

The longest and largest class action brought against the federal
government, it already has dragged through two presidential
administrations and six congressional sessions.

Mr. Harper said of the Interior Department, "They are perfectly
consistent in their behavior.  Every time there is a chance to
resolve this issue ... they obfuscate and they undermine that
possibility."  

According to Mr. Harper, ongoing discussions on the settlement
legislation are confidential as to specifics.  However, a few
changes should be made if the bill is going to be "somewhat
fair."

He explains that the $8 billion figure is inadequate as straight
compensation for losses from the accounts.  But accepting the
sum would achieve at least a measure of justice for aged account
holders while they are still alive.

One essential change Mr. Harper wants is that the bill must
include an opt-out provision for unlitigated non-Cobell claims,
which would apply especially to landowners.  He adds though that
a limited opt-out might be acceptable just as long as an opt-out
clause is included.

Despite his comments on the Interior Department and other
developments on the matter, Mr. Harper believes that the
settlement legislation still has a chance of being passed in the
current 109th Congress, notwithstanding the abbreviated working
schedule of an election year.

                        Case Background

Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, filed
the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.  It seeks to force the federal
government to account for billions of dollars belonging to
approximately 500,000 American Indians and their heirs, and held
in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.  

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest
form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to
surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;  
  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;  
  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:  
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and
  
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:  
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.  

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact

     (1) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

     (2) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and
   
     (3) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Ohio City Sued Over Plan to File Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Toledo in Ohio was sued in federal court after
announcing it was planning to file a class action against lead-
based paint manufacturers, WTOL News 11 reports.

Sherwin-Williams Co. sued Toledo and East Cleveland after Toledo
Mayor Carty Finkbeiner said the city is joining Akron, Columbus
and Cincinnati in the lawsuit against paint manufacturers.  

"We think this suit is important to stop the trial lawyers from
stirring up what we view to be baseless litigation," Sherwin-
Williams company spokesman Bob Wells said.  Sherwin-Williams'
suit is also directed against cities that might file the same
case against the companies in the future.

The city is planning to file the suit to recoup the costs
associated with removing lead-based paint in Toledo's older
homes.  The money would also cover health-related costs.  

Lead paint was banned by the federal government in 1978.


MANDATORY POSTER: May Face Lawsuit Over Hand-Washing Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
Utah regulators are suing Mandatory Poster Agency Inc. of
Lansing for allegedly using illegal scare tactics to compel
grocery and convenience stores in the state into buying hand-
washing safety posters, the Provo Daily Herald reports.

Mandatory Poster, which does business as Utah Food Service
Compliance Center, has reportedly sent solicitation letters that
falsely claimed state and federal food codes have been amended
to include new laws that mandate hand-washing signage be posted
at the workplace.  It further claims that stores face fines of
up to $2,500, stand to lose their business license and possibly
face lawsuits if they fail to comply.

On Sept. 29, the state Division of Consumer Protection issued a
citation against the company for violations of the Utah Consumer
Sales Practices Act.  The company had 10 days to respond or face
$25,000 in fines for alleged deceptive trade practices
violations.

James Olsen, president of the Utah Food Industry Association,
and several Utah grocers, said Mandatory Poster's letter was
misleading because it quoted "specific citations of the federal
food code that Utah and many other jurisdictions in the nation
haven't adopted."

Mandatory Posters is facing similar charges and lawsuits in
Illinois and Missouri.

State officials say affected businesses may join a potential
class action against the company, the report said.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Suit Over False Advertising in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard W. Brown, who claims to be a guardian of an autistic
boy, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court over alleged
fraud, false advertising and negligent misrepresentation by
McDonald's Corp. and McDonald's Restaurants of California, CBS
reports.

The suit alleges that additives in McDonald's french fries
aggravated the boy's symptoms and caused him digestive problems.

According to the complaint, after eating fries at a McDonald's
restaurant at 27776 McBean Parkway in Valencia, the boy's autism
symptoms of aggression and tantrums increased, while his ability
to communicate and take care of himself diminished.

The lawsuit seeks restitution of $15,000 for the boy's medical
expenses, along with a share of profits made by the company for
the alleged misrepresentation and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs are also asking for class certification of the
lawsuit on behalf of other autistic children who they allege may
have been similarly harmed.

According to the lawsuit, up until Feb. 13, McDonald's
advertised and made official statements that its fries were safe
to eat and did not contain gluten or casein.

Court papers do not state the relationship between the guardian
and the child, nor specify the child's age, according to the
report.

Representing the plaintiff is Paul Alvarez at Ringler Kearney
Alvarez LLP, 633 West 5th Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles,
California 90071 (Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 213-473-1900, Fax:
213-473-1919.


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: New Complaint Filed in Calif. Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint was filed in the securities fraud class
action against Mercury Interactive Corp. that is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company's Oct. 5, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2005.

Starting Aug. 19, 2005, several securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, on behalf of
purchasers of the company's stock from October 2003 to November
2005.

The class actions were later consolidated as "In re Mercury
Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395."  
The original actions were:

      -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395";

      -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         3864";

      -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         4031"; and

      -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157.

The securities class action complaints allege, among other
things, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaints generally allege that the company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its business and operations, and seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.

On May 5, 2006, the court appointed the Mercury Pension Fund
Group, represented by Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP --
http://www.labaton.com/-- and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP --  
http://www.glancylaw.comas lead plaintiff and counsel.  

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 8,
2006.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
based on allegations that the company and the individual
defendants and the company's auditors made false or misleading
public statements regarding the company's business and
operations during the putative class period of Oct. 17, 2000 to
Nov. 1, 2005.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief against the defendants.  

The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel
with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Nicole Acton Jones of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 Bush
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-772-6032,
         Fax: 415-772-6268, E-mail:
         nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com;

     (2) Kirk Andrew Dublin of Jones Day, 555 California Street,
         26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-1500, Phone: 415-
         626-3939, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail:
         kdublin@jonesday.com;

     (3) Jeffrey S. Facter of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, 525
         Market Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105,
         Phone: 415-616-1100, Fax: 415-616-1199, E-mail:
         jfacter@shearman.com.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit Over Sale to Private Equity Firms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. is facing a class action in relation to
the buyout of the company by private equity firms Bain Capital
Partners L.L.C. and The Blackstone Group, the Dallas Business
Journal reports.

Antitrust regulators granted clearance to the $6 billion sale of
the arts and crafts retailer in September.  The transaction
recently got shareholder approval.  It is expected to close Nov.
4.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com-- is the  
world's largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing,
floral, home decor, and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist
and do-it-yourself home decorator.  As of Sept. 27, 2006, the
company owns and operates 911 Michaels stores in 48 states and
Canada, 165 Aaron Brothers stores, 11 Recollections stores, and
four Star Wholesale operations.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Judge Sets Deadline for $5M Settlement Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alex R. Munson of the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands ordered attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
class action against the Commonwealth's garment factories to
provide a written report on the progress of the settlement, the
Saipan Tribune reports.

The judge directed plaintiffs' attorneys or the claims
administrator, Gilardi & Co. LLC, to provide a written report to
the Garment Oversight Board as to how much of the over $5
million in checks being sent to 29,700 workers are returned or
uncollected no later than Feb. 2, 2007.

The report should specify how much of the funds remain in the
net settlement fund after the expiration of the 120-day period,
which will be on Jan. 26, 2007.

At a status conference on Sept. 29 in federal court, lawyer
Pamela Parker told the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands that a total of over $5 million in checks have
been mailed to about 29,700 workers for the settlement of the
class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2006).

Former Superior Court Judge Timothy H. Bellas, Garment Oversight
chairman, underscored the need for the board to be notified
about the checks when the 120 days expire so that they could
monitor the money.

Mr. Bellas pointed out that he asked for the Garment Oversight
to be notified upon the expiration of 120 days because, under
the settlement agreement, any money that can't be given out to
the workers will go to the Garment Oversight.

He said that, when the money goes to the GOB, the board has the
option to either send another payment out to the same people who
responded or use it for additional monitoring purposes.

Under the $20-million settlement, some $4 million would go to
the GOB's monitoring program.  Out of $4 million, GOB was
initially supposed to get $400,000 or 10 percent for the
repatriation fund.  Instead, the Garment Oversight got over
$350,000 because they did not get the full money that they were
supposed to get in the beginning since two garment factories did
not contribute into the settlement funds.

The board was created pursuant to the settlement to oversee the
monitoring program of the garment industry.

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions (Class Action
Reporter, May 29, 2006).

A settlement reached five years after, provides an award close
to $20 million.  The money is to be distributed as:  

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million  
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000  
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000  
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million  
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80  
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million

Defendants are represented by Pamela M. Parker of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax:
(619) 231-7423; and Steven P. Pixley and Eric S. Smith both of
Saipan, U.S. Pacific Territories (Mariana Islands).


OHIO: Settlement Reached for Extra Medicaid Community Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
The administration of Gov. Bob Taft reached an agreement to
settle the class action, "Martin v. Taft."   

A statement from the governor said that if the settlement is
endorsed by the next Governor and General Assembly, it will
provide opportunities for an additional 1,500 Ohioans with
mental retardation and other developmental disabilities:

     -- to be served through Medicaid-funded home- and
        community-based waivers; and

     -- allow for the funding and safeguards needed to assure
        these services.

The Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS) originally filed the case
in 1989 on behalf of citizens with disabilities seeking to
expand community residential services.  The agreement offers new
residential choices, including alternatives for individuals who
currently reside in institutional settings, but does not require
the closure of any public or private facilities.  The settlement
is conditional upon funding approval in Ohio's next biennial
budget.

"This settlement is expanding opportunities for people to
receive needed services in a manner consistent with the Ohio
Access plan, developed under the leadership of Governor Taft,"
said Kenneth W. Ritchey, Director of the Ohio Department of
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (ODMRDD).

"These opportunities are possible thanks to the support of the
Governor's office, the General Assembly, County Boards of MRDD
and many service providers and advocacy groups."

Since January 2000, the Taft administration has improved options
to serve people with disabilities in community settings by
increasing the availability of Medicaid-funded homes and
community waiver services.  Since 2000, enrollment in the
Individual Options waiver and the Level One waiver has increased
by more than 9,200 persons, so that today more than 15,000
individuals receive home and community-based waiver services.

The "Martin v. Taft" agreement was negotiated among
representatives of OLRS on behalf of plaintiffs, the Governor's
Office, ODMRDD, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services,
and the Attorney General's Office.  A fairness hearing for
public comment by interested parties will be scheduled in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.


PALM INC: N.Y. 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 Palm, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 5, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 1, 2006.

In June 2001, the first of several putative stockholder class
actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against certain of the underwriters for
Palm's initial public offering, Palm and several of its former
officers.

The complaints, which have been consolidated under the caption,
"In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01 CV 5613," assert that the prospectus from Palm's
March 2, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.

The complaints allege claims against Palm and the officers under
Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.  Certain of the complaints also allege claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

Similar complaints were filed against Handspring in August and
September 2001 in regard to Handspring's June 2000 initial
public offering.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in April 2002.  The
claims against the individual defendants have been dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs.  The
court denied Palm's motion to dismiss.

Special committees of both Palm's and Handspring's respective
Boards of Directors approved a tentative settlement proposal
from plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid
to plaintiffs by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and
an assignment to plaintiffs of certain claims the issuers,
including Palm and Handspring, may have against the
underwriters.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  On April 24,
2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection with the
motion for final approval of the settlement but has yet to rule
on that motion.

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


PALM INC: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Suits Over Treo Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. continues to face several purported consumer class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo
650 products.

In September and October 2005, these purported consumer class
actions were filed against the company:

      -- "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California; and

      -- "Palza v. Palm," filed in the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County.

All four complaints allege in substance that the company made
false or misleading statements regarding the reliability of its
Treo 600 and 650 products in violation of various California
laws and breached its warranty of these products.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement
of profits and injunctive relief.

In September 2005, a purported consumer class action entitled
"Gans v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03774-RMW" was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product.  

The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California
laws, the company made false or misleading statements regarding
automatic E-mail delivery to the Treo 650 product.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement
of profits and injunctive relief.

The company removed the "Palza" case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  Subsequently, all six
cases were related before a single judge in that court.  

The related cases are in the early stages, according to the
company's Oct. 5, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 1,
2006.

Sunnyvale, California-based Palm Inc., (NASDAQ: PALM) formerly
palmOne, Inc. -- http://www.palm.com/-- is a provider of mobile  
computing solutions.  The company offers Treo smartphones, as
well as handheld computers, add-ons and accessories.  It
distributes these products through a network of wireless
carriers and retail and business distributors worldwide.  Palm
Inc. sells products in two product lines: Treo smartphones and
Palm, Tungsten and LifeDrive handheld computers.  Its product
lines span the mobile computing device market.  They provide a
range of business productivity tools and entertainment
applications designed for business professionals and enterprise
users, as well as entry-level and digital media enthusiast
consumers.


POLYMEDICA CORP: Court Denies Certification of Disputed Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Judge Young of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit denied class certification for a proposed shareholder
class during a "disputed period" of Jan. 1, 2001, to Aug. 21,
2001 in the PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation.

On Nov. 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported class
action against the company and Steven J. Lee, the company's
former chief executive officer and chairman of the board, on
behalf of himself and purchasers of common stock.  

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various
statements were misleading with respect to the company's revenue
and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce fictitious
sales.  

Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company.  On July 30, 2001, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the complaints as, "In re:
PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-
12426-REK."  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Oct. 9,
2001.  The consolidated amended complaint extended the class
period to Oct. 26, 1998 through Aug. 21, 2001, and named as
defendants the company, Liberty Medical Supply, Inc., and
certain former officers of Liberty.  

On Sept. 8, 2004 the court certified the class.  On Sept. 21,
2004, the defendants filed a petition requesting that they be
permitted to appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.  

On Dec. 13, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a
decision in defendants-appellants' favor and entered an order
vacating the District Court's order certifying the class for the
period from January 2001 through August 2001 and remanding the
matter for further proceedings in the District Court.

On Feb. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion in the District
Court to re-certify the class for the period from January 2001
through August 2001, which the defendants opposed.

In a ruling entered Sept. 28, the court denied lead plaintiff
Thomas Thuma's motion to certify class for the period
Jan. 1, 2001, to Aug. 21, 2001 because his evidence indicates
only that PolyMedica's stock price responded to news on the five
biggest news days within the contested period.  

"It does not show what it did on other news days; it does not
show what it did on non-news days; and it is not a scientific
analysis of the relationship between news and stock price," the
court wrote.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?131c

The suit is "In Re Polymedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 00-12426-WGY" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

Representing the lead plaintiff is R. Allan Miller of Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., 800 Boylston Street, 25th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02199 (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-267-2300,
Fax: 617-267-8288.


PT PERTAMINA: Indonesian Agents Plan Lawsuit Over Supply Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of Kerosene Agents in Medan city, North Sumatra,
Indonesia is preparing to file a class action against state-
owned oil firm PT Pertamina for cutting down kerosene supply and
distribution days, The Jakarta Post reports.

The company has said its decision to cut its distribution days
from a previous 23 days a month to 20 days starting this month
is based on a decline in the kerosene quota nationwide, from 10
million to 9.9 million kiloliters.  The amount has to be split
equally among the company's eight marketing units across the
country.

The chairman of the kerosene dealers association, Mukhtar, said
four lawyers were preparing to file the lawsuit with the Medan
District Court.  The case is aimed at forcing Pertamina to
revoke its policy so that residents could have enough kerosene
supply.


SINA CORP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has dismissed, without leave to amend, a consolidated securities
class action complaint filed against SINA Corp. and certain of
its directors and officers.

In February 2005, multiple purported securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain officers
and directors of the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the first
quarter of 2005 ending on March 31, 2005.

The complaints sought unspecified damages on alleged violations
of federal securities laws during the period from Oct. 26, 2004
to Feb. 7, 2005.  The complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws through the issuance of false or
misleading statements during the class period covered.  

On July 1, 2005, Judge Naomi Buchwald consolidated the cases
under the caption, "In re SINA Corp. Securities Litigation," and
appointed as lead plaintiff:

     -- City of Sterling Heights General Employee's Retirement  
        System;  

     -- City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement  
        System; and  

     -- Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement  
        System (collectively the MAPERS Funds Group).  

The MAPERS Funds Group filed an amended consolidated complaint
on Sept. 9, 2005.  The complaints sought unspecified damages on
alleged violations of federal securities laws during the period
from Oct. 26, 2004 to Feb. 7, 2005.

On Sept. 25, 2006, Judge Buchwald issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
in its entirety, without leave to amend.  In the dismissal
order, Judge Buchwald held that "the complaint altogether fails
to support the conclusion that [SINA] acted with intent to
deceive or defraud the public or that they were reckless in this
regard."

The suit is "In re SINA Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:05-cv-02154-NRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach,  
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58  
         South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747,  
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:  
         srudman@lerachlaw.com and malba@lerachlaw.com; and  

     (2) Robert I. Harwood and Samuel Kenneth Rosen of Wechsler  
         Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York,  
         NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400, Fax: 212 753-3630, E-
         mail: rharwood@whesq.com and srosen@whesq.com.

Representing SINA Corp. and its directors and officers are
Robert P. Varian and Jonathan B. Gaskin of the law firm of
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


UNITED STATES: FJC Report Says CAFA's Impact Swift, Significant
---------------------------------------------------------------
A report by the Federal Judicial Center revealed that the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 has had a quick and noteworthy
impact on the nature of class actions filed in, or removed to,
federal court.  The report indicated a sharp increase in
contract and tort class actions, Marcia Coyle of The National
Law Journal reports.

Under CAFA, federal courts are given jurisdiction over class
actions in which the aggregate value of the claims exceeds $5
million, there are at least 100 class members and any member of
the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant.

However, federal courts do not have jurisdiction where two-
thirds or more of the class members and primary defendants are
citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed.

The center conducted a study of the law's impact on the
resources of the federal courts from July 1, 2001, through June
30, 2005, a time that spans the Feb. 18, 2005, effective date of
CAFA.  A study from 85 federal district courts showed that:

     -- class action filings in, or removals to, federal
        district courts post-CAFA brought class action activity
        to its highest level during the four-year period,
        averaging 11.96 cases per filing day from 10.48 cases
        per filing day before CAFA (July 1, 2001, through Feb.
        17, 2005);

     -- increases in class action activity during the post-CAFA
        period occurred primarily in the categories of suits
        likely to include state-law claims; and

     -- for more than 3 1/2 years before CAFA, contract cases
        made up only about 10 percent of all class actions, but
        only 4 1/2 months after CAFA, contract cases increased
        to 14.5 percent of class actions.

The report predicts contract class actions in federal courts if
this trend continues.

The report also showed that cases removed from state courts
increased from 18 percent of all class action activity to 23
percent of such activity; and cases based on diversity-of-
citizenship jurisdiction increased from 13 percent of all class
action filings and removals to 19 percent of such cases.

The FJC's September report is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1333


WELLS FARGO: Settles Calif. Overtime Wage Lawsuit for $12.8M
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has given preliminary approval to the
settlement of the overtime pay class action "Gerlach v. Wells
Fargo & Co."

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Wells Fargo & Co.,
     -- Wells Fargo Bank N.A, and
     -- Wells Fargo Services Co.

Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs will be entitled
to monetary payments, the amount of which will vary based on
length of employment with Wells Fargo in a covered position,
specific position held, salary, and whether the employee worked
in California (where the recovery would be greater) or
elsewhere.

The settlement resolves all of the named plaintiffs' and class
members' overtime claims against Wells Fargo in exchange for the
payment by defendants of $12.8 million.  Current and former
employees will be entitled to monetary compensation from a fund
created by the settlement.

In 2005, plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and approximately
4,500 current and former Wells Fargo employees nationwide, filed
a lawsuit, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and wage and hour laws,
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 11, 2005).

The FLSA collective and class action includes all persons who
worked for Wells Fargo as Business Systems Consultants or e-
Business Systems Consultants in Levels 2-6, at any time between
Feb. 9, 2002 and Sept. 2, 2006 in states other than California,
as well as people employed in those job positions and levels
between Aug. 29, 2001 to Sept. 2, 2006 in California.

The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo unlawfully characterizes
its business systems employees as "exempt" in order to deprive
them of overtime pay.  Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson
principal Todd F. Jackson stated, "Workers are entitled to
overtime pay unless they fall under one of the specified legal
exemptions to paying overtime.  Wells Fargo business systems
employees are not managers and they do not qualify for any
exemption under wage and hour laws."

Defendants deny any liability.

The suit is "Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 4:05-cv-
00585-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken, with referral
to Judge Maria-Elena James.

Representing the defendants are R. Brian Dixon, Nancy E.
Pritikin and Krista Stevenson Johnson all of Littler Mendelson,
PC, 650 California Street, 20th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94108,
Phone: (415) 433-1940, Fax: (415) 399-8447, E-mail:
bdixon@littler.com or npritikin@littler.com or
kjohnson@littler.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James M. Finberg and Jahan C. Sagafi both of Lieff
         Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street,
         30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Phone: 415-
         956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail: JFinberg@lchb.com
         or jsagafi@lchb.com;

     (2) Patrice L. Goldman, David A. Lowe, Kenneth John
         Sugarman and Steven Gary Zieff all of Rudy, Exelrod &
         Zieff LLP, 351 California Street, Suite 700, San
         Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415 434 9800, Fax: 415 434
         0513, E-mail: plg@reztlaw.com or dal@reztlaw.com or
         kjs@reztlaw.com or sgz@reztlaw.com;

     (3) Todd Jackson, Claire Kennedy-Wilkins and Michelle Lee
         Roberts all of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C.,
         1300 Broadway, Suite 1800, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone:
         510-839-6824, Fax: 510-839-7839, E-mail:
         tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com or
         ckwilkins@lewisfeinberg.com or
         mroberts@lewisfeinberg.com; and

     (4) Robert Ira Spiro of Spiro Moss Barness Harrison & Barge
         LLP, Fifth Floor, 11377 W. Olympic Blcd, Los Angeles,
         CA 90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, Fax: 310-235-2456, E-
         mail: ispiro@smbhblaw.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 1-2, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Hotel, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7, 2006
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

November 13-14, 2006
CORPORATE LIABILITY & COMPLIANCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

December 4-5, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

December 7-8, 2006
COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco

December 7-8, 2006
SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA

December 11-12, 2006
CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA

December 11-12, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Key Biscayne, FL

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 24, 2006
RETENTION ISSUES IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION FOR WOMEN
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25, 2006
A-Z OF WORKING WITH LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2006
ETHICAL PITFALLS OF THE IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL
RELATIONSHIP
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2006
THE CLAIMS HANDLING IMPLICATIONS OF MASS TORTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 31, 2006
LEGAL ETHICS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 1, 2006
KATRINA - WATER DAMAGE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 2, 2006
AVIAN FLU - INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7, 2006
WORLD TRADE CENTER - BUSINESS INTERRUPTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8, 2006
ASBESTOS INSURANCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2006
CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 13, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 14, 2006
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 15, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS - THE BIG DIG
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 15, 2006
ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 16, 2006
PATENT REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERIC DRUGS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 16, 2006
STRESS, DEPRESSION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17, 2006
AVIAN FLU - INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS (UK)
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 21, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #1 - HUMAN TISSUE LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 28, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #2 - FOSAMAX
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 28, 2006
WHITE COLLAR CRIME
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 29, 2006
RETAIL IN-HOUSE PERSPECTIVES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 4, 2006
IMMIGRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #3 - KETEK/TEQUIN
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
HEALTH CARE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6, 2006
DYNAMIC TRIAL TECHNIQUES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11, 2006
PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #4 - CONTACT LENS SOLUTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2006
E-DISCOVERY - HOW TO CREATE AN E-DISCOVERY PRACTICE TEAM AT YOUR
FIRM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2006
LEGAL ETHICS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

        
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IMAX CORP: Bruce G. Murphy, Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy and Wechsler Harwood, LLP,
filed on Aug. 18, 2006 a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 06-cv-
6313) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of IMAX Corp. who purchased during the period Feb.
17, 2006 through Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of IMAX securities.

During February and March 2006, the company issued press
releases touting the company's financial success, and indicated
the company's willingness to explore financial options.  A press
release issued as late as May 9, 2006 continued to mislead
investors concerning IMAX's true financial condition.

Then on Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX shocked the market by announcing that
it was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding revenue-recognition timing.  

The SEC's inquiry was focused on IMAX's recognition of revenue
in the fourth quarter of 2005 in 10 theaters not open during
that quarter.

Further, IMAX said that it had identified a "material weakness"
related to revenue-recognition issues in its second-quarter
financial report, leading to a reduction in revenue.

The press release also stated the company had yet to find an
investor to effectuate a merger or purchase.  After these
announcements the price of IMAX shares crashed, falling by
40.6%, or $3.91 on the following trading day.

The complaint alleges that IMAX and its top executives knew
during the class period that revenue was being improperly
recognized, but failed to make the necessary adjustments, thus
artificially inflating the price of the stock.

The complaint alleges that to affect a sale or merger of IMAX,
and to gain as high a price as possible for IMAX in such a
transaction, it was critical that the value of IMAX was
perceived to be high.

Therefore, IMAX and some of its top executives sought to bolster
the share price of the company by strategically recognizing
revenue when it most suited the company, even when such revenue
recognition policies violated accepted accounting principles.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Oct. 10,
2006 for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Bruce G. Murphy of the Law Offices of
Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963-3252,
Phone: 828-737-0500, E-mail: bgm@brucemurphy.biz.


TVIA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of purchasers
of TVIA, Inc. common stock d from Aug. 8, 2006 to Sept. 27,
2006, inclusive, including purchasers in the company's Private
Placement that was fully funded on Aug. 25, 2006.

The case (C-06-0304) is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California before the Honorable Ronald
M. Whyte.

The complaint charges that TVIA and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading revenue guidance for the company's second quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006 for fiscal 2007 (Q2 2007), and in engaging
in insider trading.

On Aug. 7, 2006, after market close and a month into Q2 2007,
the company announced that it expected revenues for Q2 2007, to
be "higher" than the prior quarter's reported revenues of over
$5 million.

Eight days later on Aug. 15, 2006, the company entered into
definitive agreements with private investors to sell over $11.9
million worth of the company's stock.

On Aug. 29, 2006, the company's vice president of worldwide
sales exercised and sold a significant portion of the company's
securities for gross proceeds over $600,000.

In the beginning of September 2006, with less than four weeks
left in Q2 2007, the company participated in an investor
conference sponsored by Roth Capital Partners.

The complaint alleges that at the Roth Conference the company
remained silent about the impending revenue implosion that would
follow.  Rather, as the complaint asserts, the company continued
to tout the company's performance -- misleading investors.

On Sept. 28, 2006, without any prior warning, the company
shocked the market when it announced that its Q2 2007 revenues
would not be "higher" than $5 million as previously announced,
but rather more than 90% less, or $300,000 to $400,000.

As a result of these adverse disclosures, the company's stock
lost nearly 59% of its value that day on extremely heavy volume.
These adverse disclosures also led to an analyst downgrade which
caused further declines.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Dec. 5,
2006 for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim of
The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060 and
(917) 797-4425, Fax: 212-202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site http://www.rosenlegal.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  * * *