---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 211

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Death Row Inmate Seeks to Block Oct. 26 Execution
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ohio Court Dismisses Certain Plaintiffs
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs to Appeal Nixing of "Harrington"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Flight Attendant Suit Over CBA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Litigation Over Cargo Surcharges

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Passenger Fare Surcharges Suits
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Summary Ruling in Calif. Suit Under Appeal
BOVIS LEND: N.Y. Court Ruling Gives Reprieve From 9/11 Claims
CANADA: Langley School District May Face Legal Action Over Fees
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Court Judgment in Stock Suit Appealed

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Plaintiffs in MDL-1561
DOT HILL: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Hybrid SUVs Over Door Latches with Leaks
EVERGREEN INVESTMENTS: Canton Investors File Complaints in Ohio
FREESCLAE SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Six Shareholder Lawsuits in Tex.

HAND N' HEART: Faces Va. Labor Violations Suit Over Unpaid Wages
HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Ariz. Retirement Suit Gets Class Status
HORIZON BLUE: Settles N.J. Litigation Over Doctors' Payments
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Urged to Consider Legal Options
MICHIGAN: Detroit Residents Sue City Over Trash Collection Fee

MICROSOFT CORP: Notice Issued for $37.8M Ark. Suit Settlement
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Pays-off Injury Claims Over Jan. Train Wreck
PETCO ANIMAL: Dissident Investors Fail to Stop Oct. 23 Meeting
PHILIP SERVICES: Firm, Auditor Continue to Face Securities Suit
R&G FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Claims

SHAW GROUP: Circuit Court to Hear Appeal on La. Securities Suit
TEXAS: Williamson County Sued Over Indigents' Defense Rights
WASHINGTON: Spokane Files Federal Suit Over City's Towing Policy

* Fulbright & Jaworski Study Says Companies Are Fit For Lawsuits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JABIL CIRCUIT: Finkelstein Thompson Files Fla. Securities Suit
LEGG MASON: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.
PRESSTEK INC: Shapiro Haber Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ALABAMA: Death Row Inmate Seeks to Block Oct. 26 Execution
----------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for Alabama death row inmate Larry Eugene Hutcherson
asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for an
order blocking his execution this week in Alabama for killing an
elderly Mobile woman, according to WTVM 9 Columbus.

State prosecutors though responded in a motion, pointing out
that Mr. Hutcherson waited too late, which was essentially, a
week before his scheduled execution, to raise issues already
settled in his first round of failed appeal, calling his request
for a stay "wholly without merit."

Mr. Hutcherson's civil complaint that seeks to block the
execution mirrors some of the claims in a class action against
the state.

The Montgomery-based Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama filed
that 2001 suit on behalf of death row prisoners' access to the
courts.  There's no final ruling on the case yet, which is
handled by the same court handling Mr. Hutcherson's appeal.

Mr. Hutcherson, 37, faces lethal injection at Holman Prison at
6:00 p.m. on Oct. 26 for the June 26, 1992, slaying of 89-year-
old Irma Thelma Gray of Mobile.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ohio Court Dismisses Certain Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
dismissed certain plaintiffs in the consolidated class action,
"In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1561,"
which was filed against American Airlines, Inc., a subsidiary of
AMR Corp. and several other air carriers.

Between April 3, 2003 and June 5, 2003, three lawsuits were
filed by travel agents some of whom opted out of a prior class
action (now dismissed) to pursue their claims individually
against the company, other airline defendants, and in one case
against certain airline defendants and Orbitz LLC.  

The suits are:

      -- "Tam Travel et. al., v. Delta Air Lines et al., in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California - San Francisco (51 individual agencies),"

      -- "Paula Fausky d/b/a Timeless Travel v. American
         Airlines, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division (29
         agencies)," and

      -- "Swope Travel et al. v. Orbitz, et al. in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
         Beaumont Division (6 agencies).  

Collectively, these lawsuits seek damages and injunctive relief
alleging that the certain airline defendants and Orbitz LLC:

      -- conspired to prevent travel agents from acting as
         effective competitors in the distribution of airline
         tickets to  passengers  in  violation of Section 1 of
         the Sherman  Act;  

      -- conspired to monopolize the distribution of common
         carrier air  travel between airports in the United
         States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act;
         and that

      -- between 1995 and the present, the airline defendants
         conspired to reduce commissions paid to U.S.-based
         travel agents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
         Act.

By order dated Nov. 10, 2003, these actions were transferred and
consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Ohio under the caption, "In re Travel Agent
Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1561, Master Docket No.
1:03-30000."  Judge Peter C. Economus was assigned to the case.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the Fausky plaintiffs dismissed their claims
with prejudice.  On Sept. 14, 2006, the court dismissed with
prejudice 28 of the Swope plaintiffs, according to the company's
Oct. 20, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation,
MDL-1561, Master Docket No. 1:03-30000," filed in the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Ohio under Judge Peter
C. Economus.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Alioto, Jr., Ste. 3160, 555 California St.,
         San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-434-8900, Fax: 415-
         434-9200, E-mail: jaliotojr@aliotolaw.com;

     (2) John H. Boone of Law Offices of John H. Boone, 555
         California St., Suite 3160, SanFrancisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415-434-1133, Fax: 415-434-9200; and

     (3) Harvey B. Bruner, Bruner & Jordan, 1600 Illuminating
         Bldg., 55 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone:
         216-566-9477, Fax: 216-696-7047, E-mail:
         hbbdef@aol.com; and

     (4) Harold R. Collins, Jr. of Blecher & Collins, Ste. 2000,
         611 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-622-4222, Fax: 213-622-1656, E-mail:
         hcollins@blechercollins.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Rachel S. Brass and George A. Nicoud, III, and Mark E.
         Weber of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Phone: 415-393-8293,
         415-393-8308 and 213-229-7597, Fax: 415-374-8429, 415-
         374-8473 and 213-229-6597;

    (ii) Hugh E. McKay of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, 1700
         Huntington Building, 925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH
         44115-1483, Phone: 216-443-9019, Fax: 216-443-9011, E-
         mail: hmckay@porterwright.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs to Appeal Nixing of "Harrington"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the dismissal of a suit, filed as a
class action but not certified as such, over an alleged failure
by American Airlines, Inc. to refund certain governmental taxes
and fees collected by the company upon the sale of non-
refundable tickets when such tickets are not used for travel.

In the matter "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.,"
which was filed Dec. 6, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs sought unspecified actual
damages (trebled), declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
costs, and attorneys' fees.   

The suit asserted various causes of action, including breach of
contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment against the company
and numerous other airline defendants.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was
granted.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the
First Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Oct.
20, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period Sept. 30, 2006.  

The suit is "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-12558-NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Evans J. Carter of Evans J.
Carter, P.C., P.O. Box 812, Framingham, MA 01701, Phone: 508-
875-1669, Fax: 508-875-1449, E-mail: ejcatty1@Verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are Matthew A. Porter and Michael S.
Shin of Dechert, LLP, 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor, Boston,
MA 02116, Phone: 617-728-7100, Fax: 617-426-6567, E-mail:
matthew.porter@dechert.com and michael.shin@dechert.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Flight Attendant Suit Over CBA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed certain claims in the consolidated class action,
"Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.," according to
the company's Oct. 20, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period Sept. 30,
2006.

On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint, that
was subsequently amended on November 30, 2004, was filed against
American Airlines and the Association of Professional Flight
Attendants (APFA), the Union that represents the American's
flight attendants.

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of American's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside, and to obtain damages allegedly
resulting from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement
referred to as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).  

The RPA was one of three labor agreements the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.  

The suit alleges various claims against the Union and American
Airlines relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the
RPA by individual Union members, including:

      -- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
         Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's Constitution and
         By-laws,

      -- violation by the Union of its duty of fair
         representation to its members, violation by American of
         provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) through
         improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or
         changing their vote for ratification, and

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).  

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.  

This leaves the claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of
fair representation against American Airlines and the APFA (as
well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a
breach of the union constitution).  

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Nina Gershon
with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Emily Maruja Bass, Law Offices of Emily Bass, 25
         Washington Street, Suite 305 Brooklyn, NY 11201, Phone:
         718-522-9705, Fax: 718-522-9707, E-mail: eb@basslaw.us

     (2) Martin Garbus and Mark J. Rachman, Davis & Gilbert,
         LLP, 1740 Broadway, 21st floor, New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-468-4800, Fax: 212-468-4888, E-mail:
         mgarbus@dglaw.com or mrachman@dglaw.com

Representing the defendants are Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr.,
Melissa C. Rodriguez and Sam Scott Shaulson of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-
309-6000, Fax: 212- 309-6273, E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com,
mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com and sshaulson@morganlewis.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Litigation Over Cargo Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign as well as domestic
air carriers are facing several purported class actions,
alleging violations of the U.S. antitrust laws by illegally
conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo shipments.  

The class actions are:

      -- "Animal Land, Inc. v. Air Canada et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on Feb. 17, 2006;

      -- "Joan Adams v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on Feb. 22, 2006;  

      -- "Rock International Transport v. Air Canada, et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on Feb. 24, 2006;
  
      -- "Helen's Wooden Crafting Co. v. Air Canada et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on Feb. 24, 2006;

      -- "ABM Int'l, Inc. v. Ace Aviation Holdings, Inc., et
         al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on Feb. 28, 2006;

      -- "Blumex USA, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         Illinois on March 1, 2006;

      -- "Mamlaka Video v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on March 3, 2006;

      -- "Spraying Systems Co. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.,
         et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York on March 3, 2006;

      -- "Mitchell Spitz v. Air France-KLM, et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on March 6, 2006;

      -- "JCK Industries, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on March 6, 2006;

      -- "Marc Seligman v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         Florida on March 6, 2006;

      -- "CID Marketing and Promotion Inc. v. AMR Corporation et
         al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania on March 7, 2006;

      -- "Lynn Culver v. Air Canada et al.," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Columbia on March 8,
         2006;

      -- "JSL Carpet Corp. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et
         al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on March 10, 2006;

      -- "Y. Hata & Co, Ltd. v. Air France-KLM et al.," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California on March 13, 2006;  

      -- "FTS International Express v. ACE Aviation Holdings,
         Inc. et al. filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         District of Columbia on March 15, 2006;

      -- "Thule, Inc. v. Air Canada et al.," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
         March 28, 2006;"

      -- "Rosetti Handbags and Accessories, Ltd. v. Air France
         ADS, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York on March 31, 2006;

      -- "W.I.T. Entertainment Inc. v. AMR Corporation et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
         District of Florida on April 3, 2006;

      -- "Jeff Rapps v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on April 7, 2006;  

      -- "Funke Design Build, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
         District of Illinois on April 7, 2006;

      -- "Sul-American Export Inc. v. Air France ADS, et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on April 7, 2006;

      -- "La Regale Ltd. v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         New York on April 12, 2006;

      -- "J.A. Transport Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc. et
         al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
         of Columbia on April 12, 2006;

      -- "Caribe Air Cargo, Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.,
         et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         District of Columbia on April 13, 2006;

      -- "Gold Eye Distributors, Inc. v. Air France ADS et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on April 14, 2006;

      -- "Ralph Olarte v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on
         April 19, 2006;

      -- "Capogiro LLC v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc. et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
         Columbia on April 20, 2006;

      -- "Ali Fayazi v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on April 26, 2006;

      -- "Janice Perlman v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         New York on May 9, 2006;

      -- "Leslie Young v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on May 12, 2006;

      -- "Craig Antell, M.D. v. British Airways PLC et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on May 16, 2006;

      -- "Eurotrendz v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on May 18, 2006;

      -- "David Asher Rakoff v. British Airways PLC et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on May 22, 2006;

      -- "Kalla Hirschbein v. British Airways PLC, et al., filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         New York on June 1, 2006;

      -- "Association des Utilisateurs du Transport de Fret v.
         ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Columbia on June 6,
         2006; and

      -- "McDuffee New York, Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.
         et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of Illinois on June 27, 2006.

These cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, together with
approximately 47 other class actions in which the company has
not been named as a defendant.  

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief, according to the company's Oct. 20, 2006 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period Sept. 30, 2006.

Texas-based AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR) -- http://www.aa.com/--  
operates primarily in the airline industry through its principal
subsidiary American Airlines, Inc., which during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2005, provided scheduled jet service to approximately
150 destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin
America, Europe and Asia.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Passenger Fare Surcharges Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign as well as domestic
air carriers are continue to face several purported class
actions, alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.

Several purported class actions were filed, namely:

     -- "Saldana v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.," filed in
        the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
        York on June 23, 2006;

     -- "McGovern v. AMR Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        June 23, 2006;

     -- "Baharani v. British Airways, PLC, et al., filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
        on June 23, 2006;

     -- "Boccara v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
        on June 23, 2006;

     -- "Chin v. AMR Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        June 26, 2006;

     -- "McDuffee New York, Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.,
        et al." filed in the U.S. District Court for the
        Northern District of Illinois on June 27, 2006;

     -- "McGrath v. AMR Corporation et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        June 27, 2006;

     -- "Fadden v. AMR Corporation et al." filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        June 28, 2006;  

     -- "Szeleqski v. AMR Corporation, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        Illinois on June 28, 2006;

     -- "Golin v. AMR Corporation et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of California
        on June 29, 2006;  

     -- "Mazzocco v. AMR Corporation et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
        June 29, 2006;

     -- "McIntyre Group, Ltd. v. AMR Corporation et al.," filed
        in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  District of
        California on June 29, 2006;  

     -- "Miller v. British Airways PLC et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Pennsylvania on June 29, 2006;

     -- "Nelson v. AMR Corporation," filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 29,
        2006;

     -- "Weiss v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Pennsylvania on June 30, 2006;

     -- "Marco v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Central District of
        California on June 30, 2006; and

     -- "Finegan v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
        on July 6, 2006.

     -- "Sederholm v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        July 10, 2006;

     -- "El-Demerdash v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        July 11, 2006;

     -- "Molinaro v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
        on July 11, 2006;

     -- "El-Demerdash v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        July 13, 2006;

     -- "Hastings v. American Airlines, Inc. et al. filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        Illinois on July 13, 2006;

     -- "Wayman v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        Illinois on July 13, 2006;

     -- "Waters v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
        on July 14, 2006;

     -- "Olmert v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.," filed in
        the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        California on July 13, 2006;

     -- "Fischer v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        Illinois on July 17, 2006;

     -- "Carney v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        July 18, 2006;  

     -- "Hardingham v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in
        the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        California on July 18, 2006;

     -- "Penrose v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
        July 21, 2006;

     -- "Taylor v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of California
        on July 21, 2006;  

     -- "Wolff v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
        July 21, 2006;

     -- "Harris v. British Airways PLC, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        California on July 25, 2006;

     -- "Comeaux v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
        July 26, 2006;

     -- "Oliff v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
        July 26, 2005;

     -- "Kastin v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of New York on
        July 28, 2006;

     -- "Page v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of California
        on July 31, 2006;  

     -- "Van  Meter v. British Airways, et al.," filed in  the  
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        Illinois on July 31, 2006;

     -- "Vesely v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of California
        on July 31, 2006;

     -- "Davis v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.  
        District Court for the Northern District of California
        on Aug. 1, 2006;

     -- "Hecht v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 3,
        2006;

     -- "Lockmanese v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the
        U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        California on Aug. 7, 2006;

     -- "Martin v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., filed in the  
        U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
        on Aug. 9, 2006;  

     -- "Madnick v. AMR Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
        Aug. 24, 2006;

     -- "Szlavik v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.," filed in
        the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on
        Aug. 31, 2006; and

     -- "Brennan v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of California
        on Sept. 6, 2006.   

These cases are expected to be consolidated in an as yet
undetermined court together with approximately 49 other class
actions in which the company has not been named as a defendant.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief, according to the company's Oct. 20, 2006 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period Sept. 30, 2006.

Texas-based AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR) -- http://www.aa.com/--  
operates primarily in the airline industry through its principal
subsidiary American Airlines, Inc., which during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2005, provided scheduled jet service to approximately
150 destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin
America, Europe and Asia.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Summary Ruling in Calif. Suit Under Appeal  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit the summary judgment made by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California in the class
action, "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al."

The suit names as defendants American Airlines, Inc., and:

     -- AMR Corp.,
     -- AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,  
     -- Airlines Reporting Corp., and
     -- Sabre Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos to the company for violations of American's fare rules by
customers of the agencies:

     -- breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
        and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs;

     -- constitutes unjust enrichment; and  

     -- violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act of 1970.

The certified class includes all travel agencies who have been
or will be required to pay money to American for debit memos for
fare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin American from enforcing the pricing
rules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debit
memos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.  

On Feb. 24, 2005, the court decertified the class.  In September
2005, the court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the company
and all other defendants.  

Plaintiffs recently filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's Oct. 20, 2006
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et
al., Case No. 99-cv-07689-WDK-AIJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge William
D. Keller.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Linda S. Platisha, Linda S. Platisha Law Offices, 21520
         Yorba Linda Blvd., Ste. G-560 Yorba Linda, CA 92887,
         Phone: 714-694-1542; and

     (2) Dean Browning Webb, Dean Browning Webb Law Offices,
         8002 NE Hwy. 99, Ste. B Vancouver, WA 98665-8833,
         Phone: 503-629-2176, Fax: 503-629-9527.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Chad S. Hummel, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, 11355 W.
         Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614, Phone: 310-
         312-4000; and

    (ii) William A. Wargo, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 S. Grand
         Ave., 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 213-
         229-7000.


BOVIS LEND: N.Y. Court Ruling Gives Reprieve From 9/11 Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has ruled in a purported class action that Bovis Lend Lease and
50 other defendants had a certain period of immunity under state
and federal legislations from claims arising from the Sept. 11,
2001 terrorist attack, according to Florence Chong of The
Australian.

Bovis Lend Lease, a Lend Lease Corp. subsidiary was on the site
of ground zero hours after two planes slammed into the World
Trade Center, and was lead contractor supervising the nine-month
cleanup.

Though Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the defendants had a
certain period of immunity, he did not indicate when this
immunity would end.

In handing down his judgment on hearings held in June, the judge
specifically pointed out that the defendants are benefited by
limited immunity.  Essentially, that immunity is limited
according to time and activity.

However, the judge cautioned that further evidence had to be
assessed before determining the extent to which the immunity
laws were applicable to the claims.

In September 2004, a class action was filed in that court
against a number of parties, including the City of New York and
Bovis Lend Lease.

An estimated 1900 claims had been received from emergency
services personnel and other workers at the site, alleging
personal injuries and other damages.

That figure though was expected to rise since the number of
plaintiffs who originally brought claims naming Bovis Lend Lease
in the litigation was about 10,000.  

The judge had ordered the appointment of a "special master"
whose role would be to review the claims, weeding out the
frivolous ones.

If the case proceeds beyond the preliminary stage, Bovis Lend
Lease is one of the beneficiaries of the $1 billion captive
insurance policy.  

Congress established the insurance policy to protect the City of
New York and its contractors against liabilities arising from
the cleanup.  Bovis Lend Lease also has the benefit of other
relevant insurance.


CANADA: Langley School District May Face Legal Action Over Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Victoria school trustee said that the Langley school district
could face a possible class action if it continues to charge
students course fees, Natasha Jones of The Langley Times
reports.

The threat of a class action is due in part to a recent ruling
by the British Columbia Supreme Court earlier this month, which
upheld a 1997 decision that Section 82 of the Schools Act
prohibits schools from charging fees for anything required by
students in order to graduate.

According to John Young, the school trustee who brought the
action, districts that do not halt the practice will likely face
a court challenge.

Mr. Young specifically said that he was putting school districts
and the B.C. government on notice that there will be costly
class actions if school fees are not eliminated.

In the ruling, Justice Robert Johnston stated that a school
board is not permitted to charge student fees for courses or for
materials, or for musical instruments, which are required for
students to successfully complete a course leading to
graduation.

According to the ministry of education, school boards "shall not
charge fees for goods and services provided by the board to
students of school age resident in the school district without
which the student could not meet the required learning outcomes
or assessment requirements of an educational program provided by
the board."

Mr. Young filed the petition against the province to put a halt
to students in B.C.'s public schools paying for course fees,
musical instrument rentals, calculators, school trips,
equipment, and everything else needed for any course, including
electives.

He pointed out that in most school districts parents are paying
fees amounting to hundreds of dollars each year per student.  
Mr. Young added that fees could be as high as $1,100 for a
single course.

Mr. Young's evidence included school fee schedules from 15
school districts in the province, including Langley.  He cited
the fees charged by H.D. Stafford Secondary, including those for
renting band instruments, and art supplies at Langley Fine Arts
School.  The fees are being charged in all districts except at
Victoria and Nisga'a.

Asked for comment on the judgment, Langley school superintendent
Cheryle Beaumont said that the district would not act on the
decision until it has reviewed it.  She pointed out that neither
the school district nor the ministry [of education] has read the
decision.

Ms. Beaumont confirmed that in cases where a student's family
cannot afford fees, the school pays them.  She adds, "We have
many examples of that."

Charges, ranging from $10 to $100, are common among all
Langley's senior schools, but are not charged for tuition or
books.  They typically apply to students in subjects that
include woodwork, metalwork, photography, home economics, art,
drama, film and television, dance, P.E., electronics and auto
mechanics.  

Education Minister Shirley Bond declined to comment on the
ruling until ministry staff and legal advisors have studied it.


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Court Judgment in Stock Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the U.S. District Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, the final judgment of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California in a purported class
action filed against Chaparral Network Storage, Inc. (now
acquired by Dot Hill Systems Corp.) and certain of its former
officers and directors.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal
securities laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during
a defined period prior to Dot Hill's acquisition of the company.  
In May 2005, the second amended complaint was dismissed with
leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which the court
again dismissed with leave to amend in November 2005 as to the
company and certain other defendants.  Plaintiffs declined to
amend within the proscribed period, and final judgment was
entered in February 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a notice appeal in the U.S. District Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, though they have not filed their
opening papers, according to Dot Hill's Oct. 19, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Robert T Harvey Securities Litigation, 8:04-
cv-00876-DOC-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Brian Barry, Jill Levine Betts of Brian Barry Law
         Offices, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-0831, E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com or jilllevine1@yahoo.com;

     (2) Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Jim T. Tice, Catanzarite Law
         Offices, 2331 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim, CA 92801, Phone:
         714-520-5544, E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or
         jtice@catanzarite.com;

     (3) Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm, 350 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jtice@catanzarite.com  

Representing the company is Eric H. Macmichael and Meghan Oryan
Spieker of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA
92121, Phone: 858-550-6000, E-mail: mspieker@cooley.com.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Plaintiffs in MDL-1561
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
ordered the dismissal of 28 plaintiffs from the consolidated
class action, "In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1561," a suit filed by travel agents against
Continental Airlines, Inc. and several other air carriers.

During the period between 1997 and 2001, the company reduced or
capped the base commissions that it paid to travel agents, and
in 2002 it eliminated such base commissions.  These actions,
which were similar to those also taken by other air carriers,
lead to lawsuits.  

The company is a defendant, along with several other air
carriers, in two such lawsuits brought by travel agencies that
purportedly opted out of a prior class action entitled, "Sarah
Futch Hall d/b/a/ Travel Specialists v. United Air Lines, et
al."  

That suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on June 21, 2000.  In it the
defendant airlines prevailed on summary judgment that was upheld
on appeal.

The two new suits against the Company and other major carriers
allege violations of antitrust laws in reducing and ultimately
eliminating the base commission formerly paid to travel agents.

The pending cases are respectively captioned, "Tam Travel, Inc.
v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of California on April 9, 2003 and
"Swope Travel Agency, et al. v. Orbitz LLC, et al.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on June 5, 2003.

By order dated Nov. 10, 2003, these actions were transferred and
consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Ohio under the caption, "In re Travel Agent
Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1561, Master Docket No.
1:03-30000."  Judge Peter C. Economus was assigned to the case.  
Discovery recently commenced.

On Sept. 14, 2006, the judge for the consolidated lawsuit issued
an order dismissing 28 plaintiffs in the Swope case for their
failure to properly opt-out of the Hall case.  

Consequently, there are a total of 90 travel agency plaintiffs
remaining in the two cases, according to its Oct. 19, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation,
MDL-1561, Master Docket No. 1:03-30000," filed in the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Ohio under Judge Peter
C. Economus.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Alioto, Jr., Ste. 3160, 555 California St.,
         San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-434-8900, Fax: 415-
         434-9200, E-mail: jaliotojr@aliotolaw.com;

     (2) John H. Boone of Law Offices of John H. Boone, 555
         California St., Suite 3160, SanFrancisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415-434-1133, Fax: 415-434-9200; and

     (3) Harvey B. Bruner, Bruner & Jordan, 1600 Illuminating
         Bldg., 55 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone:
         216-566-9477, Fax: 216-696-7047, E-mail:
         hbbdef@aol.com; and

     (4) Harold R. Collins, Jr. of Blecher & Collins, Ste. 2000,
         611 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-622-4222, Fax: 213-622-1656, E-mail:
         hcollins@blechercollins.com.

Representing the company is James A. Reeder of Vinson & Elkins,
2300 First City Tower, 1001 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-2202, Fax: 713-615-5947, E-mail:
jreeder@velaw.com.


DOT HILL: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dot Hill Systems Corp. seeks to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action that was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

In late January and early February 2006, numerous complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed against the company.  
The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws
related to alleged inflation in its stock price in connection
with various statements and alleged omissions to the public and
to the securities markets and declines in the company's stock
price in connection with the restatement of certain of its
quarterly financial statements for fiscal year 2004, and seeking
damages therefore.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and the
court appointed as lead plaintiff a group comprised of the
Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System and the General
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.  

The consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 25, 2006, which the
company is moving to dismiss, according to the company's Oct.
19, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Matt Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corporation,
et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00228-W-WMC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California under
Judge Thomas J. Whelan with referral to Judge William McCurine,
Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric J. Belfi of Murray Frank and Sailer, 275 Madison
         Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212)
         682-1818;

     (2) Michael M. Goldberg of Glancy and Blinkow, 1801 Avenue
         of The Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160; and

     (3) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney and Squire, 830 Third
         Avenue, Tenth Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)
         317-2300, Fax: (212) 371-6600.

Representing the defendant is Koji F. Fukumura of Cooley Godward
Kronish, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA 92121-9109, Phone:
(858) 550-6000, Fax: (858) 550-6420, E-mail:
kfukumura@cooley.com.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Hybrid SUVs Over Door Latches with Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co., in cooperation with the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling over 145,000 cars,
minivans and SUVs, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The recall involves 139,537 2005 model-year Ford Five Hundred
and Mercury Montego sedans and 2005-2006 model-year Freestar
minivans because the side door latches may leak, NHTSA reported.

The leak may cause the latch mechanism to freeze in cold weather
and the door could open while the vehicle is moving, according
to the NHTSA recall notice.

Ford is also recalling 6,164 Escape hybrid SUVs from 2006 model
year because a drive shaft may fracture and break.

The fracture could cause the Escape to inadvertently move even
while the transmission is in the park position, according to
NHTSA.

Ford dealers will inspect the Escape hybrid drivetrain and
replace parts as necessary.


EVERGREEN INVESTMENTS: Canton Investors File Complaints in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evergreen Investment Corp., Evergreen Homes and the companies'
owner, David Willan of Akron, Ohio were named defendants in
lawsuits filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court, the Akron
Beacon Journal reports.

The first suit, filed by James Viront of Canton filed a class
action on behalf of other investors, contends that Mr. Viront
invested $23,500 in the company from July 2005 to June 2006.  
The case has been assigned to Judge James Murphy.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Ohio securities laws
and fraudulently misrepresented facts about his investment.  He
states in the lawsuit that the defendants worked together in a
conspiracy to mislead him and all other investors in their
enterprise.

Subsequently, Theresa Baer an investor from Ravenna, filed a
second lawsuit, charging a lack of payment and seeking at least
$25,000. No figure was specified in the lawsuit for Baer's
investment. Her case has been assigned to Judge Marvin Shapiro.

Both suits also named Daniel Mohler, an Evergreen salesman, as a
defendant, stating he was not properly licensed to sell the
certificates and was paid improper commissions, the report said.
Evergreen Investment is also accused of selling certificates
while the company was insolvent.

The company has also had complaints from residents that their
homes have unfinished work, and subcontractors have claimed they
haven't been paid.

There also have been complaints from the Ohio Department of
Commerce. The department's Division of Securities and Evergreen
agreed in June that the company could no longer sell high-yield
securities because it was insolvent.

From 2004 to 2006, Evergreen Investment sold high-yield
securities to fund the home-building operations of Evergreen
Homes, which built moderately priced homes mostly in Akron and
sold them to people who had trouble qualifying for standard
mortgages, the report said.

In recent months, the company encountered difficulties, not
making interest and principal payments to its investors.

In September, Evergreen Homes agreed to stop selling second
mortgages after the Department of Commerce's Division of
Financial Institutions filed a complaint in Summit County Common
Pleas Court accusing the company of violating the Ohio Mortgage
Loan Act.

An agreement was reached in which Evergreen ended its practice
of selling second mortgages.

Mr. Viront is represented by Lawrence J. Scanlon of Scanlon &
Co., L.L.C., 400 Key Building, 159 South Main St., Akron, OH
44308, Phone: (330) 376-1440, Fax: (330) 376-0257.

Representing Ms. Baer is Ronald M. Martin, 1615 Akron Peninsula
Rd, Akron, OH 44308-1416.


FREESCLAE SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Six Shareholder Lawsuits in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freescale Semiconductor Inc. is named defendant in six purported
class action petitions filed in the District Court of Travis
County, Texas, alleging, among other things, the company's
directors benefited substantially from the sale of the company,
and therefore didn't take the proper steps to maximize
shareholder value.

The suits are:

     -- "Merger Gerber v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al.,
        Cause No.D-1-GN-06-003501;"

     -- "Lifshitz v. Michel Mayer, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-06-
        003585;"

     -- "Warner v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Cause
        No. D-1-GN-06-003673;"

     -- "Tansey v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al., Cause
        No. D-1-GN-06-003685;"

     -- "Hockstein v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al.,
        Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003717;" and

     -- "International Union of Operating Engineers Local No.
        825 Pension Fund v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et
        al., Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003918."

All of the petitions name Freescale and the current members of
the board of directors as defendants.  The Gerber and Lifshitz
petitions also name The Blackstone Group, The Carlyle Group,
funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC, and Texas Pacific Group
as defendants.  The Lifshitz and Hockstein petitions also name
B. Kenneth West, a former member of our board of directors, as a
defendant.

Plaintiffs purport to represent stockholders of Freescale who
are similarly situated with them.  Among other things, the
petitions allege that directors, in approving the proposed
merger breached fiduciary duties owed to stockholders because
they failed to take steps to maximize the value to public
stockholders.

The petitions further allege that The Blackstone Group, The
Carlyle Group, funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC, and Texas
Pacific Group aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The petitions allege that the Company's directors will receive
substantial benefits from the acquisition that would not be
shared with other stockholders.

The petitions further allege that the directors who approved the
transaction were not sufficiently independent and disinterested,
and did not conduct a competitive auction.

The petitions also allege that the Company took impermissible
steps to hinder other potential acquirers, including a buyout
group led by Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts Co.

Some of the petitions also allege that the Company failed to
disclose certain details regarding the proposed Merger and the
process leading up to the Merger.

The petitions seek class certification, damages, and certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the Merger.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the company and the current members of the
board of directors filed answers to five petitions in which the
company generally denied the allegations.  The company moved to
consolidate the actions that same day.  

The company intends to take similar actions with respect to the
petition filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by the International Union of
Operating Engineers Local No. 825 Pension Fund.

Austin, Texas-based Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (NYSE: FSL.B)
-- http://www.freescale.com/-- designs and manufactures  
embedded semiconductors for the automotive, consumer,
industrial, networking and wireless markets in more than 30
countries.  Freescale offers families of embedded processors,
which include microcontrollers, digital signal processors and
communications processors.  The company also offers a portfolio
of complementary devices that facilitate connectivity between
products, across networks and to real-world signals, such as
sound, vibration and pressure.  Its complementary products
include sensors, radio frequency semiconductors, power
management and other analog and mixed-signal integrated
circuits.  Freescale is organized into three primary business
groups: Transportation and Standard Products Group, Networking
and Computing Systems Group, and Wireless and Mobile Solutions
Group.


HAND N' HEART: Faces Va. Labor Violations Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Local home health services company Hand N' Heart is facing a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations
Act by not paying its hourly home health care workers overtime
for time worked in excess of 40 hours - or for the time that it
took them to travel from one site to another, the Daily Press
reports.

The suit, filed by Colleen Hanley has worked for Hand N' Heart
for the past six or seven years, alleges that the company also
didn't pay employees for time spent waiting between job
assignments.

"The initial commute to work is on the employee, but if you
travel during the day, that time is covered by the employer and
must be paid as work time."

What's not so clear, though, is whether a company like Hand N'
Heart must pay employees overtime.

An exemption in the Fair Labor Relations Act says companion
services are exempt from the overtime rule, the report said.
According to the law, if a worker is hired directly by an
individual seeking care, that person is exempt from paying
overtime.

"The question is whether that exemption applies to big
business," according to Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein
attorney Avery Waterman.

Mr. Waterman said Ms. Hanley is seeking compensation for the
unpaid time and for liquidated damages, which amounts to double
what she'd have earned if the wages were paid as required.

He said the company should fairly compensate its employees for
the time that they worked, just as Sentara Healthcare and
Riverside Health System did for their home health workers.

Hand N' Heart's lawyer argued that the company was exempt from
the time-and-a-half rule, regardless of its size.

"The home health workers are not entitled to overtime because
they are working in companion services, which the federal law
exempts," said William Furr, an attorney with Willcox & Savage
in Norfolk.

According to both attorneys, courts around the country disagreed
on where the exemption stopped.  They also said several suits
filed on the issue were expected to go before the U.S. Supreme
Court in the near future.

If the courts require Hand N' Heart to pay overtime, it could
ruin the company, Mr. Furr said.

"Medicaid doesn't pay time and a half for workers, so the
company would go broke trying to pay the overtime," he said.

However, Hand N' Heart officials weren't served the legal papers
until last week.

The suit is "Hanley v. Hand 'N Heart, et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00071-HCM-TEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, under Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with
referral to Judge Tommy E. Miller.

Representing plaintiffs is Avery Tillinghast "Sandy" Waterman,
Jr. of Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, L.C., Patrick Henry
Corporate Center, Suite 300, 12350 Jefferson Avenue, Newport
News, Virginia 23602, Phone: 757-223-4500, Fax: Facsimile: 757-
249-3242 or 757-249-1627 or 757-223-4518, Website:
http://www.pwhd.com.

Representing the defendant is William M. Furr of Willcox &
Savage, P.C., One Commercial Place, Suite 1800, Norfolk,
Virginia 23510-2197, Phone: 757-628-5500, Fax: 757-628-5566,
Website: http://www.willcoxsavage.com.


HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Ariz. Retirement Suit Gets Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
class action status to the lawsuits against Honeywell
International, Inc.'s retirement earnings plan.

Plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to
allegations that, among other things, Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of employees of Garrett Corp. (a
predecessor entity) when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed
to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms of
the plan.

In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these
claims and in favor of the Honeywell on virtually all other
claims.

Honeywell strongly disagrees with, and intends to appeal, the
court's adverse ruling.  In September 2006, the court certified
a class, according to the company's Oct. 19, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings
Plan, Case No. 2:04-cv-00424-ROS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Roslyn O. Silver.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Daniel Lee Bonnett and Jennifer
Lynn Kroll of Martin & Bonnett, PLLC, 3300 N. Central Ave., Ste.
1720, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-240-6900, Fax: 602-240-2345,
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com and jkroll@martinbonnett.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael L. Banks and Amy Covert of Morgan Lewis &
         Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-
         2721, Phone: 215-963-5387 and 215-963-4749, Fax: 215-
         963-5001, E-mail: mbanks@morganlewis.com and
         acovert@morganlewis.com.

     (2) Dawn L. Dauphine of Osborn Maledon, PA, P.O. Box 36379,
         Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379, Phone: 602-640-9000, Fax: 602-
         640-6075, E-mail: ddauphine@omlaw.com.


HORIZON BLUE: Settles N.J. Litigation Over Doctors' Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey class action attorney Eric Katz representing the
plaintiff physician class in "John Ivan Sutter, M.D. et al. v.
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Case No. L-3685-
02," announced that the parties have agreed to settle the class
action lawsuit pending before Judge Stephen Bernstein in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County on mutually beneficial
terms.

Under the settlement agreement, Horizon BCBSNJ has committed to
continue significant business practice improvements related to
physicians to increase transparency in payment of claims, reduce
administrative overhead, and improve interactions between the
health plan and physicians.  These improvements will help
enhance the efficiency and quality of the health care delivery
system in New Jersey.

Key settlement agreement points include:

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will make fee schedules for commonly used
        procedures available to participating physicians by CD-
        ROM or electronically;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will disclose the significant automated
        edits it uses to process physician claims;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will provide 90 days notice to
        participating physicians of material changes to its
        contracts, policies, and procedures;

     -- Participating primary care physicians will be allowed to
        close their practices to new patients covered by Horizon
        BCBSNJ;

     -- Most fees shall not be reduced for participating
        physicians, if at all, more than once a year and Horizon
        BCBSNJ shall maintain standard fee schedules within
        geographic regions;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ agrees not to recover for overpayments to
        physicians after more than 18 months of the original
        payment and to provide more notice and information
        regarding any overpayments;

     -- A determination of medical necessity by Horizon BCBSNJ
        shall not subsequently be revoked absent evidence of
        fraud, material error, or material change in the
        condition of a patient prior to service;

     -- Horizon will provide detailed monthly capitation reports
        and a dedicated liaison to address physician inquiries
        concerning capitation 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 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18,
2006).

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.

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/.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Urged to Consider Legal Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shuman & Berens LLP encouraged persons who
purchased the common stock of Marvell Technology Group Ltd.
between Feb. 24, 2005 and Oct. 2, 2006 to consider their legal
options, concerning their rights and interests as potential
class members in the shareholder class action lawsuit recently
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The putative class action alleges that Marvell Technology and
certain officers and directors violated federal securities laws
related to the backdating of stock options (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 19, 2006).

Specifically, the complaint asserts that Marvell Technology
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading public statements regarding its financial results,
and that the Company omitted to disclose that it was engaging in
the backdating of stock option grants to executives and other
employees.  

On July 5, 2006, the company disclosed that it had received
inquiries from the Securities and Exchange Commission and a
federal grand jury regarding past stock option grant practices.

On Oct. 2, 2006, Marvell Technology announced that it would be
forced to restate its financial reports due to the misdating of
stock options.  

The market responded sharply to this news with Marvell
Technology's share price plummeting approximately 19% from a
closing price of $20.65 per share on July 5, 2006 to a closing
price of $16.80 on Oct. 3, 2006.

For more information, contact Jeffrey A. Berens of Shuman &
Berens LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218, Phone: 1-
800-711-6483, Fax: (303) 830-6920, E-mail:
jeff@shumanberens.com.


MICHIGAN: Detroit Residents Sue City Over Trash Collection Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Detroit is a defendant in a purported class action
that was filed about 800 homeowners over its $300 annual garbage
collection fee, The Associated Press reports.

Filed on Oct. 10, 2006, the suit alleges that the fee amounts to
a hidden tax that should have been voted on by residents.  The
City Council and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick approved the trash
collection fee in July.  It was intended to replace a 3-mill tax
levy and as an alternative to laying-off 600 city workers.

According to the suit, which was filed by Detroit resident
Valerie Weems, the fee provides a budgetary increase to the
city, flouting state law requiring that a fee only cost as much
as the service provided.

In their suit, the residents seek the abolishment of the fee and
the $300 payment refunded.  In addition, they also want the city
barred from further collecting the fee.

Plaintiffs allege that the 3-mill tax levy for trash collection
is still on the books, a claim the city denies.  City officials
are insisting that it did a lot of research on state law and
various other considerations made in the suit before proceeding
with the plan.

"We're confident that the fee conforms with Michigan law," says
John Johnson, the city's corporation counsel.  He explains that
the law department was reviewing the lawsuit and plans to make
its response in the coming weeks.

Matt Allen, a spokesman for Mayor Kilpatrick, pointed out that
residents can opt out of paying the fee, but then must contract
with a licensed trash hauler.

For more details, contact John Johnson Esq., 645 Griswold, Suite
1312, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 962-2501.


MICROSOFT CORP: Notice Issued for $37.8M Ark. Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A notice program authorized by Judge Alice Gray of the Pulaski
County Arkansas Circuit Court, Twelfth Division began on Oct.
23, 2006, issuing notices to Arkansas consumers and businesses
that acquired Microsoft Corp. software from January 1, 1998
through December 31, 2004, for use in the state.

The settlement provides up to $37,800,000 in benefits for
Arkansans.

The notices are the result of a proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit about whether Microsoft violated Arkansas laws
pertaining to anti-trust, consumer protection, and unfair
competition by overcharging customers for some of its operating
systems, word processing, and spreadsheet software.

The suit alleges that Microsoft unlawfully used anticompetitive
means to maintain a monopoly in markets for certain software,
and that as a result, it overcharged Arkansas consumers who
licensed its MS-DOS, Windows, Word, Excel and Office software.

Microsoft denies plaintiff's allegations and believes that it
developed and sold high quality and innovative software products
at fair and reasonable prices.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an
indication that any law was violated. The Court did not rule on
the merits of the lawsuit.

The parties settled the case, and on September 7, 2006, the
court conditionally certified a settlement class and
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.

The settlement includes consumers who, between Jan. 1, 1998 and
Dec. 31, 2004, resided in Arkansas and indirectly purchased
(i.e., purchased from someone other than Microsoft) in the
United States a license for a Microsoft Operating System and/or
Microsoft Application for use in Arkansas and who did not
purchase it for resale.

Microsoft will distribute up to $37.8 million in vouchers that
eligible consumers and businesses can redeem to buy computers,
peripheral computer hardware, or computer software made by any
manufacturer.

One-half of the difference between the total value of vouchers
issued and $37.8 million will be distributed as vouchers to
certain schools that serve students from low-income households,
and one-half of the value of vouchers issued but not redeemed
will be distributed to the Arkansas Department of Education.

Notices informing class members about their legal rights will be
mailed and emailed, and are scheduled to appear in newspapers
and magazines in Arkansas, leading up to a hearing on March 6,
2007, when the court will consider whether to approve the
settlement.

Those affected by this settlement can send in a claim form to
ask for benefits, or they can ask to be excluded from, or object
to, the settlement.  The deadline for objections is February 15,
2007.

The deadline for exclusions is February 20, 2007. The deadline
to file claims is April 23, 2007 or 30 days after the Court
grants "final approval" to the settlement, whichever comes
later.

Microsoft-Arkansas Settlement on the net:     

                   http://www.microsoftARsuit.com

The suit is "Peek, et al v.Microsoft Corp., No. CV-06-2612
case," filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mike L. Roberts of The Roberts Law
Firm, P.A., 20 Rahling Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-1790,
Phone: (501) 821-5575; and Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates,
P.C., One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602,
Phone: (312) 621-2000.

Representing Microsoft are Richard J. Wallis of Microsoft
Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052; and David
B.Tulchin of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad Street, New
York, NY 10004.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Pays-off Injury Claims Over Jan. Train Wreck
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. has reached an agreement-in-principle
with plaintiffs' attorneys for a proposed class action
settlement that would provide compensation for personal injury
claims associated with the railroad's Jan. 6, 2005, derailment
at Graniteville, South Carolina.

The agreement is for claims that were not part of the prior
class action settlement approved last year covering property
damage, evacuation expenses and losses, and minor personal
injuries.

The parties expect to file the motion papers for preliminary
approval by the Court in early November. The settlement will
provide varying levels of compensation for people who were
injured and who received medical treatment or were hospitalized
as a result of the derailment and subsequent release of
chlorine.

Norfolk Southern issued the following statement regarding the
agreement:

"Norfolk Southern and Plaintiffs' Class Action counsel endorse
the agreement outlined to the Court last week.  From day one,
our goal has been to help the people of Graniteville recover
from the accident, and this settlement is a continuation of that
effort.

"We commend the plaintiffs' attorneys for negotiating in good
faith over these many months. By reaching this proposed
agreement, all parties are acting in the interest of the people
who suffered varying degrees of injury that were not encompassed
in the first class settlement. If approved, the settlement will
provide compensation that is fair and just, and will do so in an
expeditious manner.

"Norfolk Southern is deeply sorry for all the losses, hardship,
and inconvenience this accident has caused and again extends its
regrets to those adversely affected."

In January 2005, a week after the train crash spilled a toxic
chemical, killing nine people and sickening hundreds in South
Carolina, the evacuated residents of Graniteville, some not yet
able to returns to their homes filed lawsuits against Norfolk
Southern, claiming negligence and nuisance (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 18, 2005).

About 5,400 residents were evacuated from a one-mile radius of
the crash site after the train wreck ruptured a railcar carrying
chlorine and released a toxic cloud over the town of
Graniteville, killing nine people, injuring hundreds and forcing
the evacuation of thousands.


In August 2005, a federal judge in South Carolina approved a
class action settlement for damages from a January train wreck
that killed nine people as it spread a toxic cloud over the
nearby mill town of Graniteville (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
19, 2005).

Under the settlement, Norfolk Southern agreed to compensate
residents fully for property damage and lost wages and
businesses for lost profits. The company also is paying for the
inconvenience of the evacuation and minor personal injuries.

Specifically, the settlement requires Norfolk Southern to pay
$2,000 per household within one mile of the crash site for
inconvenience as well as $200 per day, per person for those who
didn't seek medical attention within 72 hours after the crash.

It is unclear though how much money the railroad will spend on
the settlement. Company spokesman Robin Chapman previously
stated that Norfolk Southern expects to spend $35 million for
cleanup costs, legal claims and other expenses from the wreck.

The settlement outlines how residents and businesses should be
reimbursed for property damages and lost wages and profits after
a Norfolk Southern train crashed into parked railroad cars. The
resulting train wreck ruptured a car carrying chlorine and
released the poisonous cloud, killing nine and injuring 250
people.

Norfolk, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern Corp. and Subsidiaries'
(NYSE: NSC) -- http://www.nscorp.com-- non-carrier subsidiaries  
engage principally in the acquisition, leasing and management of
coal, oil, gas and minerals; the development of commercial real
estate; telecommunications, and the leasing or sale of rail
property and equipment.


PETCO ANIMAL: Dissident Investors Fail to Stop Oct. 23 Meeting
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court declined to block an Oct. 23, 2006
meeting at which PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. shareholders will
vote on the proposed sale of the company to two private
investment firms, according to Frank Green of The San Diego
Union Tribune.

Attorneys representing dissident shareholders wanted a temporary
injunction halting the meeting so that shareholders could be
provided with additional information on how the company's board
chose Leonard Green & Partners and Texas Pacific's $1.8 billion
bid over a higher offer from PetSmart.

However, in turning down the injunction request, Judge John S.
Meyer pointed out that there was not enough time "to add some
discrete information to the proxy" with meeting looming.

The judge added that he was not sure whether an injunction was
appropriate, voicing concern during the hearing about possible
damage to PETCO's stock price if there should be a delay in the
vote.

On July 14, 2006, the San Diego-based pet supplies firm, which
has more than 800 stores, announced that it had a $1.8 billion
stock and assumed debt deal with Leonard Green and Texas
Pacific, which had previously owned PETCO.

PETCO would be bought for $29 a share - a 49 percent premium
over the trading price of $19.45 a share the day before the
announcement.  The two private equity firms plan to make PETCO a
private company.

During the negotiating process, PETCO's board passed on a $33-a-
share offer by rival Pet-Smart, which has about 860 stores,
because of what PETCO said were concerns that antitrust
questions could delay a deal indefinitely.

Darren Robbins, a partner in the law firm of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, which is representing
shareholders, expressed disappointment in the judge's decision
to allow the shareholders' meeting to go forward.

Despite the decision though, he was quick to point out that the
class action brought by his clients against PETCO's directors
and executives in July would proceed.  

The suit seek between $300 million and $400 million in damages
from the company, claiming that PETCO's board and management
were unduly influenced in their decision by their close ties to
Leonard Green and Texas Pacific.  A trial date, however, has not
yet been set.

Some Petco directors and executives have been with the company
for many years, and several were on hand when the two private
equity firms spent $600 million to acquire Petco stock in
October 2000 to take the company private. Petco said in its
proxy statement that it anticipated its current managers would
hold similar positions following the sale.

Analysts expect shareholders to overwhelmingly approve Petco's
sale to the two firms.  The meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. at
Homewood Suites by Hilton, 11025 Vista Sorrento Parkway, San
Diego.

According to Joan Storms, an analyst who covers PETCO for
Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles, "I don't see any point
in shareholders voting this down."

Analysts said that after taking PETCO private, Leonard Green and
Texas Pacific are likely to pare costs as they prepare the firm
for a possible sale or a new public offering in the next several
years.

The deal is being financed largely by debt that PETCO will
repay, so it will need to maintain a strong cash flow to make
the payments, added analysts.

Paul Kedrosky, executive director of the von Liebig Center for
Entrepreneurism and Technology Advancement at the University of
California San Diego explains that in a typical leveraged
buyout, the buyer "sees some asset that is undervalued," adding
"They aren't buying the company because it's efficiently run."

For more details, contact Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800)
449-4900, E-mail: darrenr@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/.


PHILIP SERVICES: Firm, Auditor Continue to Face Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Services Corp. and its auditor, Deloitte & Touche, remain
defendants in a consolidated securities fraud suit, which is
under appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second
circuit.

On Jan. 26, 1998, Philip Services announced that it would take
"charges to earnings" of between $250 and $275 million for
fiscal year 1997.  

Over the next several months, this figure was raised to over
$381 million, of which $125 million was reported to arise from
overstated copper inventory and unrecorded copper-trading
losses.

In addition, Philip restated its previously issued financial
statements for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997, thereby
admitting that such financial statements were materially false
and misleading.  

The revised statements disclosed that 1995 earnings were
overstated by approximately $22.5 million, or 690%, and 1996
earnings by $48.3 million.  

Thus, instead of posting a $28.4 million profit in 1996, as
Philip had initially reported, the company recorded losses
totaling approximately $20 million.

As a result of these disclosures, the share price of Philip
stock dropped from $13 1/8 on January 16, 1998 to $2 9/16 in
July 1998, a loss of approximately 80%.  Thereafter, Philip
filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.

In the wake of the disclosures in early 1998, more than 20 class
actions were commenced in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York, the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and the District of New Jersey.  

By order dated June 2, 1998, these actions were transferred to
the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and consolidated for pre-trial
purposes.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging
violations of:

     -- Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act, Sections
        78j(b) and 78t of the Commerce and Trade Code;

     -- SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title 17 of the
        Code of Federal Regulations; and

     -- Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act,
        Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o of the Commerce and Trade
        Code.

Plaintiffs asserted their claims on behalf of these class and
sub-classes:

       a class consisting of all persons who purchased Philip
       common stock and call options from Feb. 28, 1996 through
       May 7, 1998 inclusive, and on behalf of Sub-Classes
       consisting of:

       * all purchasers of Philip common stock issued in the
         November 1997 Offering pursuant to the November 1997
         Registration Statement (the "November 1997 Registration
         Statement Sub-Class");

       * all persons whose shares of Allwaste common stock were
         exchanged for Philip common stock, pursuant to the
         Allwaste Registration Statement (the "Allwaste Sub-
         Class"); and

       * all persons whose shares of Serv-Tech common stock were
         exchanged for Philip common stock, pursuant to the
         Serv-Tech Registration Statement (the "Serv-Tech Sub-
         Class").

              Deloitte & Touche Named as Defendant

Specifically, plaintiffs charged Philip and certain of its
officers and directors with making materially false and
misleading statements concerning its publicly reported revenues,
earnings, assets and liabilities.  

Claims are also asserted against Deloitte & Touche in connection
with its audits of Philip in 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the U.S.
underwriters in connection with the November 1997 Offering.

On Sept. 11, 1998, following transfer of the various class
actions to the Southern District of New York, the consolidation
of the actions, and the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.  Plaintiffs filed their consolidated and amended class
action complaint.  

In October and November of 1998, each of the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including forum non
conveniens, arguing in favor of litigation in Canada.  
Plaintiffs opposed defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 1999, the district court dismissed the complaint, finding
that plaintiffs' choice of the U.S. as the forum for their
claims was entitled to little deference, that Canada was an
adequate alternative forum for all of plaintiffs' claims against
all defendants, and that the balance of the relevant private and
public interest factors favored Canada.

                      Litigation in Canada

On Nov. 12, 1999, plaintiffs filed their brief with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing this action
in favor of litigation in Canada.  A hearing was held before the
Second Circuit on March 13, 2000.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the
district court's decision, finding that the lower court abused
its discretion in dismissing the case in favor of litigation in
Canada.  The defendants requested that the full appeals court
rehear the case.  

The panel that issued the Nov. 8, 2002 opinion agreed to rehear
the appeal and, on April 1, 2002, issued a second opinion again
reversing and remanding the District Court's decision.  

However, the defendants have conceded the sufficiency of the
allegations of certain of plaintiffs' claims.

The court issued an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss
on May 24, 2004.  Among these defendants were Deloitte & Touche
and defendants Haynes and Knauss.  

Thereafter, beginning on June 25, 2004, defendants filed their
answers to the amended complaint.  On March 1, 2005, the court
set various deadlines including that all merit discovery be
concluded by Jan. 31, 2006.  Merit discovery has been completed.  

Initial expert reports were exchanged on Feb. 15, 2006,
according to an update posted by at the Web site of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The suit is "In re Philip Services Corp. Securities Litigation,
Civ. Action No. 98cv835-MBM (U.S. Dist. Court S.D.N.Y.), 99-7825
(U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Cir.) under Judge Michael B. Mukasey.  
Case Contact: Nicole R. Starr, Phone: 800-516-9926.


R&G FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has consolidated all securities fraud class action filed against
R&G Financial Corp.
  
On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial claiming that the
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
R&G common stock from April 21, 2003 through and including April
25, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were
materially false and misleading when made because defendants
failed to disclose:

     -- that the company's earnings quality had been
        significantly weakened by the company's use of more
        aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,
        as well as to the value it retained in its interest only
        (IO) residuals in securitization transactions;

     -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value
        of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused
        the company to overstate its financial results by at
        least $50 million;

     -- that the company's financial statements were not
        prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
        Accounting Principles;

     -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
        was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
        condition of the company; and

     -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income
        and financial results were materially overstated at all
        relevant times.

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the
investing public when it announced that it would restate its
earnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with court.  Judge John
Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25, 2005 and, on July 26,
2005 signed an Order consolidating all related cases into one
class action, as "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, according to an update posted
by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo.

Case Contact: Leslie R. Stern, Phone: 800-516-9926.


SHAW GROUP: Circuit Court to Hear Appeal on La. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the 5th Circuit agreed to hear an
appeal on a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities fraud
suit, "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc."

On July 23, 2004 an investor filed a complaint against The Shaw
Group, Inc. claiming the company and three top officers misled
the investing public about its finances.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Shaw Group common stock from Oct. 19, 2000, through and
including June 10, 2004.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- Shaw Group;
     -- J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman and chief executive officer;
     -- Tim Barfield, Jr., president, chief operating officer,
        and director since 2003; and
     -- Robert L. Belk, chief financial officer and executive
        vice president.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Shaw Group
issued materially false and misleading information about its
financial performance to the investing public.  

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Shaw Group established
excessive or "general" contract reserves in conjunction with two
acquisitions and then tapped those "cookie jar" reserves to
artificially boost its earnings when needed.  

Defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in connection
with its long-term construction contracts, violating its own
reported revenue recognition policy.

These actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices
and resulted in significantly overstated revenues and net income
throughout the class period, which in turn inflated Shaw Group's
stock price.

The company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock
price by offering $479 million in shares of Shaw Group common
stock to the public, as well as millions of dollars of debt
securities.  

Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by
selling approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw Group common
stock during the class period, for proceeds of roughly $80
million.

After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the company shocked
the investing public by announcing that Shaw Group was the
subject of an informal investigation by the SEC into the
company's method of accounting for acquisitions.

In response to these revelations, the price of Shaw Group's
common stock plummeted, falling 18% to $10.05 when trading
resumed on June 14, 2004 (following a long weekend).

On Aug. 16, 2004, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  On Aug. 31, 2004, all
related cases were consolidated into one class action lawsuit,
"Thompson v. The Shaw Group Inc., No. 04-1685."

On Oct. 20, 2004, a hearing on the motions for the appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel was held and, after argument,
Judge Helen G. Berrigan took the motions under submission and
ordered any supplemental briefing be filed by Nov. 3, 2004.  

Further briefing was filed and on Dec. 13, 2004, Judge Berrigan
signed an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
on Feb. 11, 2005 and names as an additional defendant, Richard
F. Gill, who was until 2003, the company's executive vice
president and chief operating officer.  

On June 16, 2005, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Nov. 3, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed
an amended class action complaint.  

On Jan. 13, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were
held on May 24, 2006 and the motion was denied.

On July 18, 2006, the Judge granted defendant's motion for an
immediate appeal of the motion to dismiss to the fifth circuit
court of appeals and that the case be stayed pending the outcome
of the appeal.  

On Sept. 7, 2006 the U.S. District Court for the 5th Circuit
agreed to hear the appeal of the motion to dismiss, according to
an update posted by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case  
No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Helen G. Berrigan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter E. Seidman, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach  
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165  
         Phone: (212) 594-5300;

     (2) Lewis Stephen Kahn, Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650  
         Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:  
         504-455-1400;

     (3) Joel R. Waltzer, Waltzer & Associates, 14349 Chef  
         Menteur Hwy., P. O. Box 29423, Suite D, New Orleans, LA  
         70189, Phone: 504-254-4400;

     (4) Darren J. Robbins, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA  
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058;

     (5) John Donellan Fitzmorris, Jr., John D. Fitzmorris, Jr.,  
         Attorney at Law, 210 Baronne St., Suite 1122, New  
         Orleans, LA 70112, 504-586-9395; and

     (6) David A. Rosenfeld, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406,  
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.

Representing the defendants are:
      
     (i) Steven W. Copley, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis &  
         Eagan LLP, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000, New  
         Orleans, LA 70170-4000, Phone: (504) 582-1111;

    (ii) J. J. (Jerry) McKernan, McKernan Law Firm, 8710  
         Jefferson Hwy., Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-926-
         1234; and

   (iii) Clifford Thau, Steven R. Paradise of Vinson & Elkins,  
         LLP, 666 Fifth Ave., 26th Floor, New York, NY 10103,  
         Phone: 212-237-0007.


TEXAS: Williamson County Sued Over Indigents' Defense Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas State District Judge Joseph H. Hart denied a county motion
to dismiss a purported class action against Williamson County
that accuses the county of systematically thwarting requests for
court-appointed representation, The Austin Chronicle reports.

In effect, the ruling might have some county judges stand trial
for allegedly depriving indigent defendants facing criminal
misdemeanor charges their right to a court-appointed attorney.

The Texas Fair Defense Project (TFDP), an Austin-based legal
advocacy group, which focuses on improving poor defendants'
access to legal counsel, filed the class action on behalf of
people currently facing misdemeanor criminal charges in the
county (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2006).  

According to the suit, there are three plaintiffs in the case,
namely: Kerry Heckman, Monica Maisenbacher and Sylvia Peterson.  
All three were denied access to court-appointed attorneys, the
suit alleges.  Defendants include:

      -- Williamson County,
      -- County Judge John Doerfler,
      -- County Court-at-Law No. 1 Judge Suzanne Brooks,
      -- County Court-at-Law No. 2 Judge Tim Wright,
      -- County Court-at-Law No. 3 Judge Don Higginbotham and
      -- Judge William Thomas Eastes, a magistrate in
         Georgetown.

It contends that the county and the judges who preside over
three county courts-at-law do not inform defendants about their
right to legal counsel or, when they do, provide misleading
information about that right.  

The suit also contends that they encourage defendants to waive
their right to legal counsel and speak directly with prosecutors
without an attorney.  

Specifically, the suit points out that when defendants do
request for court-appointed attorneys, the courts discourage
them and delay appointment of an attorney.

Plaintiffs are not seeking any monetary damages instead they
sought an injunction requiring the county to inform people
facing misdemeanor charges and possible imprisonment of their
right to court-appointed legal counsel and to provide attorneys
for indigent defendants.  

The suit came after more than a year of courtroom observation by
both the TFDP and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition (TCJC), a
nonprofit assisting TFDP.

For more details, visit http://researcharchives.com/t/s?b71
(Class Action Petition) or contact Andrea Marsh, Texas Bar No.
24039033, and Harry Williams IV, Texas Bar No. 24053551, 510
South Congress Avenue, Suite 208, Austin, TX  78704, Phone (512)
637-5220, Fax: (512) 637-5224.


WASHINGTON: Spokane Files Federal Suit Over City's Towing Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Spokane and its police department were named as
defendants in a purported class action, claiming it was
unconstitutional for defendants to automatically tow any cars
operated by drivers with suspended licenses, The Spokesman-
Review reports.

The suit filed on Oct. 16, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington by attorneys Breean Beggs and
John Sklut of the Center for Justice on behalf of Spokane
resident Arthur Thomas.

Generally, the suit, which seeks class action status, alleges
that the "city violates and continues to violate state law,
municipal ordinances, and the state and federal constitutions by
adopting and pursuing a mandatory impoundment policy in these
circumstances."

Though acknowledging that the city did have a mandatory tow
policy back in the day, police spokesman Cpl. Tom Lee pointed
out that the policy was changed a couple of years ago to give
full discretion to the officers.  Such a change included
allowing a properly licensed passenger to drive the car home.

If certified as a class action, the lawsuit would require the
city to repay the incurred costs for anyone who had their
vehicles "unlawfully" impounded.

According to the suit, the incurred costs include the fees for
retrieving the towed vehicles, paying for when the drivers
couldn't use their cars and compensation for vehicles that were
sold at auction before the owners could raise enough money to
pay the towing fees and redeem the vehicles from the tow
company.

In their compliant, the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote that the
city has been denying drivers' constitutional rights because the
policy does not allow for due process, such as allowing the
suspended driver to call a licensed spouse or family member to
retrieve the car before it was towed.

Aside from the city and its police department, Evergreen State
Towing, a tow operator that removes, stores and disposes of
impounded vehicles, was also named a defendant in the suit.

In 1998, the suit states that the Spokane Police Department
changed its policy from "arresting officer may take custody" of
an impounded vehicle and replaced that language with "the
vehicle is subject to impoundment."

The suit contends that the impound law was interpreted by the
Spokane Police Department as requiring mandatory impoundment of
all vehicles when persons are arrested for driving on a
suspended license.

However, the suit pointed out that a similar policy by the
Washington State Patrol (WSP) was challenged in court, and on
Dec. 12, 2002, the Washington Supreme Court held that the WSP
policy exceeded the agency's authority, since it removed the
officers' ability to use discretion consistent with
constitutional requirements.

Furthermore, the suit pointed out that contrary to these
precedents, the City of Spokane adopted and on information and
belief, has continued to pursue a mandatory impoundment policy
and practice since at least August 2000.  It adds that a Spokane
Police Department memorandum confirmed the existence of this
policy.

Both plaintiffs' attorneys did not attempt to estimate in the
lawsuit how much money the city would be required to pay back if
it loses.

Instead, they stated in the suit that the damages sustained by
the plaintiffs and the class represented includes costs for
redeeming vehicles from impoundment, loss of use of the
vehicles, and, in a substantial number of cases, loss of the
vehicles at auction when the owners could not afford to redeem
them.

The attorneys also requested for the client, Mr. Thomas,
information from the city about his impounded car.  Though it
has acknowledged receiving Mr. Thomas' records request, the city
has since refused to provide those documents "despite numerous
communications, according to the suit.

Thus, they are asking a federal judge to impose a penalty of
between $5 and $100 a day for each document that the city has
denied Thomas the right to inspect and copy.

The suit is "Thomas v. Spokane City of et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00292-EFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington under Judge Edward F. Shea.

Representing the plaintiffs are Breean Laurence Beggs and John
D. Sklut of the Center for Justice, 35 West Main Street, Suite
300, Spokane, WA 99201, Phone: 509-835-5211, Fax: 15098353867,
E-mail: breean@cforjustice.org and jsklut@cforjustice.org.  


* Fulbright & Jaworski Study Says Companies Are Fit For Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent survey of companies' in-house counsel, the
international law firm Fulbright & Jaworski revealed that people
and companies are suing each other more than ever, Stephanie
Tavares of In Business Las Vegas reports.

The survey is the third of its kind since 2004 and was conducted
by the independent research firm Business Development
Directives, which was commissioned by Fulbright & Jaworski.  

The survey was conducted in May and June and sampled corporate
law departments across the nation for their views on the state
of litigation in the U.S. and abroad.  There were 422
participants, including 111 from abroad.

In a press statement, Stephen Dillard, chairman of the Fulbright
& Jaworski global litigation practice said, "Our goal is to
probe corporate counsels' concerns on their most pressing
litigation issues - not only about the costs and types of cases
they confront most often, but attitudes toward class actions,
electronic discovery and document retention, the value of
arbitration in international disputes, economic issues, and of
course, their views of outside counsel, which are always highly
instructive."

                        Filing of Lawsuits

The survey found, among other things, that more than one-third
of U.S. respondents reported having 20 or more lawsuits filed
against their companies in the past year.  Nearly one-quarter of
respondents are saying that they faced more than 50 new cases
this year.  The average 2005 per-company caseload of lawsuits
was 305.

Although it was not all spent in defense, businesses reported an
average of 70 percent allotment in their legal budgets on
litigation.  Seventy percent of respondents said their companies
initiated at least one new lawsuit in the past year as a
plaintiff.

Facing an average of 1,696 suits per company, the insurance
industry was tagged by the survey as the one being sued the
most.  Cases against the industry cover anything from product
liability and environmental class actions to coverage fights
over damages from hurricanes and terrorist attacks.

Energy firms came in a distant second with an average of 364
lawsuits, according to the survey.  The retail industry was at
third with an average caseload of 333, while financial services
had an average of 300 suits.  Only 11 percent of companies
surveyed did not face a single new lawsuit in the past year.

The most commonly reported disputes stemmed from labor and
employment problems, which was reinforced by the surveys
findings that more than half of in-house counsels identified
labor or employment as among their top three concerns.  In
addition, contract disputes (40%), and class actions (26%) were
also listed as top concerns by the survey.

                 Litigation in Foreign Countries

The suits were not all on the home front either, according to
the survey.  Though only 3 percent of lawsuits reported were
filed overseas, those are spread out over a large group.  

Forty-five percent of respondents said they had pending
international lawsuits.  American companies said they currently
faced the most lawsuits in North Asia (Japan, Korea), South
America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom and
Canada.

Companies, the survey found, are spending a fortune in dealing
with all of that litigation with the average expenditure of
respondents being $12 million.  

However, that figure comes from a wide scale, ranging from $39
million spent on average by construction and engineering firms
to $253,000 spent on average by trade associations.

                   Use of Outside Law firms

The study also noted, "It doesn't appear that law firm
litigators will go wanting for work any time soon."  Only 7
percent of firms reported using one or fewer outside law firms
to represent them in legal disputes.  

Fifty-six percent of respondents employed up to 10 outside
firms, and 83 percent of them said they believe the number of
firms they call on for litigation will remain constant or
increase in the near future.

However, outside firms should not be overconfident due to the
in-house counsels' sharp criticisms of them.  In-house counsels
also expressed a complete willingness to drop the outside firms
like "a hot potato" if they aren't happy.

Even though rising costs were a major complaint by in-house
counsels, 46 percent of them reported lack of competence as the
top reason for firing outside counsel.  Only 19 percent said
increasing expenses would be the issue most likely to result in
outside counsel being fired.

Interestingly, the survey found that sixty-three percent of U.S.
companies reported undertaking at least one in-house probe
requiring outside counsel in the past year.

Fifteen percent launched three or more in a year, with energy
and health care sectors raising the most red flags.  Thirty
percent of counsels in both industries reported three or more
investigations in the past year.

                        About the Report

1Fulbright & Jaworski 2006 Litigation Trends Survey is an
independent survey of senior corporate counsel.  Now in its
third year, the report surveyed 422 companies (the largest
number to date) from a wide range of industry sectors.  There
were 311 U.S. participants and 111 from countries across the
globe, including 45 in the U.K.  U.K. responses are included in
the international figures cited, but in some cases, they are
also broken out separately.  Fulbright & Jaworski LLP on the
Net: http://www.fulbright.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


JABIL CIRCUIT: Finkelstein Thompson Files Fla. Securities Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against Jabil Circuit, Inc. FTL
welcomes inquiries from investors concerning their rights and
interests in this matter.

The putative class action alleges that Jabil Circuit and certain
officers and directors committed certain violations of the
federal securities laws related to the backdating of stock
options.

Specifically, the complaint asserts that Jabil Circuit violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
public statements regarding its financial results, and that the
company omitted to disclose that it was engaging in the
backdating of stock option grants to executives and other
employees.

On May 3, 2006, the company disclosed that it had been contacted
by the SEC and that the SEC would be requesting information
regarding past stock option grant practices.

On June 21, 2006, Jabil Circuit announced that it had received a
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern
District of New York requesting stock option related material.

The market responded sharply to this news with Jabil Circuit's
share price plummeting approximately 39% from a closing price of
$40.78 per share on May 3, 2006 to a closing price of $24.79 on
June 22, 2006.

Interested parties have until Nov. 20, 2006 to seek for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran,
Washington, DC, Phone: (877) 337-1050 and +1-202-337-8000, E-
mail: contact@ftllaw.com, Web site: http://www.ftllaw.com.


LEGG MASON: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock of Legg Mason, Inc. between June
24, 2005 and July 24, 2006.  The class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

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

Interested parties have until Dec. 15, 2006 to seek for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

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


PRESSTEK INC: Shapiro Haber Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, announces the filing of a class
action alleging securities fraud in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire against Presstek, Inc., and
certain of its officers.  

The case was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Presstek during the period from July 27, 2006 through
Sept. 29, 2006.  Judge James Muirhead is presiding over the
case, entitled, "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., No. 06-cv-
377-JM."

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading public
statements regarding Presstek's expected revenue growth in 2006.

On July 27, 2006, defendants issued a press release announcing
the company's financial results for the second quarter of 2006,
and stating that the defendants expected that Presstek would
reach its 10% annual revenue growth target for 2006.

On Sept. 28, 2006, Presstek's representatives stated they
expected the company to have 10% revenue growth in 2006 and 10-
15% in 2007.

At 12:05 a.m. on Sept. 29, 2006, Defendants issued a press
release reporting Presstek's preliminary financial results for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, which disclosed that Presstek
did not expect to reach its previously projected 10% annual
revenue growth target for 2006.

As a result, the price of Presstek stock dropped sharply,
opening at $4.95 a share at the start of trading on September
29, down $1.28 or 20% from the previous day's closing price of
$6.23 a share.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff and other class members
were damaged because they purchased stock at artificially
inflated prices during the class period as a result of
defendants' fraudulent conduct.

Interested parties have until Dec. 18, 2006 to seek for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber &
Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (800) 287-
8119 or (617) 439-3939, E-mail: cases@shulaw.com, Website:
http://www.shulaw.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  * * *