CAR_Public/061018.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 207

                            Headlines

BISYS GROUP: Settles Consolidated N.Y. Stock Suit for $66.5M
BRITAX: Recalls Child Safety Seats that Fail Safety Standards
CALIFORNIA: San Francisco Hospital Faces ADA Violations Suit
CITADEL SECURITY: Dec. 15 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
COMCAST CABLE: Wins Appeal in Mich. Consumer's Privacy Lawsuit

CONNECTICUT: Tenants Plan Suit v. Stamford Over April 3 Fire
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Appeals Court Mulls Confidentiality Order
GARANTIE UNIVERSELLE: Settles Extended Warranty Suit for $575T
GEORGIA: Rights Groups Seek Injunction Against Sex Offender Law
GLOBE AND MAIL: Court Favors Freelance Writer in Copyright Suit

GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY: Award to Attorneys in Defamation Suit Upheld
GREYHOUND ADOPTION: Faces Ill. Fraud Suit Over "Dog Adoptions"
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: K&T Reminds Parties of Dec. 15 Opt-Out Cutoff
HERMAN FALTER: Recalls Pork Products for Listeria Contamination
HORIZON BLUE: Settles N.J. Litigation Over Doctors' Payments

ISRAEL: Lottery Faces Lawsuits Over Automated Machine Accuracy
KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Upholds City's Anti-Peddling Ordinance
LEGG MASON: Shareholder Files Suit in N.Y. Over Citigroup Deal
LG ELECTRONICS: Job Applicants File Suit Over Personal Info Leak
MICHIGAN: Injunction Filed Against Use of Restraints on Inmates

MICROSOFT CORP: $19M Legal Fee in Ariz. Antitrust Suit Upheld
MOBILE PHONE OPERATORS: French Firms Face EUR750T Damage Claims
NUNES CO: Recalls Lettuce Over Possible E. coli Contamination
RIDLEY INC: Canadian Rancher to File Suit Over Mad Cow Crisis
UAE: Dubai Sheiks Deny U.S. Abduction, Human Trafficking Charges

VILLAS PARKMERCED: Faces Calif. Suit Over Rebate Coupon Scheme
W-6 LIMITED: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Partnership Investors


* Cohen Milstein to Open Office in United Kingdom Next Year


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNECTICS CORP: Shepherd, Finkelman Announces Stock Suit Filing
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filing


                            *********


BISYS GROUP: Settles Consolidated N.Y. Stock Suit for $66.5M
------------------------------------------------------------
The BISYS Group, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle with
lead plaintiffs to settle the securities class action "In re
BISYS Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03840-LAK-GWG" and
a related securities action pending against it and certain of
its former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The proposed settlement involves claims relating to the
company's financial disclosures, including allegations
concerning its financial restatements filed in 2005 and 2006,
and is conditioned upon successful negotiation of definitive
documentation and approval by the court.

Under the proposed settlement, BISYS will pay an aggregate of
$66.5 million in cash into an escrow account within 10 days
after preliminary court approval.

The settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by
BISYS or any of the individual defendants, will be funded
through a combination of cash on hand, BISYS's existing credit
facility and available insurance proceeds under its $25 million
directors and officers liability policy.

BISYS is currently in discussions with its insurance carriers to
determine the final amount of available insurance proceeds.

"We are pleased to have reached this settlement and firmly
believe that it is in the best interest of the company and its
shareholders," said Robert Casale, chairman, and interim chief
executive and president of BISYS.  "We see this as a significant
step forward in putting the company's financial reporting issues
from the past behind us and allowing the company to focus on
growing its business and pursuing opportunities to maximize
shareholder value."

Following the company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results, seven putative class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers.

By order of the court, all but one of the putative class actions
was consolidated into a single action, and on Oct. 25, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.   

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the company's securities between Oct.
23, 2000 and May 17, 2004.  

It generally asserts that the company, certain of its officers,
and its independent auditors allegedly violated federal
securities laws in connection with the purported issuance of
false and misleading information concerning the company's
financial condition.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount as well as
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.  

On Dec. 23, 2004, the company, the individual defendants and the
company's independent registered public accounting firm filed
separate motions to dismiss the complaint.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the court dismissed certain claims under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to six of the individual
defendants, narrowed certain additional claims against the
company and the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
as to the company's independent registered public accounting
firm.  The court denied the motions to dismiss in all other
respects.  

The court granted leave for plaintiffs to file on or before Nov.
14, 2005, an amended complaint addressing the scienter of the
individual defendants and the independent registered public
accounting firm.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who acquired BISYS securities from the
company as part of private equity transactions during the period
Oct. 23, 2000 to May 17, 2004.

The complaint generally asserts that the company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the company's financial condition, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

By order of the court, on Nov. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint was consolidated into "In re BISYS
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03840-LAK-GWG," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with referral to Judge Gabriel W.
Gorenstein.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James Allen Carney and S. Gene Cauley both of Cauley
         Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC (ARK), 11311 Arcade
         Drive, Ste. 200, Little Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501)-
         312-8500, Fax: (501)-312-8501 or (501) 312-8505, E-
         mail: acarney@cauleybowman.com or
         gcauley@cauleybowman.com;

     (2) Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr. or George Theodore Peters
         both of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600
         or 212-545-4611, Fax: 212-545-4653 or  (212)-545-4758,
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com or peters@whafh.com; and

     (3) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 371-6600, Fax: (212) 751-2540, E-mail:
         ipress@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Elizabeth Anne Hellmann of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
         Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times Square, New York,
         NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-2590, Fax: 917-777-2590, E-
         mail: ehellman@skadden.com;

     (2) James J. Capra, Jr. and David M. Fine both of Orrick,
         Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 666 Fifth Avenue, New York,
         NY 10103, Phone: 212-506-5000 or 212-506-3793, Fax:
         212-506-5151, E-mail: jcapra@orrick.com or
         dfine@orrick.com;

     (3) Ronald Marc Daignault and David W. DeBruin both of
         Jenner & Block LLP (NYC), 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 891-1600 x 1610, Fax:
         (212) 891-1699, E-mail: rdaignault@jenner.com; and

     (4) Thomas J. Kavaler and Joel Laurence Kurtzberg both of
         Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 80 Pine Street, New York,
         NY 10005, Phone: (212) 701-3406 or 212-701-3000, Fax:
         212-269-5420, E-mail: tkavaler@cahill.com or
         JKurtzberg@cahill.com.


BRITAX: Recalls Child Safety Seats that Fail Safety Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Britax, in cooperation with the U.S. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, is recalling the "Companion" rear-facing,
infant-only child safety seat (Model E9L14), ConsumerAffairs.com
reports.

The company said, in a crash, the carrier may fail, resulting in
serious injury or even death to the child.  Because of incorrect
assembly of some of the infant carriers, tabs on the bottom of
the carrier may not be properly seated and the child restraints
fail to conform to federal standards.

Britax will notify all registered owners and ask them to inspect
the bottom of the carrier.

If the carrier was assembled incorrectly, Britax will replace
the carrier and the base free of charge.  However, owners are
advised that they may continue using the carrier without the
base until they receive a new restraint system.

Consumers with questions about this or any other safety recall
campaign should contact the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY:
1-800-424-9153).


CALIFORNIA: San Francisco Hospital Faces ADA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Six patients at Laguna Honda Hospital, San Francisco's public
long-term-care facility for the poor and disabled, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the city over alleged civil rights
violations, BizJournals reports.

The lawsuit questions the city's ongoing construction of a new
hospital that would continue to house people with disabilities.  
Critics say San Francisco is the only major city in the country
that's still running its own nursing home.  The suit says the
city is responsible for finding other community-based, long-term
care alternatives in the community.

The lawsuit said keeping people in such facility results "in the
unnecessary segregation and isolation" of Laguna Honda
residents, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and other federal and state laws.

According to Elissa Gershon, an attorney for the plaintiffs at
Protection and Advocacy Group Inc., a federally funded
Sacramento-based nonprofit that advocates on behalf of people
with disabilities, the case is not about stopping the rebuild,
it's about making sure that people aren't confined at Laguna
Honda, whether the old Laguna Honda or the new Laguna Honda,
simply because the buildings are built.  

Elizabeth Zirker, another Protection and Advocacy attorney also
said that the case is not just about patients with disabilities,
it's also a civil rights issue.  She was quoted as saying: "As
baby boomers and seniors age, they want to be at home, with
(needed) services," not warehoused in large institutions like
Laguna Honda.

The Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco, a local
nonprofit organization that advocates for and assists people
with disabilities, is also a plaintiff in the case, and the
Washington, D.C.-based AARP Foundation Litigation, an arm of the
national senior citizen's advocacy group, is co-counsel for the
plaintiffs.

The suit is "Chambers et al. v. City and County of San
Francisco, Case No. 3:06-cv-06346-WHA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Larisa M. Cummings and Arlene Brynne Mayerson both of
         the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.
         DREDF, 2212 Sixth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone:
         510-644-2555, Fax: 510-841-8645, E-mail:
         LCummings@dredf.org or AMayerson@dredf.org;

     (2) Elissa Gershon, Kimberly Swain and Elizabeth Zirker
         all of the Protection & Advocacy, Inc., 1330 Broadway
         Street, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510-267-
         1200, Fax: 510-267-1201;

     (3) Aaron Myers and Henry C. Su both of Howrey LLP, 1950
         University Ave., 4th Fl., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone:
         650 798-3500 or 650-798-3528, Fax: 650-798-3600, E-
         mail: Myersa@howrey.com or suh@howrey.com; and Joseph
         Song of Howrey LLP, 525 Market Street, Suite 3600, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-848-4900, Fax: 415-848-
         4999, E-mail: songj@howrey.com; and

     (4) Silvia Yee Attorney at Law, 2212 6th Street, Berkeley,
         CA 94710, Phone: 510-644-2555 x234, Fax: 510-841-8645,
         E-mail: syee@dredf.org.


CITADEL SECURITY: Dec. 15 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
hold on Dec. 15, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. a hearing regarding a
proposed settlements in the class action "Lentz v. Citadel
Security Software Inc et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00100" and the
derivative action "Baier v. Solomon et al., Case No.3:05-cv-
00846."

The class consists of all persons who:

      -- purchased common stock of Citadel Security Software,
         Inc. between Feb. 12, 2004 and Dec. 16, 2004,
         inclusive, excluding defendants, officers and directors
         of Citadel at all relevant times, members of their
         immediate families, and their legal representatives,      
         heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in which
         Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and/or

      -- are current holders of Citadel common stock.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas in the courtroom of the Honorable Sidney A.
Fitzwater.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Nov. 20, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Jan. 4, 2007.

In 2005, Citadel Security Software, Inc., its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer faced putative securities
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2005).

The suits were filed on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Citadel Security Software, Inc. from Feb. 12, 2004 through Dec.
16, 2004.  

The complaint charges the company, Steven B. Solomon, and
Richard Connelly with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  

According to the complaint, the company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

      -- that customer demand in the commercial portion of the
         company's business was slowing;

      -- that the much touted, sizable pipeline of potential
         contracts failed to materialize due to poor management
         execution;

      -- that as a consequence of the above the company's growth
         was lagging; and

      -- therefore, the defendants' statements about the company
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants sold a total of 754,500 shares for proceeds
totaling more than $3 million.

On Sept. 19, 2006, parties to the class action, "Lentz v.
Citadel Security Software Inc et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00100,"
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas agreed to settle the claims raised in the Class Action
pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Stipulation of
Settlement, after considering:

      -- the substantial benefit to the class that will be
         received as a result of this sttlement, compared to
         the distractions, expense and uncertainty of further
         litigation;

      -- the company's ability to fund a settlement, if the
         litigation continues to proceed; and

      -- the desirability of permitting the settlement to be
         consummated as provided by the terms of this
         stipulation, and have concluded that the settlement is
         fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
         of the class and the company.

Furthermore, plaintiffs' counsel in the derivative action "Baier
v. Solomon et al., Case No.3:05-cv-00846" pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, considered
the substantial benefit to the company that will be received as
a result of this Settlement in light of the harm that the
company would suffer if the derivative action continued to
proceed, and has concluded that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the company.

Under the settlement, defendants have agreed to create a
settlement fund of $1,750,000, for the benefit of class members.
The balance of the fund, after deduction of court awarded
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and settlement
administration costs will be divided among all settlement class
Members who send in valid Proof of Claim forms.

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?138b

The class action is Lentz v. Citadel Security Software Inc et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00100," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A.
Fitzwater.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Gregory Linkh, Esq. of Murray Frank &
Sailer, 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892; and Joseph Sternberg of Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff, 100 Park Ave., 12th Floor, New York, NY
10017-5563, Phone: 212-907-0700, E-mail: jsternberg@labaton.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Noel M. B. Hensley and Carrie Lee Huff both of Haynes &
         Boone - Dallas, 901 Main St., Suite 3100, Dallas, TX
         75202-3789, Phone: 214-651-5000 or 214-651-5009, Fax:
         214-200-0470, E-mail: hensleyn@haynesboone.com or
         huffc@haynesboone.com; and

     (2) Heather Lee Perttula of Trinity Industries Inc., 2525
         Stemmons Frwy, Dallas, TX 75207, Phone: 214-589-8937,
         E-mail: heather.perttula@trin.net.


COMCAST CABLE: Wins Appeal in Mich. Consumer's Privacy Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. won in the case, "Klimas v.
Comcast Corp, et al.," which was on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according
to The Multichannel News.

In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
stated that the federal Telecommunications Act gives no
authority for consumers to sue cable companies alleging their
privacy has been violated if that company tracks the consumer as
they surf the Internet.

Originally, Jeffrey Klimas filed the suit on May 21, 2002.  It
accused the company of violating the rights of all its Internet
customers in 2002, brought the suit.

In 2001, the company took in-house the customers who had been
formerly served by the then-bankrupt Internet service provider
At Home Corp.

In 2002, it notified these consumers that, since the
acquisition, it had stored information on consumers' Internet
destinations.  

The operator would later state that it would no longer collect
that information in an effort to "completely reassure our
customers that the privacy of this information is secure."

Around that time, the company also stated that the tracking was
done to help determine what content to store in "caches" to
improve service quality and speed.

Hoping it would be certified as a class action, Mr. Klimas filed
a lawsuit, claiming that the company's activities were in
violation of federal law since it was collecting "personally
identifiable information."

However, in July 2003, Judge Patrick Duggan dismissed the case.  
In his ruling he cited that that federal law does not
specifically define the term "personally identifiable
information."

The judge further concluded that even if it did, the complaint
did not prove a link between the information collected and the
identification of individual consumers.

Judge Duggan also said that Mr. Klimas' suit did not offer proof
that the consumer, or others, had been harmed by the company's
actions.

As the case was dismissed, Steven Goren, Mr. Klimas' legal
representative, appealed the judge's ruling to the 6th Circuit.
Arguments in that appeal were made last year and late last
month, the appellate panel agreed with the district court's
ruling.

In addition to the lower court and appeals rulings, the privacy
claim was further weakened by a 2002 Federal Communications
Commission ruling stating that Internet provision is not a cable
service, but a telecommunications service.

In it ruling, the appeals court pointed out that privacy
provisions in Section 551(b) of the federal act refer to cable
services.

Despite the unfavorable ruling, Mr. Goren said that he would ask
the appeals panel to hear further arguments.  He believes the
ruling was made on issues not argued in the case and wants a
chance to convince the panel of that.

The suit is "Klimas v. Comcast Corp., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-
72054-PJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Patrick J. Duggan.

Representing the plaintiff is Steven E. Goren of Goren, Goren,
(Bingham Farms), 30400 Telegraph Road, Suite 470, Bingham Farms,
MI 48025-4541, Phone: 248-540-3100, E-mail: sgoren@gorenlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) John A. Behrendt of Bodman (Troy), 201 W. Big Beaver
         Road, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084, Phone: 248-743-6000,
         E-mail: abehrendt@bodmanllp.com; and

     (2) Jaime A. Bianchi of White & Case, 200 S. Biscayne
         Blvd., Suite 4900, Miami, FL 33131-2352, Phone: 305-
         371-2700, Fax: 305-371-2700.


CONNECTICUT: Tenants Plan Suit v. Stamford Over April 3 Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 antiques dealers are planning to file a purported
class action against the city of Stamford, Connecticut for
failing to inspect a faulty sprinkler system at a building at
the old Yale & Towne site before it burned down in April,
according to a notice attorneys sent to city officials, Zach
Lowe of The Stamford Advocate reports.

The suit would be the second to arise out of the six-alarm fire
that destroyed eight businesses and caused millions of dollars
in damage at the South End property on April 3.

                         First Lawsuit

Back in July, a purported class action was filed over the April
3, 2006 fire.  That suit named as defendants, Antares Investment
Partners of Greenwich, the owner of the piano shop were the
blaze started, and two financial companies that backed Antares'
purchase of the property in the area are named as defendants
(Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).  

Antares is accused of failing to meet fire codes, while Paul
Haller, owner of Haller Piano, is accused of permitting
"dangerous conditions to exist" in his shop by storing flammable
refinishing chemicals near the bench.
  
The suit was filed by Bainton McCarthy, LLC, of New York and
attorney Anthony D. Truglia, Jr., on behalf of about 100 tenants
who rented space in the Stamford Antiques Center.

                   Planned Second Lawsuit

According to a copy of the notice, sent late last month,
attorneys blamed Stamford's fire and building inspectors for
failing to check the building or force the owners to fix fire
code violations.

The notice though is not a lawsuit, according to the attorney
who filed it, Mario DiNatale.  He explains that attorneys must
tell any municipality of plans to sue within six months of the
event that caused the damage. Mr. DiNatale adds that the firm
will continue to investigate the cause of the blaze before
filing any lawsuit.

The fire started in a small piano shop before spreading to
several other businesses, including the 17,000-square-foot
Stamford Antiques Center.  

More than 100 dealers rented space in the center, which was
located inside Building 15 on the Yale & Towne property,
according to attorneys.

The fire grew out of control before firefighters arrived because
the sprinkler system in the area was broken, according to the
results of an investigation the city's fire marshals conducted
after the blaze.

Investigations by authorities also reportedly found out that
Antares Investment Partners officials knew that a sprinkler
system provided for in cases of fire in the area was broken when
they bought the site, but failed to repair it.

Specifically, the notice blames the city for allowing Antares to
rent out the property "knowing there were serious defects and
flaws in the sprinkler system."

For more details, contact:

     (1) Mario DiNatale of Silver Golub & Teitell, LLP, 184
         Atlantic Street, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone: (203) 325-
         4491, Fax: (203) 325-3769, Web site:
         http://www.sgtlaw.com;and  

     (2) Bainton McCarthy, LLC, Connecticut Office, Three
         Stamford Landing, 46 Southfield Avenue, Stamford, CT   
         06902-7236, Phone: 203.323.8080 or 212.480.3500, Fax:
         203.325.9716, E-mail: info@baintonlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.baintonlaw.com/.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Appeals Court Mulls Confidentiality Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for defendants in a class action over sexual abuses at
the Diocese of Covington presented to a three-judge panel on
Oct. 11, oral arguments supporting a request that a
confidentiality order in the case be made permanent, The
Kentucky Post reports.

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

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

Senior Judge John Potter previously ordered the release of
personal information about the victims.  Plaintiff attorneys
filed an appeal on Sept. 8 against the ruling.

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

The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled on Sept. 29 that attorneys
for the sex abuse victims do not have to give prosecutors the
names of victims (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2006).

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

In the recent hearing, Robert Steinberg, one of the lawyers
representing the victims, said that changing Judge Potter's June
2005 order on confidentiality now would subject them to the same
betrayal of trust they faced when priests sexually abused them.

Thomas D. Lambros of Ashtabula, Ohio, the former chief judge in
the Northern District of Ohio, who is one of the special masters
overseeing the $85 million settlement in the case, suggested
that he and his co-special master review all the claims and then
meet with the judge in the case, attorneys for all sides, and
local prosecutors, and go over the claims.  

He said the prosecutors could review the cases knowing the
details and determine if they wanted to prosecute; then the
attorneys could provide additional information about the
victims.

A decision is likely to take several weeks, the report said.


GARANTIE UNIVERSELLE: Settles Extended Warranty Suit for $575T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nicole Duval Hesler of the Superior Court of Quebec
approved a settlement for the class actions:

     -- "Option Consommateurs v. Garantie Universelle (Quebec)
        Ltee, Case No. 500-06-000020-962," and

     -- "Automobile Protection Association (APA) v. Garantie
        Universelle (Quebec) Ltee, Case No. 500-06-000029-963."

The settlement follows proceedings filed in 1996 to obtain the
authorization to institute class actions against Garantie
Universelle and other parties.

The class consists of all consumers who, since March 1, 1988,
entered into a contract of extended warranty with Garantie
Universelle (Quebec) Ltee, concerning a motor vehicle, either
new or used, or who are holders and beneficiaries of a contract
of extended warranty still in force on Nov. 18, 1993.

According to the settlement, a settlement fund of approximately
$575,000 will be set up to indemnify admissible consumers who
purchased a warranty contract in the Province of Quebec.

From the said amount, once various costs have been paid (notably
the legal fees of the petitioner's lawyers that are fixed by the
court, notices to the 18,000 consumers, the cost of the
distribution of the indemnities and the cost of notices to the
members), approximately $400,000 will be distributed to
admissible consumers.

This amount will first serve to indemnify consumers who paid for
repairs done after Nov. 18, 1993 and who are able to submit
proof, such as their repair bills, for example.

The settlement also allows consumers who did not pay for any
repairs done or who cannot establish proof of them, to make a
claim for a partial reimbursement of their unused warranty
premiums.

However, these claims will be paid only if there is a reasonable
amount left in the settlement fund after payment of the claims
for repairs.

                         Background

On Nov. 18, 1993, Garantie Universelle (Quebec) Ltee closed its
doors and ceased to honor contracts of extended warranty, which
numerous consumers had bought from their new or used car
dealers.

In 1996, Option Consommateurs and APA filed proceedings in order
to obtain authorization to institute class actions against
Garantie Universelle, against the actuary who was responsible
for calculating the reserve funds held by Garantie Universelle
and against the trustee and accountants of the company.  These
proceedings were vigorously contested.

However after negotiations and for the sole purpose of buying
the peace, certain of the Respondents have offered to settle the
two Class Actions instituted by Option Consommateurs and by the
APA, pursuant to the closing of Garantie Universelle (Quebec)
Ltee on Nov. 18, 1993, at conditions which the Petitioners
consider fair and reasonable considering all the circumstances.

In accordance with the law, the settlement is valid only if the
court approves it, pursuant to notice to the members of the
group.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the Superior Court of Quebec held a hearing for
the approval of the abovementioned settlement.

Deadline to file claims is on March 6, 2007.

Automobile Protection Association (APA) on the net:
                         http://www.apa.ca

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?138d

The suits, both pending in the Superior Court of Quebec under
Judge Nicole Duval Hesler, are:

      -- "Option Consommateurs v. Garantie Universelle (Quebec)
         Ltee, Case No. 500-06-000020-962"; and

      -- "Automobile Protection Association (APA) v. Garantie
         Universelle (Quebec) Ltee, Case No. 500-06-000029-963."

Plaintiffs counsel are:

     (1) Unterberg, Labelle, Lebeau, S.E.N.C., 1980, Sherbrooke
         Street West, Suite 700, Montreal (Quebec) H3H 1E8, Fax:
         (514) 937-6547, E-mail: contact@ullnet.com, Web site:
         http://www.ullnet.com;and  

     (2) Sylvestre Fafard Painchaud, 740, Atwater Avenue,
         Montreal (Quebec) H4C 2G9, Phone: (514) 937-2881, Fax:
         (514) 937-6529, E-mail: info@sfpavocats.ca, Web site:
         http://www.sfpavocats.ca.


GEORGIA: Rights Groups Seek Injunction Against Sex Offender Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers from the Southern Center for Human Rights and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed on Oct. 12 a
preliminary injunction against Georgia's sex offender
legislation, the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reports.

The lawyers filed the injunction on behalf of nine elderly and
severely disabled people who are facing eviction from their
homes and nursing homes because of House Bill 1059.  

HB 1059 broadens the law governing where registered sex
offenders may reside by prohibiting them from living or working
within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or
"area where minors congregate," including parks and recreation
facilities, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools and bus stops.  The law also stiffens
minimum prison sentences and requires certain offenders to wear
electronic monitoring devices.

The injunction specifically addresses the provision of HB 1059
that prevents people on the sex offender registry from living
within 1,000 feet of a church, said Sara Totonchi, Public Policy
Director, Southern Center for Human Rights.

"This is another step in a larger litigation strategy, similar
to when we first filed the lawsuit and using the eight named
plaintiffs to represent the larger class, then this ultimately
becoming a class action," Ms. Totonchi said.

                         The Class Action

The Southern Center for Human Rights has filed a federal class
action over HB 1059 on June 20, 2006.  The suit contends that
the law renders vast tracts of Georgia's residential areas off-
limits to state's roughly 11,000 offenders.  

It also contends that HB 1059 turns the law "from one tailored
to keep offenders away from children into one that essentially
drives every person on the registry from all urban areas and
many rural areas."

Defendants in the case are:

     -- Gov. Sonny Perdue;
     -- Georgia Attorney;
     -- General Thurbert E. Baker;
     -- Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown; and
     -- Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks.  

Plaintiffs include Al Reginald Marks, Dewayne Owens, James
Victor Wilson, Janet Jenkins Allison, Jeffery York, Rev. Joel
Jones, Joseph Linaweaver, Lori Sue Collins, and Wendy Whitaker.

State attorneys, however, argue that the provision is necessary
to protect children.  In disputing claims that sex offenders
would be forced to move, they argued that untold numbers of bus
stops don't meet the letter of the law, which requires that each
stop be officially designated by the school board.

SCHR attorneys explained that the law is the only one in the
nation that bans offenders from living and working near school
bus stops.

Last month's order by Judge Cooper only covers the school bus
stop provision and allowed the rest of the law to take effect on
July 1.  

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

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

The suit is "Whitaker et al v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Brooks Bright of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sbright@schr.org;  

     (2) Margaret Fletcher Garrett of the American Civil  
         Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514  
         75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: mgarrett@acluga.org;  

     (3) Sarah E. Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org;  

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights  
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:  
         404-688-1202;

     (5) Elizabeth Lynn Littrell of the American Civil Liberties  
         Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75  
         Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: blittrell@acluga.org; and

     (6) Gerald R. Weber of the American Civil Liberties Union  
         Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75 Piedmont  
         Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-6201, E-mail:  
         gweber@acluga.org.


GLOBE AND MAIL: Court Favors Freelance Writer in Copyright Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's Supreme Court ruled in favor of a freelance writer in a
class action she filed in 1996 against Globe and Mail and
Thomson Corp. over reproduction of articles in online databases
without additional compensation to the author, the Canadian
Press reports.

Heather Robertson filed the suit after Globe and Mail reproduced
two of her articles in an online database.  The court ruled that
the case should go to trial to determine whether plaintiff's
oral agreement with the newspaper in 1996 gave implied consent
to the electronic use of her material.  Ms. Robertson said she
hasn't decided whether to pursue the case, the report said.

The suit includes employees of the Globe, but the Supreme Court
said they cannot be included because their employer holds the
copyright to their work.

The court also ruled that publishers can reproduce the articles
in CD-ROM form because that medium is more closely linked to the
original newspapers and magazines than are the ever-changing
electronic databases, according to the report.

Barry Sookman, of the law firm McCarthy Tetrault, represented
the Canadian Newspaper Association as an intervener in the case.

Ms. Robertson's lawyer is Michael McGowan.


GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY: Award to Attorneys in Defamation Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals upheld a $23,000 award of attorney fees to
Google Technology Inc. attorneys in relation to the suit,
"Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc., B183969," Kenneth Ofgang of
the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

Accountant Mark G. Maughan, represented by the Los Angeles firm
of Girardi & Keese, brought a class action complaint against
Google alleging defamation because a Google search under his
name or that of his firm generated results "suggesting" he was
disciplined by the California Board of Accountancy for "gross
negligence" and accepting a contingent fee for the preparation
of tax returns, the report said.  Mr. Maughan said he had been
disciplined for other wrongful conduct.

Google brought an anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation motion against Mr. Maughan.  Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Peter Lichtman granted the anti-SLAPP motion,
striking the complaint.  The judge held that the plaintiff was
unlikely to prevail, because the defendant had immunity under
the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and search engine results
have been held not to be reasonably understood as conveying a
defamatory meaning.

Mr. Maughan did not appeal from the order striking the
complaint.  He appealed from the final judgment, but the appeal
was dismissed as untimely.  Google, in turn, cross-appealed.

Lawyers Timothy L. Alger and Lesley E. Williams of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Hedges sought over $98,000 in fees and $5,000 in
costs.  But Judge Lichtman awarded them only $23,000 for their
work.  Justice Miriam Vogel dissented.  Justice Frances
Rothschild concurred.


GREYHOUND ADOPTION: Faces Ill. Fraud Suit Over "Dog Adoptions"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed in Cook County Circuit Court
in Illinois against Daniel Shonka and his organization,
Greyhound Adoption of Iowa, over allegations that they pretended
to adopt more than 1,000 dogs, but wound up selling them for
medical experiments, Michael Higgins of The Chicago Tribune
reports.

George Panos, a former owner of greyhound racing dogs, filed the
suit on Oct. 13, 2006.  He sates that he donated 15 to 20
greyhounds to Mr. Shonka of Cedar Rapids from 1998 to 2001.

Mr. Panos, who raced greyhounds out of a kennel in Hudson,
Wisconsin, said he was led to believe that defendant would place
the retired racing dogs with loving families.

According to the lawsuit, as part of his marketing, Mr. Shonka
sent greyhound owners "brochures that featured a picture of a
retired racing greyhound with its front paws perched on a
smiling boy's shoulders."

The suit alleges that instead of giving them to families, Mr.
Shonka sold the dogs to a medical research firm in St. Paul,
Minnesota, for an estimated $400 to $500 each.

It also alleges the firm used the dogs for medical tests,
implanting them with cardiac devices such as pacemakers.  The
dogs were then euthanized.

Additionally, the suit alleges that Mr. Shonka made about
$500,000 over three years from the operation.

Mr. Panos revealed that he raced greyhounds from 1991 to 2001 at
St. Croix Meadows dog track in Hudson.  He hopes to bring the
suit as a class action on behalf of about 1,000 dog owners who
he said donated dogs.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: K&T Reminds Parties of Dec. 15 Opt-Out Cutoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities arbitration law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
advises all individuals who are eligible to participate in the
settlement of the class action, "In re HealthSouth Corp.
Securities Litigation, Master Consolidation File No. 2:03-cv-03-
BE-1500-S," that they have until Dec. 15, 2006 to opt-out of the
class.

As UBS PaineWebber is a non-settling defendant of the class
action, K&T strongly encourages all UBS customers who sustained
losses in HealthSouth (HLSH) stock or options in their accounts,
to consider securities arbitration against UBS as an alternative
means to recover their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.

The suits are related to financial reporting and related
activity that occurred at the company during periods ended in
March 2003.  These agreements memorialize the preliminary
settlement previously announced on Feb. 23, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Under the settlement agreements, federal securities and fraud
claims brought in the class action against HealthSouth and
certain of its former directors and officers will be settled for
consideration consisting of HealthSouth common stock and
warrants valued at $215 million and cash payments by
HealthSouth's insurance carriers of $230 million, or aggregate
consideration of $445 million.  

In addition, the federal securities class action plaintiffs will
receive 25% of any net recoveries from future judgments obtained
by or on behalf of HealthSouth with respect to certain claims
against Richard Scrushy, the company's former chief executive
officer, Ernst & Young, the company's former auditors, and UBS,
the company's former primary investment bank, each of which
remains a defendant in the derivative actions as well as the
federal securities class actions.  

The settlement is subject to the satisfaction of a number of
conditions, including final approval of the U.S. District Court.
The settlement agreement is also conditioned upon the approval
of bar orders in the federal securities and derivative
litigations by the U.S. District Court and the Circuit Court
that would, among other things, preclude certain claims by the
non-settling co-defendants against HealthSouth and the insurance
carriers relating to matters covered by the settlement
agreements.  

The settlement agreement also requires HealthSouth to indemnify
the settling insurance carriers for any amounts that they are
legally obligated to pay to any non-settling defendants.  

"This settlement represents another significant milestone in
HealthSouth's recovery and is a powerful symbol of the progress
we have made as a company," said HealthSouth President and CEO
Jay Grinney.  "I would like to thank the many people who have
worked tirelessly over the last three years to settle this
litigation and help us continue to put the past behind us."  

The settlement does not contain any admission of wrongdoing by
HealthSouth or any other settling defendant.  

Securities to be issued by HealthSouth in connection with the
settlement will consist of an aggregate of 25,118,656 shares of
its common stock and eleven-year warrants to purchase an
aggregate of 40,756,326 additional shares of HealthSouth common
stock at an exercise price of $8.28 per share, in each case, as
the same will be adjusted by the proposed 1-for-5 reverse stock
split of HealthSouth's common stock, which, subject to
stockholder approval, is expected to become effective before the
end of October.  

             Settlement Excludes Ernst & Young, UBS

The settlement does not include Ernst & Young, UBS, Mr. Scrushy
or any former HealthSouth officer who entered a guilty plea or
was convicted of a crime in connection with the company's former
financial reporting activities.  

                         Case Background

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama consolidated a number of separate securities
lawsuits filed against the company.

The consolidated securities action included six lawsuits filed
in 2003 as well as two prior consolidated cases:  

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, CV-98-J-
         2634-S," and  

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation,  
        Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S,"  

Including the cases previously consolidated, the consolidated
securities action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the consolidated securities action into two
subclasses:  

      -- complaints based on purchases of the company's common  
         stock were grouped under the caption, "In re  
         HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated  
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," (the Stockholder Securities  
         Action), which was further divided into complaints  
         based on:

         (a) purchases of the company's common stock in the open  
             market (grouped under the caption, "In re  
             HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation,  
             Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," and  
          
         (b) claims based on the receipt of the company's common  
             stock in mergers (grouped under the caption,  
             "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case No.  
             CV-98-2777-S)."   

         Although the plaintiffs in the HealthSouth Merger Cases  
         have separate counsel and have filed separate claims,  
         the HealthSouth Merger Cases are otherwise consolidated  
         with the Stockholder Securities Action for all  
         purposes.
   

      -- complaints based on purchases of the company's debt  
         securities were grouped under the caption, "In re  
         HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No.  CV-03-BE-1502-S," (the Bondholder Securities
         Action).  

On Jan. 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities  
Action filed a consolidated class action complaint.  

The complaint names the company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor.  

The complaint alleges, among other things:  

     (i) that the company misrepresented or failed to disclose  
         certain material facts concerning its business and  
         financial condition and the impact of the Balanced  
         Budget Act of 1997 on its operations in order to  
         artificially inflate the price of the company's common  
         stock;

    (ii) that from Jan. 14, 2002 through Aug. 27, 2002, the  
         company misrepresented or failed to disclose certain  
         material facts concerning its business and financial  
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare  
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on the  
         company's operations in order to artificially inflate  
         the price of its common stock, and that some of the  
         individual defendants sold shares of such stock during  
         the purported class period; and  

  (iii) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former  
        senior officers and accounting personnel to materially  
        inflate the company's earnings to match Wall Street  
        analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of  
        HealthSouth and other members of a self-described   
        "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which  
        the company's earnings could be inflated and that some  
        of the individual defendants sold shares of the common  
        stock during the purported class period.  

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, and
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934
Act.  

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company reached a global, preliminary
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Securities Action, the Bondholder Securities Action, and the
derivative litigation, as well as with the company's insurance
carriers, to settle claims filed in those actions against the
company and many of its former directors and officers.

The suit is "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master Consolidation File No. 2:03-cv-03-BE-1500-S," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard Bemporad of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Selinger, One North Lexington Avenue, Floor 11, White
         Plains, NY 10601-1714, Phone: 1-914-997-0500, E-mail:
         rbemporad@ldbs.com; and

     (2) Max W. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman,
         LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: 1-212-554-1400, Fax: 1-212-554-1444, E-mail:
         mwb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) W. Michael Atchison of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, P.O.
         Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512, Phone: 868-6000,
         E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com; and

    (ii) Patrick J. Ballard of Ballard Law Office, 2214 2nd
         Avenue North, Suite 100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:
         321-9600, Fax: 323-9805, E-mail:
         pjballard@ballardlawoffice.com.


HERMAN FALTER: Recalls Pork Products for Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Falter Packing Co., of Columbus, Ohio, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 1,178
pounds of various pork products that may be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes.

Products subject to the recall are:

     -- 1-pound approximate weight packages of "Falter's Purity
        Brand, SMOKED PORK NECK BONES."  Each package bears the
        establishment number "EST. 21054" inside the USDA mark
        of inspection, as well as the package code, "9-19";

     -- 1-pound approximate weight packages of "Falter's Purity
        Brand, SMOKED PORK JOWL."  Each package bears the
        establishment number "EST. 21054" inside the USDA mark
        of inspection, as well as the package code, "10-27";

     -- 3-pound packages of "Falter's Purity Brand, (JUMBO)
        FRANKFURTERS, SMOKE FLAVORING ADDED."  Each package
        bears the establishment number "EST. 21054" inside the
        USDA mark of inspection, as well as the package code,
        "10-28" and

     -- 10-pound box of "JAROLD'S, COOKED ITALIAN SAUSAGE."  
        Each package bears the establishment number "EST. 21054"
        inside the USDA mark of inspection, and may also bear
        the package code, "9-19-2006."

The pork products were produced on Sept. 13, 18 or 19, 2006, and
were distributed to retail and wholesale establishments in the
Columbus, Ohio, region.

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

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.  
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and
stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections
in those with weakened immune systems, such as infants, the
elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing
chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Sales Manager Lana Smith at (614) 445-3913.


HORIZON BLUE: Settles N.J. Litigation Over Doctors' Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors reached a deal to settle their class action against
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, which alleges that
the state's largest health maintenance organization,
shortchanged thousands of physicians, The Associated Press
reports.

According to a joint statement issued by the doctors and the
Newark-based company that was provided on Oct 16, 2006 by an
attorney for the doctors, under the proposed agreement, the HMO
agreed to continue significant business practice improvements.

Eric D. Katz, the doctors' legal representative said that his
clients do not get any money under the deal, but Horizon Blue
will pay attorneys' fees.

The doctors had charged that Horizon Blue and three other health
insurers routinely shortchanged thousands of physicians through
late or improperly reduced payments.

If approved by a state judge, the settlement will end Horizon
Blue's involvement in a lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of at
least 40,000 New Jersey doctors.

Other defendants named in the suit were:

     -- Cigna Healthcare of New Jersey, a part of Cigna Corp.,
        of Philadelphia;

     -- United Healthcare of New Jersey, a unit of UnitedHealth
        Group of Minneapolis; and

     -- Oxford Health Plans of Trumbull, Conn.

Since then, the Cigna and United Healthcare cases have become
part of other national class actions in Florida.  The case
against Oxford, whose parent company merged with UnitedHealth in
2004, is in arbitration, according to Mr. Katz.

As is the standard in such a deal, Horizon Blue, which insures
more than 3.2 million people in New Jersey, did not admit any
wrongdoing, according to company spokesman Thomas Rubino.

The joint press statement also revealed that Horizon Blue is to
take several steps.  These include:

      -- Making fee schedules for commonly used procedures
         available to participating physicians by CD-ROM or
         electronically.

      -- Providing 90 days notice to participating physicians of
         material changes to its contracts, policies and
         procedures.

      -- Allowing participating primary care physicians to close
         their practices to new patients covered by Horizon.

      -- Not reducing fees for participating physicians, if at
         all, more than once a year.

      -- Not recovering overpayments to physicians more than 18
         months after the original payment.

      -- Not revoking its own determination of medical necessity
         without evidence of fraud, significant error or a
         significant change in the condition of a patient prior
         to service.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey on the Net:
http://www.bcbsnj.com/.

For more details, contact Eric D. Katz of Nagel Rice Dreifuss &
Mazie, LLP, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey 07068,
Phone: 973-618-0400, Fax: 973-618-9194, Web site: http://nrdm-
law.com/.


ISRAEL: Lottery Faces Lawsuits Over Automated Machine Accuracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's national lottery is facing two lawsuits that claim its
automated machines that check winning numbers do not give a
consistent answer, Haaretz Daily.

The first suit was filed as a class action by Avigail Saguy who
filed a complaint with the police against Mifal Hapayis because
she did not receive her winning price.  Mifal Hapayis said Ms.
Saguy indeed won NIS39 ($9.144) and cashed in her winning ticket
at the lottery stand.  But she allegedly returned 18 days later
with the same ticket to a Mifal Hapayis stand and tried to
collect the winning prize a second time.  

Mifal Hapayis says its machines record the details of the
winning ticket for 14 days so that a second encashment generates
the message that the prize has been redeemed.  However, after 14
days, the information is no longer stored, and the automated
machine's message indicates the ticket is not a winner.

Ms. Saguy's representative claims Mifal Hapayis' accusations
border on libel.  Mifal Hapayis itself has filed a fraud
complaint with the police against Ms. Saguy

The second suit was filed by Yitzhak Halabi-Shaked who checked
his ticket with one of the automated machines in May and was
informed that he had not won a prize.  However, upon manual
checkup four times on three machines, one test returned a
positive result.

His lawsuit relied on testimony provided in the first suit
against Mifal Hapayis, including a recording of a lottery
representative who admits that she is aware of the phenomenon,
the report said.  The suit accuses Mifal Hapayis of knowingly
misleading its customers by not informing them of this problem,
and lets them believe instead that the automated machines are
reliable, which is a violation of consumer fairness law.  It is
seeking NIS450 million ($105.51 million) on behalf of all people
who fill out Mifal Hapayis lottery tickets in the country.


KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Upholds City's Anti-Peddling Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a district
judge's decision not to issue a preliminary injunction against
Lexington's anti-peddling ordinance, The Associated Press
reports.

In 2005, Craig A. Wilson, a man who was arrested for selling
tickets within two blocks of Rupp Arena sued the city of
Lexington and Fayette County in U.S. District Court, alleging
that his First Amendment right of free speech was violated, that
he was deprived of the use of his basketball game tickets and
that he was subjected to unlawful search and seizure (Class
Action Reporter, March 15, 2005).  

According to court documents, Mr. Wilson was one of 20 people
arrested by police in January 2005 for scalping tickets or
selling them within two blocks of the arena.  A city ordinance
prohibits selling anything, including food, tickets or T-shirts,
along streets or sidewalks within two blocks of Rupp Arena from
two hours before an event to one hour after.

Mr. Wilson asked U.S. District Judge Jennifer Coffman to grant
class-action status to the case and a preliminary injunction
stopping enforcement of the ordinance.  Judge Coffman has not
ruled on the class-action request but rejected the preliminary
injunction.  Mr. Wilson later appealed.

On an Oct. 12 ruling, the Appeals Court ruled in a 3-0 vote that
plaintiff "failed to establish the likelihood of success with
regard to any of his four challenges to the ordinance."  The
appeals judges are Eugene Siler, Martha Daughtrey and John M.
Rogers.

Mr. Wilson's attorney is John Helmuth, Lexington, Kentucky
(Fayette Co.).


LEGG MASON: Shareholder Files Suit in N.Y. Over Citigroup Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legg Mason, Inc., faces a purported class action in U.S.
District Court in New York in that was filed by an investor, who
claims that the money manager was dishonest about how a recent
takeover would affect business, according to Reuters.

Last week, the company, America's fifth-largest money manager,
told investors that quarterly earnings will miss analysts'
forecasts as the company works to integrate Citigroup's asset
management unit it bought last year.

On Oct. 16, 2006, investor Robert Garber filed the lawsuit,
charging that Raymond Mason, Legg Mason's founder and chief
executive officer, and five other executives had deceived the
public about the company's prospects and artificially inflated
the firm's stock price.  Mr. Garber said that he is seeking
class action status for the suit.

Mr. Garber, who started buying the Baltimore-based company's
stock last July and owns less than 100 shares, said he and other
plaintiffs would not have invested in Legg Mason "if they had
been aware that the market prices had been artificially and
falsely inflated by defendants' misleading statements."

In June 2005, the company agreed to acquire Citigroup's asset
management business in exchange for its broker-dealer business.  
It also bought the Permal Group, one of the world's largest
hedge fund groups.

While the company said it is making progress on integrating the
new business, it has also said many times that it would take
time for the deal to be fully integrated and cautioned analysts
that the numbers might be unclear for some time.

On a conference call in March 2006, Chip Mason said "We're
trying to be as accurate as we can in hopefully being
conservative on what we see and what we're doing, what we're
reporting.  As I said it will be September until you get
anything that we believe is somewhat clear."

Baltimore, Maryland-based Legg Mason, Inc. (NYSE: LM) --
http://www.leggmason.com/-- is a global asset management  
company.  Acting through its subsidiaries, the company provides
investment management and related services to institutional and
individual clients, company-sponsored mutual funds and other
investment vehicles.  The company offers these products and
services directly and through various financial intermediaries.  

It divides its business into three divisions: Mutual
Funds/Managed Services, Institutional and Wealth Management.
Within each of its divisions, the company provides its services
through a number of asset managers, which are individual
businesses, each of which is housed in one or more different
subsidiaries, which typically market their products and services
under their own brand name.  During the fiscal year ended March
31, 2006, the company acquired Permal Group Ltd, a global funds-
of-hedge funds manager. It also exited from the non-asset
management businesses.


LG ELECTRONICS: Job Applicants File Suit Over Personal Info Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
LG Electronics faces a purported class action in a South Korean
court that was filed by more than 100 job applicants, alleging
that the company leaked their private information online, Annie
I. Bang of The Korea Herald reports.

On Sept. 26, the personal information of over 22,000 applicants
for LG Electronics jobs was made public for about an hour
through the portal Daum.net, where unauthorized people could
have accessed private details such as the applicants' pictures,
academic grades and Test of English for International
Communication (TOEIC) test scores.

LG Electronic has called the incident an "illegal hacking
attempt." It maintains that the resumes contained the
applicants' names, academic records and job careers, but not
their home addresses and resident registration numbers.  It adds
in a press statement that additional information was not
downloaded.

However, the victims have demanded LG Electronics pay at least
20 million won ($21,000) individually in damages.

According to Kim Yeon-ho, an attorney for the applicants, they
(applicants) are facing a risky situation in which their leaked
personal information could be misused by anyone for any purpose,
so we're demanding compensation for their mental distress.

Police launched an investigation into Daum.net that carried the
access link, and requested the company to submit related
documents on the incident.

LG Electronics has not made an official apology to the victims.  
However, the company vowed to take legal action against an
applicant, who allegedly circulated the link for resumes, since
LG did not hire him.

A member of Daum internet cafe "Job Break" had applied for a job
at LG Electronics last month, but was not hired.  The member,
whose cafe nickname is "Pink Paeta," then posted the link,
saying he did it because he was not hired.

Job Break cafe is one of the most popular job-search sites in
Korea.  It has more than 610,000 registered members, who are
mostly college seniors and graduates.

Police said it is tracking down the IP address of the person who
posted the link.  They also said that an estimated 3,000-4,000
victims had their resumes leaked.

The victims created an online website to prepare the class
action right after the incident, and over 500 people have signed
up for it.

LG Electronics, Inc., (SEO: 066570)  -- http://www.lge.co.kr/--  
is a Korea-based manufacturer specializing in the provision of
electronics and telecommunication products. The company operates
its business through four divisions: information communication,
digital appliance, digital display and digital media.  

The information communication division offers mobile
broadcasting handsets, public broadcasting system (PBS) devices,
key phones and others.  The digital appliance division provides
air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, microwave
ovens, vacuum cleaners, compressors, motors, magnetrons and
others.  The digital display division offers TVs, monitors,
plasma display panels (PDPs) modules, video tapes and others.
The digital media division provides storage devices, audios,
videocassette Recorders (VCRs), digital versatile discs (DVDs),
personal computers and others.


MICHIGAN: Injunction Filed Against Use of Restraints on Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen heard a lawsuit aimed at
forcing the state to improve the care of medically and mentally
ill prisoners at Southern Michigan Correctional Facility in
Jackson, The Grand Rapids Press reports.

On the last day of the three-day hearing, a doctor appointed by
a federal judge to monitor health care in Michigan's prisons
testified that the use of four-point restraints as punishment
for prison inmates meets the American Medical Association's
definition of torture and should be discontinued.  He confirmed
that the death on Aug. 6 of Timothy Joe Souders, a 21-year-old
mentally ill inmate, was the result of the policy for
maintaining prisoners in punitive restraints.

The continued use of restraints is "likely to result in future
deaths," he said.

After Cohen's testimony, attorney Elizabeth Alexander,
representing inmates in the class action, asked Judge Enslen to
issue an order temporarily barring the state Corrections
Department from using restraints to punish prisoners.

Judge Enslen later met privately with attorneys, but would not
say whether an agreement had been reached to stop restraining
prisoners as punishment, according to the report.

The case filed in the 1980s against the prison system alleges
that the hospital and other medical units in the Jackson prison
complex are understaffed by doctors and nurses.  As a result,
written requests by inmates for medical help often are delayed
for several days or ignored; referrals to outside medical
specialists are routinely delayed for weeks and even months
while sick inmates get sicker and, in some case, die; and
prescriptions for serious illnesses often go unfilled for
several days.


MICROSOFT CORP: $19M Legal Fee in Ariz. Antitrust Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Court of Appeals refused a request by attorneys of
Microsoft Corp. to cut legal award to attorneys in a class
action filed against the company over antitrust laws violation,
the Arizona Business Gazette reports.

In 2004, the Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona granted
preliminary approval to the settlement proposed by Microsoft
Corp. for the class action.  The suit was brought by Brian
Goodwin, Marty Harper, Lori Berke and Kelly Flood of the Phoenix
office of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC.  Their case was later
consolidated with a similar one brought by San Diego attorneys
Len Simon, Mike Dowd and Frank Janacek of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
& Robbins LLP.

Later, Maricopa County judge Michael O'Melia approved an
estimated $104.6 million settlement of the case.  Marty Harper,
a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, requested a fee equal to a
third of the amount.  But Judge O'Melia, instead, got an
estimate of the number of hours the attorneys spent on a case
and multiplied it with a reasonable rate -- in this case 3.42 --
to come up with an award of $19.2 million.  Microsoft's
attorneys argued the formula used in the computation is unfair
and illegal.  The multiplier is allegedly too large because the
plaintiffs' lawyers did not take that great a risk.

But the appellate judges said the attorneys in Arizona faced a
risk not present in either of those cases: At the time it was
filed, there was no case law in Arizona, according to the
report.

Under the settlement, the company will provide vouchers to all
class members in Arizona who bought Microsoft operating systems
or software between Jan. 1, 1996 and Dec. 31, 2002.  The members
of the class will get vouchers worth $15 for operating systems
and $9 for applications.

The company also agreed to give half of the unclaimed vouchers
to Arizona's public schools.  If people claim vouchers but fail
to use them, 50 percent of those unused vouchers also will go to
the schools.  The vouchers will go to those districts in which
50 percent or more of the students are eligible for free or
reduced-fee lunches, AP reports.

The suit is "Charles I. Friedman, PC, The Power PEO, Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp., Case No. CV2000-000722," was filed in the
Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, under Judge Michael
O'Melia.  Attorneys Marty Harper, Lori Berke and Brian Goodwin
represent the plaintiffs, while Attorney William Maledon is
counsel for the defendant.  


MOBILE PHONE OPERATORS: French Firms Face EUR750T Damage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
French consumer protection organization UFC-Que Choisir is
filing a class action against Bouygues Telecom, a unit of
Bouygues S.A., Orange France, a unit of France Telecom and SFR,
a Les Echos report on Oct. 12 stated.

Subsequent reports say that UFC-Que had submitted a request
EUR750,000 or roughly EUR60 a person for damages at the tribunal
of commerce in Paris for price fixing by the French mobile phone
operators.  

The three operators had been ordered to pay the French state a
fine of EUR534 million after the French competition council
found last year that they formed a cartel and had frozen mobile
phone prices between 2000 and 2002.


NUNES CO: Recalls Lettuce Over Possible E. coli Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nunes Co. of Salinas Valley California has issued a recall for
lettuce because of concerns it might be tainted with E. Coli
bacteria, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The company said the recall covers lettuce purchased in grocery
stores Oct. 3-6 in Arizona, California, Nevada, Washington,
Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

Since it was also sold to distributors in those states, chances
are it was also sold to restaurants, the report said.

ConsumerAffairs.Com's medical advisor, Dr. Henry Fishman, said
E. coli causes diarrhea, often with bloody stools, accompanied
by cramps and abdominal pain.

Most healthy consumers should be able to fight the bacteria on
their own by hydrating well, Dr. Fishman said. Antibiotics are
generally not effective.  Those who fall ill should drink lots
of fluids and seek medical attention promptly.

Although most healthy adults can recover completely within a
week, some people can develop a form of kidney failure called
Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it was aware of the
voluntary recall but company officials said they issued the
recall based on water tests that revealed what they called
"generic E. coli" in the water used in irrigation.

They stressed that no bacteria has been found in the lettuce
itself.  So far, there have been no reports that any consumers
have become ill.


RIDLEY INC: Canadian Rancher to File Suit Over Mad Cow Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rancher Donald Berneche, a Quebec farmer is asking permission
from a court to launch a purported class action against the
Canadian government and Ridley, Inc., an Australian-owned feed
producer, claiming that their negligence sparked a recent mad
cow crisis in Canada, The Courier Mail reports.

Ultimately, if the case were approved, it would become the first
in Canada since mad cow disease was discovered there in May
2003, prompting more than 30 countries to ban Canadian beef
imports.  

It could also lead to similar lawsuits across the country.  Some
20,000 Quebec farmers would likely to be represented in the
suit.

In court documents, Mr. Berneche stated that that embargoes on
Canadian beef cost him about $C100,000 ($116,000).  If it
includes other farmers, the suit could potentially claim as much
as $C20 billion ($17,586,680,490.68).

Mr. Berneche blames the country's agriculture ministry and
Ridley, which makes animal feed from bone meal and brain meal in
North America and is a subsidiary of Australia's Ridley Corp.,
for "their inaction and their negligence."

He claims that Canadian authorities waited until August 1997 to
ban brain or spinal tissue from other cattle or ruminant animals
in feed while several European countries took this step in the
early 1990s.  Such tissues have been shown in infected cattle to
contain concentrated levels of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
or BSE.

For its part, Mr. Berneche contends that Ridley continued
selling feed that contained brain or spinal tissue in Canada
until August 1997 even though in Australia, the parent company
conformed to stricter feed production practices as of May 1996.  
The company though has denied the allegations of wrongdoing in a
2005 press statement.

BSE causes brain wasting, and in its advanced stages, cattle
lose the ability to walk or even stand up, displaying so-called
mad behavior.

The hearings in Mr. Berneche's case will continue for three
days.  Other class action requests are being heard in Ontario,
Saskatchewan and Alberta provinces.


UAE: Dubai Sheiks Deny U.S. Abduction, Human Trafficking Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dubai's ruling family denied allegations of abduction and human
trafficking of thousands of young boys from Asia and Africa in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against several Arab Sheikhs, according to
The Middle East and North Africa Business Report.

Named defendants are Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum and
Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.

The ruling Maktoum family believes that the alleged enslaving of
thousands of young camel jockeys is "baseless."  Also the family
believes a U.S. court has no jurisdiction over things, which
happen outside the U.S.

On its part, the ruling family claimed it had banned child
jockeys and revamped the sport.  According to family members,
they have overhauled the sport, banned the use of child jockeys
and helped UNICEF in a rehabilitation program for them.

According to the Maktoums' representative, Dr. Habib al-Mullah,
Dubai's rulers feel the efforts they have made to enforce
regulations in the sport are being overlooked.  In this
relation, it should be noted that it has been illegal to use
children as camel jockeys in the UAE since 1993.

In September, Motley Rice LLC, in association with attorney John
A. Thornton of Miami, filed suit against several Arab Sheikhs,
including Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Sheikh
Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for
the alleged abduction and human trafficking of thousands of
young boys from Asia and Africa (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
14, 2006).

According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Florida, boys as young as two years old
have been stolen from their families, trafficked across
international borders, and kept in brutal camel-racing camps
throughout the United Arab Emirates, forced to train camels and
perform as jockeys.  

Once abducted, the children were allegedly sold into slavery to
serve as camel jockeys for the entertainment of the Arabian
elite.  

Camel racing has long been a favored pastime of the Arab elite.
Yet, despite the enactment of legal weight and age limits, child
jockeys weighing less than 20 kg (44 lbs.) have become the
standard in races.  

Because of the extreme danger involved in camel racing, Arab
sheikhs have not used their own children for training or riding,
and instead have resorted to this alleged child enslavement.  

According to the lawsuit, this practice has resulted in a vast
conspiracy among camel owners to buy boys in the slave trade,
hold them in brutal camps, forcing them to care for and exercise
the camels, and then race against each other on "race days."

Because one cannot race without competitors, it is alleged that
the use of enslaved boys by the named defendants caused others
to do the same.  

According to the 2005 U.S. Department of State Trafficking in
Persons Report, "Those who survive the harsh conditions are
disposed of once they reach their teenage years."  Having been
ripped from their families at such a young age, these children
are typically unable to locate their families again or even, in
most cases, speak their own language.  

The suit is brought on behalf of the boys and/or the legal
guardians of the boys who were allegedly enslaved and is brought
against the individual slave owners in Dubai and the United Arab
Emirates.  

The suit is "Minor R.M., et al v. Bin Rashid, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-22253-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Representing plaintiffs are Ronald L. Motley of Ness Motley
Loadholt Richardson & Poole, 28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Mount
Pleasant, SC 29464, Phone: 843-216-9000; and John Andres
Thornton, 100 SE 2 Street, Suite 2700, Miami, FL 33131, Phone:
305-532-6851, Fax: 538-1070, E-mail:
johnandresthornton@hotmail.com.


VILLAS PARKMERCED: Faces Calif. Suit Over Rebate Coupon Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Villas Parkmerced apartment complex faces a purported class
action in San Francisco Superior Court that was filed by its
tenants, who are seeking both the restoration of their rents to
their legal maximums and the restitution of unlawful rent
increases.

According to the complaint, the Villas Parkmerced, San
Francisco's largest apartment complex, allegedly uses rebate
coupons to conceal the true base rent charged on apartments upon
initial occupancy in an illegal effort to circumvent rent
control.

Specifically, the suit is alleging that Villas Parkmerced owners
used the scam to inflate the true cost to initially rent an
apartment so that rents could be unlawfully raised after a year
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2006).

The suit is also alleging that tenants sign leases that state a
notably higher rent price than what they actually pay.  The
practice thus allows Villas Parkmerced to raise rents 23 to 30
percent after one year, when rent control laws only allow 1 to 2
percent increases, according to the law firm.

The complaint further alleges that this process violates San
Francisco's Rent Control Ordinance, which allows a landlord to
raise the rent on a unit to market rate when it becomes vacant
and a new tenant moves in.  Then, once this new rent is
determined, the rent is again controlled during this tenant's
occupancy.

"The case exposes Parkmerced's illegal efforts to make an end-
run around San Francisco's rent control laws, which allow a
landlord to set the rent on a vacant unit at any level, but
strictly controls rent increases during an existing tenant's
occupancy" said Brayton Purcell attorney Peter Fredman.  "The
Villas Parkmerced's rebate gimmick is a blatant attempt to
subvert the basic legal rights of San Francisco rentors by
'contracting around' rent control, a clear violation of the law.
The goal of this lawsuit is to bring these rents back down to
their lawful maximums and get restitution for former and current
tenants who paid illegal rents."

Mr. Fredman cited the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, David
Franklin and Derek Tanguay, as an example of this scheme.  The
two tenants agreed to rent a unit for $1325 per month in
September of 2005, according to Mr. Fredman.

The Villas Parkmerced arrived at that rent by creating both a
lease document that stated a monthly rent of $1675 per month and
a second document, an addendum to the lease, which issued 12
coupons called "Bonus Bucks" that deducted $350 per month from
the purported $1675 rent.

Under the rent control ordinance, this year a landlord charging
$1325 a month rent would have been able to legally raise an
existing tenant's base rent by only $22.52 (1.7%), according to
Mr. Fredman. Instead, effective Oct. 1, 2006, The Villas
Parkmerced raised these plaintiffs' rent from $1325 to $1703
(28.5%).

"Preventing such drastic rent increases for existing tenants is
precisely why the people of San Francisco instituted rent
control in the first place.  This conduct hurts the tenants of
course, but it is also very unfair to the thousands of mom-and-
pop landlords in San Francisco who do the right thing and obey
the rent control laws," Mr. Fredman said.

The suit is "Franklin v. The Villas Parkmerced, et.al., Case No.
CGC-06-456720," filed in San Francisco Superior Court.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Peter Fredman, Esq. of Brayton Purcell,
222 Rush Landing Road, PO Box 6169, Novato, CA 94948-6169,
Phone: 415-898-1555, Fax: 415-898-1247, E-mail:
pfredman@braytonlaw.com.


W-6 LIMITED: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Partnership Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action filed by investors who lost money in a
series of fraudulent limited partnerships in Hamilton have
reached a settlement estimated at $1.8 million, The Hamilton
Spectator reports.  The agreement is set for court approval on
Nov. 2.

The $1.8 million payout will give about 100 investors about 30
cents for every dollar invested, the report said.  Many of the
investors are Hamilton area residents who placed as $200,000
each in six limited partnerships promoted 12 years ago by a
financial planner and former church elder named Bob Adams.  

The six groups became known as the W-6 limited partnerships.  
Funds in the partnerships later disappeared.  An investigation
by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police later showed that some of
the W-6 partnership money was shifted to a California-based
investment company, and others to Oakville fraud artist Allan
Huppe.

A May 2 report by the Class Action Reported stated that ordinary
citizens in Hamilton, Canada who lost money through an
investment in a fraudulent limited partnership in the early
1990s are continuing their effort that time to recover their
cash through the court.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Mr. Adams and other defendants,
including Select Financial Services Inc. of Cambridge, Ontario,
are back in court in a bid to have their suit certified as class
action.  They are among the more than 100 clients who invested
money into limited partnership Standby Letters of Credit.  

Standby Letters promised that for every $100,000 of investment,
investors would receive annual returns of more than $12,000,
according to the suit.  But the returns did not materialize and
the money disappeared, leaving clients at a loss, individually,
for between $25,000 to as much as $200,000.  Mr. Adams, himself,
declared personal bankruptcy in 2000.  He has not been charged
with crime.

The plaintiffs are seeking $51 million in damages for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and loss of
opportunity in their original complaint filed eight years ago.

Also named as defendant in the suit is Toronto lawyer Robert
Adourian.

Select Financial is represented by Boyd Balogh of Gowling
Lafleur Henderson LLP, 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 1600, 100
King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5X 1G5 (City of Toronto),
Phone: 416-862-7525, Fax: 416-862-7661.  Investors are
represented by Matthew Moloci of Scarfone Hawkins
(http://www.classactionlaw.ca/mainpage.html).


* Cohen Milstein to Open Office in United Kingdom Next Year
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll is set to open a
London office on Jan. 1, 2007, The Lawyer reports.  The office
will start with one or two partners and up to nine associates,
and will initially focus on antitrust and competition matters.  

However, name partner Michael Hausfeld stated that securities
actions, employee discrimination, and environmental law would
also be tackled. Cohen Milstein's expansion in London is
expected to herald the arrival of U.S.-style securities and
shareholder class actions in the United Kingdom.

Recent changes to the country's Companies Bill will simplify the
procedures for shareholders to bring derivative claims against
directors.  Thus, potentially opening the door for hedge funds
and other activist shareholders to block takeovers.

According to Mr. Hausfeld, his firm sees a greater interest in
mass torts and their goal is to further this type of litigation
where appropriate.

One local lawyer though expressed concern over the arrival of
U.S.-based law firm in the country.  Simon Davis, a partner at
Clifford Chance and president of the London Solicitors
Litigation Association, said: "I would be concerned if they
scent the arrival in the U.K. of a U.S.-style class action
culture."

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


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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


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


CONNECTICS CORP: Shepherd, Finkelman Announces Stock Suit Filing  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the securities of Connetics Corp.
during the period between and including June 28, 2004 through
July 9, 2006.

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- the company would be unable to obtain Food and Drug
         Administration (FDA) approval for its new acne drug,
         Velac, due, in part, to high incidences of tumors in a
         carcinogenicity study;

      -- Defendants' statements concerning the prospects for
         Velac obtaining FDA approval and regarding the
         company's future financial expectations from its
         success were lacking in any reasonable basis when made;

      -- the company improperly accounted for rebates;

      -- the company understated its rebate reserves;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls;

      -- the company's financial statements were prepared in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         (GAAP);

      -- as a result of the foregoing, the company was unable to
         achieve its forecasted operating results; and

      -- the company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading during the class period.

On April 26, 2005, Connetics shocked the market when it
announced that the FDA had requested additional information
concerning Velac.  

On this news, shares of Connetics plummeted $5.27, or 19.1
percent, to close, on April 27, 2005, at $22.30 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  

On June 13, 2005, before the market opened, the company further
stunned investors when it announced that it had received a
letter from the FDA for Velac indicating that the pharmaceutical
would not be approved for sale.

On this news, shares of Connetics sank $5.64, or 27.2 percent,
to close, on June 13, 2005, at $15.13 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

On March 28, 2006, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) announced that it had filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant,
Alexander J. Yaroshinsky, charging him with illegally trading on
the basis of non-public, inside information after learning of
the FDA preliminary reactions to the carcinogenicity study of
Velac.

Further, on May 3, 2006, after the market closed, the company
announced that its financial statements for the year ended Dec.
31, 2005, as well as potentially for additional periods, should
no longer be relied upon because Connetics had determined that
it understated its rebate reserves as of the end of 2005.

The company also stated that, for the second quarter of 2006, it
projected total revenues of $50.5 million to $52.5 million, and
total revenues between $211 million and $217 million for 2006.

On June 22, 2006, the SEC filed an amended complaint against
Yaroshinsky, which included details of the study relating to the
cancer tests of Velac.

The SEC also named one of Yaroshinsky's neighbors as a
Defendant, alleging that the individual had traded on inside
information received from Yaroshinsky.

On July 10, 2006, before the market opened, Connetics announced
that it expected revenue and earnings per share for the second
quarter, and for the full year 2006, to be materially below the
amounts included in the guidance that the company provided on
May 3, 2006.

On this news, shares of Connetics plunged $3.93, or 33.6
percent, to close, on July 10, 2006, at $7.76 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court no later than Nov. 17, 2006.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. and James C.
Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
866/540-5505 and 877/891-9880, E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com and jshah@classactioncounsel.com,
Web site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all common stock purchasers
of Marvell Technology Group Ltd. from Feb. 24, 2005 through Oct.
2, 2006.

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that Marvell purposely concealed the true dates of
         stock option grants;

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- that the company lacked the necessary personnel and
         controls to issue accurate financial reports and
         projections; and

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, Marvell's financial
         results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times and the company's statements regarding its
         prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On July 5, 2006, before the market opened, Marvell shocked
investors when the company announced that it had received a
letter of informal inquiry from the SEC requesting certain
documents relating to the company's stock option grants and
practices, and a grand jury subpoena from the office of the U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting
substantially similar documents.

On this news, shares of Marvell dropped $3.53, or 7.9 percent,
to close, on July 5, 2006, at $41.31 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

On Oct. 2, 2006, after the market closed, Marvell further
stunned investors when the company announced that it would
restate historical financial statements to record additional
non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense related to
certain past option grants.

The company reported that the financial statements and all
earnings press releases and similar communications issued by the
company relating to periods beginning on or after its initial
public offering in June 2000 should no longer be relied upon.

On this news, shares of Marvell shed an additional $2.29, or
12.0 percent, to close, on Oct. 3, 2006, at $16.80 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court no later than Nov. 17, 2006.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *