---

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

            Monday, August 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 160

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Cargo Surcharges
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suits Over Passenger Fare Surcharges
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Suits Over Faulty Pacemakers May Cost $381M
C&O MOTORS: Class Representative Also Plans Separate Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Cities Accused of Illegally Sharing Police Records

CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Pa. Suit Over Faulty "Horizon" Shingles
CLASSIC SALADS: Recalls Baby Food on Possible Contamination
DELL COMPUTER: Chinese Consumers File Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
DRAXIS HEALTH: Continues to Face Suit Over Permax Side Effects
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Enters $1.5M Settlement for Securities Suit

EARL SCHEIB: Court Approves $750T Settlement of Wage, Hour Suit
EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Settlement Hearing Set for M53XX Suit
FLORIDA: Inmates File Suit Over Jail Conversation Recordings
ILLINOIS: Boone County Residents File Suit Over Approved Budgets
ILLLINOIS: Former Worker Sues Wilmette Parks Over Lost Wages

LAKEWOOD RANCH: Uninsured Woman Files Overcharging Suit in Fla.
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Agrees to Settle Claims in "McGreevey" Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Dismissal Sought for Mass. Soldiers' Pay Suit
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Sept. 15
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1519 Deal

PURCHASEPRO.COM: Oct. Hearing Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal
QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS: Recalls Flame Switches Posing Fire Hazard
SOUTH AFRICA: Suit to Defend Women's Reproductive Rights Planned
SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Consolidated ERISA Suit in Kans. for $29M

STATE FARM: New Documents Filed in "All-Risk" Policies Lawsuit
TEXAS: Black Firefighters File Racial Bias Suit Against Dallas
THAXTON GROUP: Aug. 24 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Ohio Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remittances
VIACOM INC: Shareholder Files Suit in Del. Over Blockbuster Deal

WEST VIRGINIA: Federal Judge Remands Suit Over Medicaid Policy
WISCONSIN PUBLIC: Class Status Sought in Suit Over Easements
WORLDCOM INC: Ex-CEO's Columbus Lumber Interest Sold to Managers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTENE CORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SUNTERRA CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits 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 46 other class actions in which the company has
not been named as a defendant.  

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.  

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

Approximately 17 purported class actions were filed:

     -- "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.

These cases are to be consolidated in an as yet undetermined
court together with approximately 32 other class actions in
which the company has not been named as a defendant.  Plaintiffs
are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief.  

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.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Suits Over Faulty Pacemakers May Cost $381M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. has set aside $381 million to defend
itself against individual lawsuits and class actions filed
against it over faulty heart devices made by Guidant Corp., a
company it acquired in April, the Boston Globe reports.

According to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission the $381 million figure is an estimate of
legal costs to fight the lawsuits, and did not represent an
estimate of potential liability.

The company's filing said it is "still assessing" the total
potential liability.

Since 2005, Guidant faced hundreds of lawsuits related to
problems with implantable defibrillator devices that have been
linked to multiple deaths.

Last month, Boston Scientific recalled a specific subset of
pacemakers, cardiac resynchronization pacemakers and implantable
cardioverter defibrillators from its sales force and hospital
inventories due to a supplier's low-voltage capacitor that is
not performing up to the company's expectations (Class Action
Reporter, July 4, 2006).

The specific subset of devices included:
  
     -- Insignia and Nexus pacemakers;
     -- Contak Renewal TR/TR2 cardiac resynchronization
        pacemakers;
     -- Ventak Prizm 2;
     -- Vitality; and
     -- Vitality 2 implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

In its SEC filing, Boston Scientific said the number of cases
has increased.  There are now about 72 product liability class
suits and about 477 individual suits pending in various state
and federal courts against Guidant.

Most cases are filed in federal court, and federal cases have
been consolidated under "multi-district litigation" rules and
moved to a U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

The first federal court trial is scheduled for March 15.

There are also more than 60 cases pending in state court. Of
those, the first trial -- in Texas -- is scheduled to start in
September, according to the report.

According to the company, majority of the lawsuits allege no
physical injury, but clam compensation for medical monitoring
and anxiety.

On June 13, the Minnesota Supreme court appointed a single judge
to preside over all state court lawsuits involving cases linked
to last year's Guidant product communications, Boston Scientific
said.

A number of health insurers, including several Blue Cross and
Blue Shield plans, have also sued Guidant to recover the
healthcare charges they say are associated with patients who
received faulty devices, according to a Dow Jones report.

The suit is "In re: Guidant Corp Implantable Defibrillators
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 0:05-md-01708-DWF-AJB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
under Judge Donovan W. Frank, with referral to Judge Arthur J.
Boylan.

Representing the defendants are Timothy A. Pratt of Shook Hardy
& Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Blvd, Kansas City, MO 64108, Phone: 816-
559-2292, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail: tpratt@shb.com; and Joseph
M. Price of Faegre & Benson LLP, 90 S 7th St Ste 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone: 612-766-7000, Fax: 612-766-
1600, E-mail: jprice@faegre.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard J. Arsenault of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, 2220
         Bonaventure Court, Alexandria, LA 71301, Phone: 318-
         487-9874, Fax: 318-561-2591, E-mail:
         rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com;

     (2) Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
         Bernstein -SF, 275 Battery St 30th Fl, San Francisco,
         CA 94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax:
         ecabraser@lchb.com;

     (3) Ronald S. Goldser of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651 Nicollet
         Mall Ste 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123, Phone: 612-
         341-0400, Fax: 612-341-0844, E-mail: rsg@zimmreed.com;

     (4) Seth R. Lesser of Locks Law Firm, 110 E 55th St, New
         York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-3333, E-mail:
         slesser@lockslawny.com;

     (5) Gale D. Pearson of Pearson, Randall & Schumacher, PA,
         400 S 4th St Ste 1012, Mpls, MN 55415, Phone: 612-332-
         0351, Fax: 612-342-2399, E-mail: attorneys@outtech.com;
         and

     (6) Charles S Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651
         Nicollet Mall Ste 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123,
         Phone: 612-341-0400, Fax: 612-341-0844, E-mail:
         csz@zimmreed.com.


C&O MOTORS: Class Representative Also Plans Separate Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff who filed a class action in Kanawha County Circuit
Court against C&O Motors of St. Albans, West Virginia, after
buying a Daewoo automobile there, plans to take the dealer to
trial both as an individual and as representative of a class of
Daewoo buyers, according to the West Virginia Record.

In his suit, which was granted class-action status by Judge Paul
Zakaib in Oct. 5, 2005, Darryl Smith accuses the car dealer of
unfair and deceptive business practices.  

Mr. Smith alleges that C&O sold new Daewoo vehicles between Feb.
1, 2002 and Aug. 1, 2002 without informing consumers of Daewoo
Motor America's financial problems that could affect warranties.  
Aside from C&O, the lawsuit also names Love Daewoo and St.
Albans Imports as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3,
2005).

Court records show that Daewoo Motor filed for bankruptcy
protection in May 2002 after its South Korean parent Daewoo
Motor Co. went bankrupt in 2001.  General Motors then signed a
deal with Daewoo and the Korean Development Bank to invest $251
million for a 42 percent stake in a new company.

According to Mr. Smith's attorney, Harry Bell of Charleston, his
client would represent a class in a claim that C&O Motors
violated the state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices law
by selling about 90 Daewoo vehicles while the automaker is
approaching bankruptcy.  He added that Mr. Smith would also
pursue a claim of fraud and misrepresentation separately.

C&O Motors reacted to Mr. Smith's dual role by asking Judge
Zakaib to bifurcate the claims and conduct two trials.  Defense
attorney Allyson Griffith argues that there is no way that these
claims can be fairly tried together without confusion, disorder
and prejudice.  She also pointed out that as soon as Mr. Smith
walks his own path and asserts his conflicting and inconsistent
claims, he is no longer an appropriate class representative.

Ms. Griffith also argues that Mr. Smith's individual claim and
the class claim would involve different theories, remedies and
elements of proof.

However, Mr. Bell's associate, Tim Yianne countered that
bifurcation would serve no purpose other than to waste judicial
economy and force the plaintiff to expend considerable resources
litigating two jury trials.

Mr. Yianne enumerated these solutions for allowing their
client's dual role in the case:

      -- "the court can simply instruct the jury that there are
         two claims being advanced -- one on behalf of the class
         -- the other individually";

      -- "the court can instruct the jury as to the elements and
         burdens of proof for the respective claims";

      -- "the jury could use a special verdict form with three
         yes or no questions and five blanks with dollar signs
         for jurors to fill in"; and

      -- "Mr. Smith would present the same evidence and
         witnesses on both claims."

He asserts that the claims would not conflict, since the class
claim would require lesser elements of proof than Mr. Smith's
individual claim.

Judge Zakaib postponed the slated July 23 trial for the case,
since a criminal case took priority.  The judge thus pushed the
trial back to Sept. 11, but in a July 26 letter C&O Motors
attorney Mark Swartz asked him to set it for January 2007,
citing that his co-counsel would be out of the country.

Mr. Swartz attached a July 21 letter he received from Gene
Walker of C&O Motors, stating that attorney Crystal Stump would
be in Europe on the trial date.  

On July 27, however, Mr. Bell challenged the request for a 2007
trail.  He wrote Judge Zakaib that C&O Motors' attempt to again
postpone this trial to 2007 -- considering it is a 2002 case --
should not be allowed since his client is suffering from cancer
and thus desires a prompt resolution to the case.  

Mr. Bell also pointed out that Ms. Stump had not been actively
involved in the case and had not worked on it.  He adds that he
too could not prepare for the July 23 trial due to the birth of
his child, but that he planned to let Mr. Yianne try the case to
prevent a delay.

For more details, contact Harry F. Bell, Jr. of Bell & Bands,
P.L.L.C., 30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, West
Virginia 25301, (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-345-1700, Fax: 304-
345-1715, Web site: http://www.belllaw.com.  


CALIFORNIA: Cities Accused of Illegally Sharing Police Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
The cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles faces purported
class actions that accuses them of illegally sharing private
police files with Anthony Pellicano, the disgraced private
investigator accused of wiretapping and obtaining the
confidential records of movie stars, journalists and business
executives, Reuters reports.

Film producer Aaron Russo filed one of the suits against the
city of Beverly Hills and former Beverly Hills detective Craig
Stevens on Aug. 7, 2006 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The suit relates to a previous legal squabble involving Mr.
Russo and a New York-based investor, Adam Sender, for whom Mr.
Pellicano was working at the time.  

It charges that Mr. Stevens, at the request of Mr. Pellicano,
improperly accessed the Beverly Hills Police Department computer
system to obtain criminal histories and other law-enforcement
information about individuals Mr. Pellicano was investigating.

According to Douglas Johnson, lead attorney for the plaintiffs,
"They ran the criminal and DMV records of Mr. Russo's two sons
and his girlfriend, who were not connected to the underlying
lawsuit between Mr. Russo and Mr. Sender."  He adds, "They were
just trying to find dirt on anybody related to [Mr. Russo] to
get leverage in the case."

The other lawsuit, which was filed against the city of Los
Angeles and former police officer Mark Arneson, is alleging
similar behavior from the defendants.  One of its plaintiffs is
Monika Zsibrita, a professional model.

In this lawsuit, the model and fellow plaintiffs Richard and
Joyce Miller allege that their records similarly were run and
improperly shared with Mr. Pellicano by Mr. Arneson, a former
sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Attorneys representing the two sets of plaintiffs said they
anticipate other plaintiffs and perhaps defendants will be added
to the suit.  Both actions seek unspecified damages and class-
action status.

In February, Mr. Pellicano, along with a former phone company
worker, a former Los Angeles police officer and four others were
accused in a 110-count federal indictment of crimes that include
racketeering and conspiracy, wiretapping, identity theft,
witness tampering and destruction of evidence (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).  

In particular, Mr. Pellicano, is accused of illegally
wiretapping the phones of celebrities such as Sylvester Stallone
and paying police officers to run background checks through
government databases.  

Mr. Pellicano pleaded not guilty to the indictment, which was
returned just before he completed a 30-month term in federal
prison for firearms violations.  He faces up to 20 years behind
bars on each of the racketeering charges.


CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Pa. Suit Over Faulty "Horizon" Shingles
---------------------------------------------------------------
CertainTeed Corp. is a defendant in a class action filed in the
Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania over Horizon
brand roof shingles that some homeowners have had problems with,
The Wisconsin State Journal reports.

The lawsuit charges that the company "maliciously concealed or
suppressed the facts" regarding its shingles "with the intent to
defraud."  It claims that the company began manufacturing and
selling defective shingles in Pennsylvania and other states
starting around 1987.  

It also claims that before putting them on the market, the
company failed to test the shingles, which failed prematurely
due to moisture invasion, curling, cracking, blistering,
deteriorating and otherwise not performing.

Damages, which affected roofs, underlying felt and drywall
inside homes, are less than $75,000 in every individual case,
according to the suit.

Later this month similar lawsuits will be filed in Wisconsin and
Minnesota, according to Clayton Halunen, a Minneapolis attorney
associated with the case.  Mr. Halunen said that attorneys have
identified plaintiffs in 17 states.

Mr. Halunen told The Wisconsin State Journal that the lawsuit
represents all homeowners with failing CertainTeed shingles, but
affected homeowners will later be given the opportunity to opt
out of it.

Though declining to comment on the lawsuit, Mike Loughery,
CertainTeed communications manager, did advise homeowners who
have problems with the company's shingles to call 800-345-1145
and receive an information packet on how to file a claim.

For more details, contact Clayton D. Halunen of Halunen &
Associates, 220 South Sixth St., Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: (612) 605-4098, Fax: (612) 605-4099, Web site:
http://www.youhaverights.info.


CLASSIC SALADS: Recalls Baby Food on Possible Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Classic Salads of Salinas, California is voluntarily recalling 4
lb., 2 lb. and 10 oz. Baby Spinach and 4 lb., 3 lb., 1.5 lb.,
Spring Mix, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain 12 to 72 hours after infection.  In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting
into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections -- i.e., infected aneurysms -- endocarditis
and arthritis.

Baby Spinach/Spring Mix was distributed nationwide, as well as
Canada and Japan, to foodservice, institutions and distributors.

Classic Salad's Baby Spinach and Spring Mix are packed in clear
plastic bags with a stamped Lot Code number of 1502XXX
indicating that it was processed on July 24, 2006.  Master
cartons bear the "Classic Salads", "Classic Choice", "Classic
Greens", "Sir Lancelot", "Taste of the Valley", "US Fresh" and
"Valley Gold" labels and a Pallet ID Number is stamped in black
ink on the exterior of the carton that is unique to each pallet.
Baby Spinach pack sizes include: 4 lb., 2x2 lb., 12x10 oz.  
Spring Mix pack sizes include: 5x3 lb., 4x3 lb., 3 lb., 3x1 lb.,
2x1.5 lb., 12x7 oz.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program
conducted by the company, which revealed that the finished
product processed July 24, 2006 contained the bacteria.  The
company has ceased the production and distribution of the
product in question as U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
company continues their investigation as to what caused the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Classic Salad's Baby Spinach and
Spring Mix are encouraged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company thru Lex
Camany, Sales Manager, Phone: (831) 809-9571 or (831) 674-1803
(after 4pm); or Jay Del Rosario, QA Manager, Phone: (831) 763-
1500 or (831) 261-7173 (after 6pm).


DELL COMPUTER: Chinese Consumers File Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Chinese consumers initiated a class action in
Xiamen's Huli District People's Court against Dell Computer
Corp. over alleged misrepresentation of the specifications of
its Inspiron 640M laptop, China Tech News reports.

The suit asks the court to order Dell to refund twice the value
of the goods as compensation and pay all legal costs.  A similar
case is pending in Shanghai, according to the report.

Chinese customers are accusing the U.S.-based P.C. giant of
fraud over the substitution of the Intel Conroe T2300 processors
with Intel Conroe T2300E in its laptops (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 8, 2006).

IT engineer Zhang Min, who bought a Dell Inspiron 640M laptop
online, allegedly found when he tried to upgrade the EMS memory
within his computer, that the laptop was fixed with a T2300E
CPU, not the T2300 Dell marked on the order form.

The company, reportedly, has stressed to the press that the
processor replacement would not cause any loss to users either
in terms of price or performance.  It said that the only
difference between the T2300 and the T2300E is that the former
features a technology called Virtualization (VT) while the later
does not.  VT, according to the company is a processor feature
intended only for future use.


DRAXIS HEALTH: Continues to Face Suit Over Permax Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
DRAXIS Health Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed before the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario,
Canada in relation to its drug Permax(R).

In July 2005, a claim was filed before the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the company together with other
defendants alleging that Permax, a drug that the company
distributed in Canada for a third-party manufacturer prior to
July 2003, causes "compulsive/obsessive behaviour, including
pathological gambling".  The plaintiff is seeking to have this
action certified as a class action.

Prior to July 2003, Permax(R) was distributed in Canada by
Draxis Pharmaceutica, the Canadian pharmaceutical sales and
marketing division of DRAXIS Health Inc.  In July 2003 DRAXIS
completed the divestiture of the Draxis Pharmaceutical division
to Shire BioChem, Inc.

DRAXIS Health -- http://www.draxis.com-- through its wholly  
owned operating subsidiary, DRAXIS Specialty Pharmaceuticals
Inc., provides products in three categories: sterile products,
non-sterile products and radiopharmaceuticals.  


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Enters $1.5M Settlement for Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to
settle for $1.5 million a shareholder class action filed against
it in Texas.

The amount of the settlement will include payment of all
administrative costs and class attorneys' fees as well as the
payout to the class.

The $1.5 million will be paid $100,000 within 30 days of final
approval of the settlement by the court and the balance in 36
equal monthly interest bearing installments beginning 30 days
thereafter.

The settlement will fully release the company, its two executive
officers named as defendants and its subsidiaries, from
liability and prohibits the filing of any future claims by the
members of the class relating to this matter.

Conditions to the effectiveness of the settlement are:

     -- no more than 5% of the class (both in number of
        shareholders and in percentage of total shares in the
        class) opting out;

     -- confirmation that the lead plaintiffs are adequate class
        representatives for the proposed settlement class; and

     -- the execution of definitive settlement and release
        agreements acceptable to the company's Board and the
        company's primary lender.

The settlement is subject to approval of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

                         Case Background

In the second quarter of 2004, eight lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the company, its current and former officers and directors.  The
suits, alleging federal securities law causes of action, were
filed as class actions brought on behalf of persons who
purchased shares of company common stock in the open market
generally during the period of Jan. 14, 2003 through Dec. 18,
2003.  

Under the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, the court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff.  An amended complaint was filed on Jun. 30, 2004,
asserting a class period of Nov. 27, 2002 to Dec. 19, 2003 and
naming additional defendants, including Ernst & Young LLP, the
company's prior auditors.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action and
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a),
20(A) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act by publishing
materially misleading financial statements that did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of company stock.

After the company filed its Form 10-K for fiscal 2003 on July
30, 2004, the procedural schedule was amended so that plaintiffs
had until 30 days after the company was current in its filings
to file an amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in September 2004.

The company filed a motion to dismiss all or some of the claims
in October 2004.  The non-evidentiary oral argument was held on
May 13, 2005.  

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of the former officers
from the case.  The court dismissed the claims against one
former officer and Ernst & Young, LLP, but denied the motions to
dismiss of the company and two current officers who were
defendants.  

The company and those two officers filed a motion to reconsider
the order and/or motion for leave to conduct an interlocutory
appeal from the denial of their motions to dismiss.  The court
has not ruled on this motion.  The company and the two current
officers/directors filed an answer on Sept. 30, 2005.

In May, parties in the consolidated securities class action
agreed to participate into non-binding mediation.

The suit is "Simons v. Dynacq Healthcare, et al., Case No. 4:03-
cv-05825," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore C. Anderson of Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC, 3109  
         Carlisle, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214-969-9099,  
         Fax: 214-953-0133;

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

     (3) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter, LLP, 830 Apollo  
         Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-
         907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com;

     (4) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main
         Street, 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:  
         jirvine@porterhedges.com;

     (5) Andrew J. Mytelka of Greer Herz & Adams, One Moody  
         Plz., 18th Fl., Galveston, TX 77550, Phone: 409-797-
         3200, Fax: 409-766-6424;

     (6) Andrew M. Schatz of Schatz & Noble, PC, 20 Church St.,
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292;  

     (7) David R. Scott of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave., P.O.
         Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,  
         Fax: 860-537-4432; and

     (8) Andy Wade Tindel of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 112
         E. Line St., Ste. 304, Tyler, TX 75702, Phone: 903-596-
         0900, Fax: 903-596-0909, E-mail:  
         atindel@andytindel.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark K. Glasser of King & Spalding, 1100 Louisiana,  
         Ste. 4000, Houston, TX 77002-5213, Phone: 713-751-3200,  
         Fax: 713-751-3290; and   

    (ii) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main  
         St., 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:
         jirvine@porterhedges.com.


EARL SCHEIB: Court Approves $750T Settlement of Wage, Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles has
granted final approval to a $750,000 settlement of the wage and
hour class action filed against Earl Scheib, Inc. in March 2000.

In April, Earl Scheib, reached an agreement to settle a putative
class action related to how its California subsidiary classified
certain employees under California overtime law over an
approximately seven year period (Class Action Reporter, April
19, 2006).

The lawsuit is similar to numerous lawsuits filed against
retailers and other employers with operations in California.  
While the company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit,
it has agreed to the settlement to avoid additional legal fees,
other expenses and management time that would have to be devoted
to protracted and uncertain litigation.

Under the agreement, approximately 450 current and former
employees will be entitled to make verified claims to share in
the settlement.  The maximum amount of the settlement, including
claim payments and related taxes and expenses, administrative
fees and class counsel fees and expenses is $750,000.  The
company's maximum portion of the settlement is $250,000, all of
which has been previously accrued on the company's balance
sheets.

Recently, the company said its insurance carrier has agreed to
fund up to $500,000 of the amount.


EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Settlement Hearing Set for M53XX Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Lucas County, Ohio will hold a
fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "David Heitbrink and Robert Rattner,
et al. v. eMachines, Inc., Case No. G-4801CI200501229."

The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Osowik, at the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 700 Adams Street, Toledo,
Ohio, in Courtroom 10.  In that hearing the court will consider
whether to grant final certification to the class for settlement
purposes, and whether to approve the proposed settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate.  

The court will also consider at this hearing the request of
class counsel for fees of $2,250,000 and the class
representative awards to the two class representatives in the
amount of $2,000.00 each, which eMachines has agreed to pay as
part of this Settlement over and above the other remedies.

Deadline for any objections or exclusions to or from the
settlement is on July 25, 2006.  Postmark deadline for
submitting claim form unless the effective date of the
settlement is extended is on Oct. 22, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all owners of eMachines M5305,
M5309, M5310, M5312 and M5313 series notebook computers (M53XX
Series).

The suit alleges that the M53xx Series computers were defective
in design, therefore causing them to overheat or shut down or
experience a significant reduction in processing speed as a
result of overheating during normal usage.  

In addition, it further alleges that eMachines knew of and
concealed the existence of these issues at the time it sold the
M53xx Series.  

It is thus asserting claims for violation of state consumer
protection statutes, uniform written misrepresentation, common
omission, and breach of warranty.

For more details, contact eMachines, Class Action Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 91146, Seattle, WA 98111-9246, Phone: 1-
866-817-6513, E-mail: M53xxSeriesSettlement@gardencitygroup.com,
Web site: http://www.m53xxseriessettlement.com/.


FLORIDA: Inmates File Suit Over Jail Conversation Recordings
------------------------------------------------------------
The Broward Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Ken Jenne, T-Netix
Telecommunications Services, Inc., and several others were named
as defendants in a federal civil rights class action alleging
that the defendants illegally recorded privileged attorney-
client conversations at the Broward county jail, The
HeraldToday.com reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on Aug. 7, 2006.  Stuart Davidson of Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed the suit
on behalf of two inmates and others for an unspecified amount of
money.

The Miami Herald first reported on the recording activities on
Aug. 6, 2006.  According to that report, the sheriff's office
recorded two weeks of inmate-attorney calls before an attorney
filed a complaint and its jail telecommunications system was
shut down.  

Officials explained that the sheriff's office is no longer
recording inmate-attorney conversations and that the recordings
were the result of a phone system glitch.

The suit contends that sheriff's office recorded conversations
between inmate Joseph Sawchuck and his lawyer, Brian Simon.  
Inmate Richard Spencer refused to speak to his attorney by phone
due to the alleged recordings.

The complaint contends that the sheriff's office knowingly and
illegally electronically recorded attorney-client privileged
communications initiated by its inmates held at its detention
facilities, thus hindering or completely destroying the inmates'
right to effective counsel and their ability to communicate with
their counsel with candor.

The sheriff's office said the recordings were just the result of
a phone system glitch.  It maintains that the system was never
designed to record conversations between lawyers and clients.  

The complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f78

For more details, contact:

     (1) Stuart A. Davidson of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, Florida 33432, (Palm Beach Co.),
         Phone: 561-750-3000 and 888-262-3131, Fax: 561-750-
         3364, Web Site: http://www.lerachlaw.com;and

     (2) Brian I. Simon, of Brian I. Simon, PA, Phone: 954-522-
         5888, Fax: 054-522-5126, E-mail: fabhsa6@bellsouth.net.


ILLINOIS: Boone County Residents File Suit Over Approved Budgets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boone County Board and County Treasurer Carolynn G. Knox
faces a purported class action in an Illinois court over
allegations that the county's 2005 and 2006 budgets were
approved in violation of state law, The Rock River Times
reports.

Attorney Rene Hernandez on behalf of former Boone County Board
member Wallace Ramsay and his wife, Jean, filed the suit.  Mr.
Hernandez said that the County Board has held seven allegedly
illegal special meetings-including two pertaining to the
budgets-over the past two years.

Mr. Hernandez's lawsuit, thus asserts that the approval of the
budgets is null and void.  The suit alleged that special Boone
County Board meetings on Nov. 29, 2004, Feb. 23, 2004, July 19,
2004, Aug. 30, 2004, and Nov. 28, 2005, March 29, 2005 and May
23, 2006 were illegal.

The Nov. 29, 2004, and Nov. 28, 2005 meeting were the days that
the Boone County Board approved the County's 2005 and 2006
budgets.  

The complaint asks for declaratory relief, seeking property tax
refunds for Boone County residents, who are being represented by
the Ramsays.

The seven allegedly improper meetings were discovered after
Boone County State's Attorney Jim Hursh recommended County Board
members reconsider their approval of Heritage Wind Farm LLC-
spearheaded by Mr. Ramsay.  Mr. Hursh said the May 23, 2006,
special meeting, during which that decision was made, was
improper.  

According to the complaint, Mr. Hursh "actively sought to
declare a Special Meeting called by the Boone County Board as
being illegal and not in compliance with State Statutes."  
Appropriate notice was supposedly not given, as is the case with
the meetings Mr. Henandez and the Ramseys have called into
question.

Mr. Hernandez said that he intends to Mr. Hursh's argument to
justify the lawsuit.  He cites Illinois Compiled Statute 55ILCS
5/2-1002: "Special meetings of the Board shall be held only when
requested by at least one-third of the members of the
board...which request shall be in writing, addressed to the
clerk of the board, and specifying the time and place of such
meeting..."

Mr. Hernandez was unable to quantify the potential financial
impact on the county.  An injunction hearing is scheduled for
Aug. 9, 2006.

For more details, contact Rene Hernandez, Phone: 815-387-0261
and (815) 544-4219, Fax: (815) 547-7917.


ILLLINOIS: Former Worker Sues Wilmette Parks Over Lost Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wilmette Park District faces a purported class action in
Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois over allegations it violated
state labor laws by failing to pay workers for time they spent
traveling between job sites, according to The Chicago Tribune.

Arielle Denis, a former park employee, filed the suit on Aug. 8,
2006, alleging that park officials required Ms. Denis and others
to report to work at specific times in the morning, but didn't
pay them for that time.  Ms. Denis worked for the Park District
from June to August 2005 and in June and July 2006.

According to the lawsuit, the Park District "maintained a policy
and practice" of not paying for travel time and not paying
employees beginning when they reported to work.  

The suit is seeking class-action status for past and present
employees.  It also seeks lost wages, interest and attorneys'
fees, but does not specify an amount.


LAKEWOOD RANCH: Uninsured Woman Files Overcharging Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakewood Ranch Medical Center was named as a defendant in a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida over allegations that it overcharged
an uninsured patient by up to $40,000, The Sarasota Herald-
Tribune reports.

According to the suit filed on Aug. 2, 2006, Una Urquhart,
received in-patient and outpatient treatment at the facility in
April and May 2005 after agreeing to pay "regular rates" for the
service.

The suit, which joins a growing number of class actions
nationally filed over similar hospital billing practices for the
uninsured, claims that Ms. Urquhart ended up paying up to
$65,511.70.  That amount, the suit claims, is twice the
discounted rate insurers, such as Medicare, are charged for the
same services.

Bryan Vroon, one of Ms. Urquhart's attorneys, would not say what
type of treatment his client received.  He would only point out
that it was medically necessary but not emergency care or
cosmetic treatment.

Court documents though indicated that she spent 10 days in the
hospital in April following surgery and received outpatient
therapy between April 22 and May 8.

Roughly $48,000 of Ms. Urquhart's bill was for the in-patient
care, a figure that would have been about $7,000 had she had
coverage, her attorneys claim.

The Pennsylvania-based health care firm, Universal Health
Services Foundation, Inc., owns Lakewood Ranch.

The suit is "Urquhart v. Lakewood Ranch Medical Center
Auxiliary, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01418-EAK-EAJ," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich with referral to Judge
Elizabeth A. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bryan A. Vroon of Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP, 1718
         Peachtree St., Suite 1088, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone:
         404-607-6710, Fax: 404-607-6711;

     (2) Spencer T. Kuvin of Ricci Leopold, P.A., 2925 PGA
         Boulevard, Suite 200, P.O. Box 31849, Palm Beach
         Gardens, FL 33420-1849, Phone: 561-684-6500, Fax: 561-
         697-2383, E-mail: skuvin@riccilaw.com; and

     (3) Richard F. Scruggs of Scruggs Law Firm, 120-A
         Courthouse Square, P.O. Box 1136, Oxford, MS 38655, US,
         Phone: 662-281-1212.

Representing the Defendants is Matthew D. Klein of Bunnell
Woulfe Kirschbaum Keller, One Financial Plaza, Suite 900, 100
Southeast Third Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394, Phone: 954-761-
8600, E-mail: sab@bunnellwoulfe.com.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Agrees to Settle Claims in "McGreevey" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corp. is working to resolve the class action,
"McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case no.
2:03-cv-00001-SHE," along with another action that were filed
against it and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The lawsuit, which was filed by former shareholders of The
Montana Power Co. -- most of whom became shareholders of Touch
America Holdings, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization
of the Montana Power Co. -- claims that the disposition of
various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana
Power Co. were void because of the failure to obtain shareholder
approval for the transactions.

Plaintiffs thus seek to reverse those transactions, or receive
fair value for their stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs
claim shareholder approval should have been sought.

The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which plaintiffs are
claiming is a successor to the Montana Power Co.

On Nov. 6, 2003, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware approved a stipulation between the company and the
plaintiffs in "McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et
al." that temporarily stayed the litigation, as against the
company, its Clark Fork and Blackfoot, LLC subsidiary, The
Montana Power Co., The Montana Power L.L.C. and Jack Haffey.  As
a result of the confirmation of company's reorganization plan,
the stay has been made permanent.  

On July 10, 2004, the company and the other insured parties
under the applicable directors and officers' liability insurance
policies along with the plaintiffs in the McGreevey case,
plaintiffs in the "In Re Touch America Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation" and the Touch America Creditors Committee reached a
tentative settlement through mediation.

Among the terms of the tentative settlement, the company, Clark
Fork and other parties will be released from all claims in this
case, the plaintiffs in "McGreevey" will dismiss their claims
against the third party purchasers of the generation assets and
non-regulated energy assets of Montana Power Co., including PPL
Montana, and a settlement fund in the amount of $67 million --
all of which will be contributed by the former Montana Power Co.
directors and officers liability insurance carriers -- will be
established.

The settlement is subject to the occurrence of several
conditions, including approval of the proposed settlement by the
Bankruptcy Court in the company's bankruptcy proceeding, and
approval of the proposed settlement by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana, where the class actions are
pending.

There are various issues preventing a consensus on a global
settlement and the district court has now stayed the case
pending resolution of bankruptcy issues in the Touch America and
NorthWestern bankruptcy cases.  

In the event the parties do not reach a global settlement
agreement, a settlement is not approved or it does not take
effect for any other reason, the company intends to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit.

If the company is unsuccessful in defending against this class
action, the plaintiffs' litigation claims are channeled to the
Directors & Officers Trust established under the company's
reorganization plan, or alternatively would be treated as
securities, or Class 14, claims and would be entitled to no
recovery under the plan.

Claims by the company's current and former officers and
directors, and the former officers and directors of The Montana
Power Co., for indemnification for these proceedings would be
channeled into the Directors and Officers Trust established by
the Plan.  

The plaintiffs could elect to proceed directly against Clark
Fork and the assets owned by such entity, which are not material
to the company's operations or financial position.

On Aug. 9, 2005, "McGreevey" plaintiffs filed an action in
Montana state court claiming that the company's transfer of
certain assets to Clark Fork was a fraudulent transfer.  

The plaintiffs received approval in the company's bankruptcy
case to initiate a similar fraudulent conveyance action as an
adversary proceeding in the company's bankruptcy case, which
they did not do.  Under the terms of the settlement with the
plaintiffs in the "McGreevey" case, they would not file such
proceeding.

The company removed the action to the Federal Court in Montana
under the caption, "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., Case
No. 2:05-cv-00062," and filed a motion to transfer the action to
the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.  

It also filed an adversary action in its Bankruptcy Case seeking
injunctive relief against the "McGreevey" plaintiffs to stop
them from pursuing their fraudulent conveyance action outside
the bankruptcy case.  

"McGreevey" plaintiffs answered the adversary complaint and
asserted counterclaims against the company, alleging the same
fraudulent conveyance claims.  They also filed a motion to
remand the fraudulent conveyance action to state court in
Montana and the same motion to certify certain issues to the
Montana Supreme Court.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court preliminarily enjoined
the plaintiffs from further prosecuting their claim.  The
"McGreevey" plaintiffs have asked for leave to appeal this order
and the company has asked the Delaware District Court to deny
the request.  

In June 2006, parties entered into an agreement to settle the
claims brought by the "McGreevey" plaintiffs in all of the
actions stated above through a covenant not to execute by
"McGreevey" plaintiffs against the company and by the company
quit claiming any interest the company had in any claims it may
or may not have under any applicable directors and officers
liability insurance policy, against any insurers for contractual
or extracontractual damages, and against certain defendants in
the "McGreevey" lawsuits.

Such agreement is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court
and Federal District Court.  In the event such agreement is
approved, the claims against the company in the "McGreevey"
lawsuits will be dismissed.

The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana under Judge Sam E. Haddon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Wade Dahood of Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton,
         PO Box 727, Anaconda, MT 59711-0727, Phone: 406-563-
         3424, Fax: 406-563-7519;

     (2) Milton Datsopoulos of Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind, 201
         W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201, Missoula,
         MT 59802, Phone: 406-728-0810, Fax: 406-543-0134;

     (3) Sean S. Frampton of Morrison & Frampton, P.O. Box 1090,
         Whitefish, MT 59937, Phone: 406-862-9600, Fax: (406)
         862-9611; and

     (4) Allan M. McGarvey of McGarvey Heberling Sullivan &
         McGarvey, 745 S. Main Street, Kalispell, MT 59901-2529,  
         Phone: 406-752-5566, Fax: 406-752-7124, E-mail:
         amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Dismissal Sought for Mass. Soldiers' Pay Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government is asking the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss a class action filed by
four Massachusetts National Guard soldiers who are claiming that
they were denied reimbursement for meals, travel and lodging
while guarding potential targets after the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, according to The Cape Cod Times.

Though Judge Richard G. Stearns did not issue an immediate
ruling on the motion to dismiss the case, he did tell attorneys
that he might put the case on hold for two months while the
National Guard completes an audit of per diems.

Earlier this year, plaintiffs' attorney, John Shek, accused the
Massachusetts National Guard of not paying the per diems due to
budgetary constraints, leaving soldiers to pay their own meal,
lodging and travel expenses while on active duty.

According to Mr. Shek, individual National Guard soldiers are
owed between $15,000 and $20,000 in per diems for five years of
active duty service.  Some are carrying debt on their credit
cards or have not been able to pay household bills as a result.

At the recent hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark T. Quinlivan
argued the suit should be dismissed since the Army's internal
process of evaluating the per diem payments was not complete.  

He added that the results of the audit will be presented to all
the National Guard units in the state within two months and then
soldiers will have an opportunity to file claims if they believe
they are owed money.

However, Judge Stearns doubted that the case belonged in his
court.  He said it would appear to belong in the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, in Washington, D.C., which handles disputes
where people say they are owed money by the federal government.

The lawsuit names the Department of Defense and the state
National Guard as defendants.  Judge Stearns said the names of
individual government officials, including Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld and Gov. Mitt Romney, would be dropped because
the action was against government agencies.

It seeks $73 million in compensation and argues there could be
as many as 1,000 Massachusetts National Guard soldiers who
deserve reimbursements.

                        Case Background

Originally, the suit, "Tortorella, et al. v. Donald H. Rumsfeld,
et al.," named as plaintiffs all U.S., Massachusetts, Army and
Massachusetts National Guard officials; and as defendants,
leaders at the MNG Command Center who denied the reimbursements
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

The four plaintiffs were among many MNG soldiers activated for
temporary duty in early December 2001.  In the post 9/11, anti-
terror environment, their assignments included security patrols,
lock-downs and construction projects at bases across the state.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Sgt. Louis Tortorella, of New
Hampshire, died in March "of a massive heart attack," according
to Mr. Shek.

The other plaintiffs in the case are:

     (1) Sgt. Wayne R. Gutierrez, of New Bedford, Mass.

     (2) Sgt. Steven M. Littlefield; and

     (3) Joseph P. Murphy, a specialist at Camp Edwards.

The suit is "Tortorella et al. v. U.S. of America et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-10054-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John R. Shek of Weston, Patrick, Willard & Redding, PA,
         84 State Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02109-2299,
         Phone: 617-742-9310, Fax: 617-742-5734, E-mail:
         jrs@wpwr.com; and  

     (2) Constance A. Driscoll of Stevens Law Office, 127
         Mountain Road, P.O. Box 1200, Stowe, VT 05672, US,
         Phone: 802-253-8547, Fax: 802-253-9945, E-mail:
         constance.driscoll@stowelawyers.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark T. Quinlivan, United States Attorney's Office, 1
         Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, Phone: 617-748-3606,
         Fax: 617-748-3969, E-mail: mark.quinlivan@usdoj.gov;
         and

    (ii) Brian M. Donovan, Office of the Attorney General, Room
         1813, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-727-2200, Fax: 617-727-3076, E-mail:
         brian.donovan@ago.state.ma.us.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Sept. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
of Par Pharmaceutical Cos., Inc. that the deadline to move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff is Sept. 15.  

The firm filed a class action against the company and certain of
its officers in U.S. District Court District of New Jersey.  The
class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company during the period from April 29, 2004 to
July 5, 2006.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Par, headquartered in New Jersey, develops, manufactures and
markets more than 110 generic drugs and innovative branded
pharmaceuticals for specialty markets.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants reported earnings that were materially inflated as a
result of accounting errors including an understatement of
accounts receivable reserves.

The company has now admitted that the overstatement of its
revenues has resulted in Par overpaying its business partners in
various profit sharing arrangements.

As a result of the company's internal review of its trade
accounts receivable balances, the company has decided to restate
its previously reported financial statements for fiscal year
2004 and 2005 and the first quarter of 2006.

In addition, Par announced it will write-off inventory in an
amount up to $15 million due to flawed physical inventory
procedures.

In response to these revelations, on July 6, 2006, Par stock
fell $4.78 per share, losing nearly 26% of its value in one day
on extremely high volume of over 9 million shares traded, to
close at $13.47 per share.

Additionally, a letter from the staff of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, dated July 7, 2007, informed the company
that the SEC is conducting an informal investigation of the
Company related to the Restatement.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888.476.6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1519 Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
will fold a fairness hearing on Aug. 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re The Progressive
Corp. Insurance Underwriting & Rating Practices Litigation, MDL-
1519."

The hearing will be held before Judge Maurice Paul at the U.S.
District Courthouse, 401 S.E. First Avenue, Gainesville, Florida
32601.

Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Aug. 30, 2006.  
Exclusions from the settlement is due Aug. 1, 2006.

The settlement affects all residents of the U.S. who either on
or after Jan. 1, 1997 through Dec. 1, 2004 were charged
increased rates for insurance or had an insurance policy
cancelled in either case by Progressive or any Progressive
affiliated insurance company based in whole or in part on
information contained in consumer reports, or on or after Jan.
1, 1997 through the date of the preliminary approval of the
settlement by the court received a no obligation quotation from
the defendants.

This litigation arises from these consolidated cases:  

      -- "Cathryn Smith, et al. v. The Progressive Corporation
         et al., Case No. 1:00-CV-210-MMP (N.D. Fla.);"

      -- "Sharele Dikeman, et al. v Progressive Corp., Case No.
          3:01-01465-BR (D. Ore);"

      -- "Sharele Dikeman, et al. v. Progressive Halcyon, et
         al., Case No. 3:03cv00302 (D. Ore);"

      -- "Paul K. Cooley, et al. v. Progressive Ins. Co., Case
         No. CV 5:02 2384-S  (W.D. La.);"

      -- "Timothy James Carlson v. Progressive Ins. Co., Case
         No. 3:02-CV-2552 (N.D. Tex.);"

      -- "Gloria Warren v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., Case
         No. 3:03-1176 (N.D. Ala.);"

      -- "Seth Silverman, et al. v. The Progressive Corp., et
         al., Case No. 4:05-CV-1647 (S.D. Tex.);"

      -- "Ruby Johnson, et al. v. The Progressive Corp., et al.,
         Case No. 2:05-CV-1900 (E.D. La.);" and

      -- "Julius Dunmore, et al. v The Progressive Corporation,
         Case No 1:05-CV-150-SPM (N.D. Fla.)."

Plaintiffs in one or more of the consolidated cases alleged,
among other things, that the defendants violated the Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, by not providing proper notice of adverse action
to policyholders and quotation recipients that were denied
insurance coverage, had insurance coverage cancelled, or were
charged or quoted higher premiums based in whole or in part on
information contained in their consumer reports.  

They sought compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages for
negligent and willful violations of the FCRA, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban
         Centre, Suite 550, 4830 West Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL
         33609-2589, Phone: (813) 286-4100, (800) 651-2502 and
         (800) 634-0877, Fax: (813) 286-4174, E-mail:
         contactus@jameshoyer.com; and  

     (2) Progressive FCRA Settlement c/o The Garden City Group,
         Inc., PO Box 9000 #6242, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Web
         site: http://fcranoticesettlement.com.


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

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

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Nov. 17,
2006.  Any request for exclusion from the settlement must be
made on or before Sept. 19, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact:

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

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

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


QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
------------------------------------------------------------
Quiksilver Inc., of Huntington Beach, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 9,700 units of Hide & Seek hooded sweatshirts.

The company said a drawstring is threaded through the hood,
posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling
or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in
upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled hood sweatshirts have a drawstring through the
hood.  The sweatshirts are pink, white, brown, navy or green
with a beaded heart logo and embroidered flowers on the front
above the left pocket.  They were sold in girls' sizes SML to
XL. "ROXY GIRL" is printed on the collar label.  The style
number 484241 (some with an M, N or NN after the number) is
located on the garment's hangtag and/or the individual packaging
label.

These sweatshirts were manufactured in Pakistan and are being
sold at surf and skate shops, specialty and department stores,
including Macy's, Nordstrom, Quiksilver and Roxy retail stores
and outlets nationwide from November 2005 through January 2006
for about $40.

Picture of the recalled girls' hooded sweatshirt:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06223.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can receive
a full refund by returning the sweatshirts to the place of
purchase or by mailing the sweatshirts to:

     Quiksilver Inc.,
     Attention: Consumer Replacements/Recalled Merchandise,
     5600 Argosy Circle, Suite 300,
     Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649.

Returns must include the consumer's name, address and telephone
number so Quiksilver can reach them.

For more information, contact Quiksilver at (877) 246-7257
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday, visit
http://www.quiksilverinc.com,or e-mail:  
channels@quiksilver.com.


ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS: Recalls Flame Switches Posing Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robertshaw Controls Co., of West Plains, Missouri, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 7,800 units of Robertshaw FS Flame Switches and
FM Automatic Safety Valves installed in commercial cooking
appliances.

The company said these controls are designed to prevent gas from
flowing when the pilot light is out.  The recalled controls can
remain on after the pilot light is extinguished.  If this
happens, gas can continue to flow to the main burner of the
appliance, which poses a risk of a gas explosion and fire.

Robertshaw Controls Co. has received one report of a gas
ignition incident, which resulted in two minor injuries.

The FS Flame Switches and FM Automatic Safety Valves being
recalled are installed on natural and liquid propane gas
commercial cooking equipment, such as ranges, pasta cookers,
deep fat fryers or griddles.  The recalled FS Flame Switches
were installed on these commercial cooking equipment brands:
Keating (of Chicago), PMI Food Equipment Group, Vulcan,
Southbend, Blodgett, Toastmaster, and Wolf Range.

The recalled FM Automatic Safety Valves were installed on the
following commercial cooking equipment brands: Bari (Restaurant
and Pizzeria), Southbend, and Blodgett.  The model and/or serial
numbers can be found on the cooking appliance identification
plate located on the appliance.

These gas controls were manufactured in the U.S. and are being
sold at original equipment manufacturers and food service
equipment dealers to commercial food service providers, such as
restaurants, nationwide from August 2005 through June 2006 for
the FS Flame Switches and from April 2006 through June 2006 for
FM Automatic Valves.  Consumers who had cooking equipment
installed or serviced before August 2005 are not affected.

Pictures of the recalled gas controls:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06222a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06222b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06222c.jpg

Consumers who believe they could have recalled safety valves on
their cooking appliances are advised to contact Robertshaw
Controls Co. who will arrange for a free replacement, if
necessary.  

For more information, call Robertshaw Controls Co. toll-free at
(800) 232-9389 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through
Saturday, or visit http://www.robertshaw.comto review a list of  
the appliances with recalled switches and valves


SOUTH AFRICA: Suit to Defend Women's Reproductive Rights Planned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Women's Legal Center in South Africa is preparing to launch a
class action against a law penalizing women for concealing
birth.

Acting director of the center Mary Caesar said they received
permission from the Center's trustees to do so, according to the
Independent Online.  

The suit is aimed against the General Law Amendment Act, a law
written in 1935 whose section 113 states that: "Any person who
disposes of the body of any child with intent to conceal its
birth, whether the child died before, during or after birth,
shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a
fine... or imprisonment."

The law allows the court to suppose a child's body was disposed
with the intent to hide the birth unless the person charged can
prove he or she had no such intent.  The class action aims at
giving the person charged with concealment of birth the onus to
prove herself innocent.

Before abortion was legalized in the country in 1996, the law
was used often used in cases when the state could not prove an
illegal abortion.

According to the report, a study done in Polokwane by the
Reproductive Rights Alliance has shown this law is still widely
used to prosecute women.  Women aged between 17 and 22 are the
ones mostly charged with the crime.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Consolidated ERISA Suit in Kans. for $29M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. agreed to pay $29 million to settle a class
action, "In Re Sprint Corporation ERISA Litigation," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
according to MarketWatch.

Current and former employees, who claim that their retirement
accounts were degraded by being tied to the company's stock,
filed the lawsuit, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  

U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum approved the agreement, which
will cover more than 85,000 employees who had money in the
company's retirement plan since 1998.

Judge Lungstrum said the "conservative value" of the settlement
is $25 million.  He also said the company would pay $3.9 million
in attorney fees and other expenses.

Susan Meagher, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said employees
who file claims each would receive between $400 and $1,000 in
cash, increased company matching for their retirement plans, or
other benefits.  She pointed out that the company would provide
financial planning classes.

Filed on April 23, 2003, the suit also names as defendants the
committees administering the Sprint Retirement Savings Plan, the
Sprint Retirement Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees and
the Centel Retirement Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit
Employees, the plan trustee and certain of the Sprint's officers
and directors (Class Action Reporter, March 24, 2005).

The participants of the Plans filed the suit, alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plans and
violated the ERISA statutes by making the company contribution
in FON common stock and PCS common stock and including FON
common stock and PCS common stock among the more than thirty
investment options offered to plan participants.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover any decline in the value of FON common stock
and PCS common stock during the class period.

Sprint is comprised of the FON Group and the PCS group,
representing the company's wireline and wireless businesses.  
The FON group represents Sprint's core wireline
telecommunication operations, which include long distance, local
telephone and product distribution, and directory publishing
businesses.  It also includes activities related to the
development of Sprint Integrated On-Demand Network, and certain
other ventures.  The Sprint PCS Group consists of Sprint's
wireless personal communications services operations.

Specially, plaintiffs claimed that the company's stock was too
risky of an investment to be included in their retirement plans
since, at the time, the company was on the verge of switching
from offering traditional telephone services to one that dealt
only with wireless services.

Plaintiffs also claimed that the company didn't release key
details of its proposed, and ultimately failed, merger with
WorldCom Inc.  In addition, they claimed that the company's
former auditor, Ernst & Young, had a conflict of interest with
former Chief Executive William Esrey and former Chief Operating
Officer Ron LeMay.

The oversights, according to the plaintiffs, violated the
company's duty under federal law to keep employee retirement
accounts safe.

However, officials were quick to point out that the company's
stock increased in value during and after the period covered in
the lawsuit.  Also, according to them, the company's acquisition
last year of Nextel Communications Inc. positioned it as one of
the top three wireless providers.

Approximately 63,000 of the class action members now work for
Embarq Corp., the local telephone division that Sprint spun off
to become a separate company in May, or no longer work for
Sprint at all.

The suit is "In Re Sprint Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No.
2:03-cv-02202-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William Bernarduci, Schatz & Nobel, PC, One Corporate
         Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT
         06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         wbernarduci@snlaw.net;   

     (2) Don R. Lolli, Dysart, Taylor, Lay, Cotter & McMonigle,
         P.C., 4420 Madison Avenue - 2nd Floor, Kansas City, MO
         64111, Phone: 816-931-2700, Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail:
         dlolli@dysarttaylor.com;

     (3) Susan F. Meagher, Diane A. Nygaard, The Nygaard Law
         Firm, 4501 College Blvd Ste 260, Leawood, KS 66211,
         Phone: 913-469-5544, Fax: 913-469-1561, E-mail:
         susan@nygaardlaw.com; and

     (4) Edwin Mills, Stull, Stull & Brody - New York, 6 East
         45th Street, Suite 500 New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-
         687-7230, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Clayton L. Barker Mark A. Thornhill, Spencer Fane Britt
         & Browne - Kansas City, 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400, Kansas
         City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-474-8100, Fax: 816-474-3216,
         E-mail: cbarker@spencerfane.com and
         mthornhill@spencerfane.com;

    (ii) Jennifer L. Brown, George E. Wolf, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
         L.L.P. -- Grand Rapids 2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas
         City, MO 64108-2613, Phone: 816-474-6550, Fax: 816-421-
         5547, E-mail: jbrown@shb.com and gwolf@shb.com;

   (iii) Toby Jon Crouse, Matthew C. Miller, Timothy O'Brien,
         Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.--Overland Park, 84
         Corporate Woods 10801 Mastin-Ste. 1000, Overland Park,
         KS 66210 Phone: 913-451-6060 Fax: 913-451-8879 Email:
         tcrouse@shb.com, dmmiller@shb.com and tobrien@shb.com;

    (iv) Gary R. Long, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P. --Kansas
         City, 2555 Grand Avenue Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
         Phone: 816-474-6550, Fax: 816-421-2708, E-mail:
         glong@shb.com; and

     (v) Robert Rachal, Howard Shapiro Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
         -- New Orleans, 909 Poydras, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA
         70112, Phone: 504-310-4088, Fax: 504-522-5771, E-mail:
         rrachal@shb.com and hshapiro@shb.com.


STATE FARM: New Documents Filed in "All-Risk" Policies Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney seeking to represent a class of State Farm and
Casualty Co. policyholders claiming full compensation for
Hurricane Katrina damages has filed new documents in the case
after finding a corporate memo that might help the suit.

Attorney Richard Phillips has uncovered a Sept. 13, 2005, memo,
"Wind/Water Claim Handling Protocol," authored at State Farm's
Bloomington, Illinois, headquarters and sent to employees
handling Katrina claims in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama,
according to SunHerald.com.  The memo reportedly stated that
policyholders have no coverage unless wind damage is separate
from damage caused by storm surge.

Mr. Phillips said in court documents filed in U.S. District
Court this would allow a federal judge to decide, on behalf of
thousands of "all-risk" homeowner policyholders, that State Farm
must pay claims in full when wind and water damage can't be
separated.

Mr. Philips is pursuing the case on behalf of policyholder Judy
Guice of Ocean Springs, Mississippi.  His suit seeks to
represent those policyholders with "slab" or "foundation only"
claims in Harrison, Hancock and Jackson counties.

It further seeks to represent homeowners in cases in which a
State Farm adjuster requested an engineering report that the
company subsequently cancelled.  

State Farm maintains it has treated customers fairly, and that
it should not be expected to pay for damage no premiums were
collected to cover.

The suit is "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00001-LTS-RHW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Robert H. Walker.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Robert C. Galloway at Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
         Canada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248, Gulfport, MS 39502-
         4248, Phone: 228864-1170, E-mail:
         bob.galloway@butlersnow.com; and

     (2) William N. Reed at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
         Berkowitz, PC, P.O. Box 14167, Jackson, MS 39236-4167,
         Phone: (601) 351-2400.

Representing the plaintiff is Richard Taylor Phillips at Smith,
Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, P.O. Drawer 1586, Batesville, MS
38606, Phone: 662/563-4613, E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com.


TEXAS: Black Firefighters File Racial Bias Suit Against Dallas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Dallas, Texas faces a purported class action in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas over
allegations of pervasive discrimination against minorities and
women in hiring, training, transfers, promotions and discipline,
The Dallas Morning News reports.

Filed by the Dallas Black Fire Fighters Association on Aug. 9,
2006, the suit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting "unfair
discriminatory employment policies" and demands more than
$75,000 in damages for each person.

The group is represented by Grover Hankins, a Houston attorney
specializing in employment discrimination cases.  According to
Mr. Hankins, "the are some very hard-core discriminatory
practices that are going on in that department."

Specifically, the lawsuit accuses the fire department of
engaging in "discriminatory hiring practices against qualified
African-American candidates that make application for
employment."  Minor infractions are overlooked for whites, but
not for blacks, it alleges.

Fire officials and the head of the department's largest
association pointed out that several examples and information in
the lawsuit are inaccurate, wrong or misleading.

Mr. Hankins, a former general counsel for the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a lawyer
in the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division, said the
facts in the lawsuit are based on what his clients told him.  

Some examples of discrimination against black and female
firefighters alleged in the lawsuit are:

      -- Discrimination in hiring: A Hispanic chief "exhibited
         unprofessional conduct and acted in a rude and hostile
         manner" toward a black man when he interviewed him for
         a job with the fire department.  The man was not hired;

      -- Discrimination in performance evaluations: A black
         firefighter was denied a promotion after "he failed an
         illegally given test on two occasions";

      -- Discrimination in training: A white employees of the
         fire department made calls to area departments
         "blackballing" a fire recruit who had filed a lawsuit
         accusing the department of discriminatory treatment;
         and

      -- Discrimination in wages: The firefighters at Station
         49, who are mostly black, are not treated the same as
         their counterparts at Stations 21 and 42, who are
         mostly white, when it comes to overtime assignments.
         All personnel at the three stations have received
         Federal Aviation Administration training.  Yet only the
         firefighters at Nos. 21 and 42 are allowed to work
         overtime at Station 21, at Dallas Love Field.  Station
         42 is next to the airport.

The suit is "Black Fire Fighters Association Incorporated of
Dallas, Texas, et al. v. The City of Dallas, Texas, et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01421," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Grover G. Hankins of Hankins Law
Firm, 440 Louisiana St., Suite 900, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713/236-7732, Fax: 713/236-7731.

Representing the defendants are Samuel D. Hawk and Janice Smith
Moss, Dallas City Attorney's Office, Dallas City Hall, 1500
Marilla St., 7th Floor, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/670-3475
and 214/670-3505, Fax: 214/670-0622, E-mail:
samuel.hawk@dallascityhall.com and
janice.moss@dallascityhall.com.


THAXTON GROUP: Aug. 24 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina will
hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. for the
proposed $9.350 million settlement of The Thaxton Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Case No.: 8:04-2612-13).  

The hearing will be held at the G. Ross Anderson, Jr. Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse, 315 South McDuffie Street, 2nd
Floor, Anderson, SC 29624.  

Deadline for filing request for exclusion is June 30, 2006.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons and entities, which held
a Thaxton subordinated note as of Oct. 17, 2003 or have been
assigned any rights or related claims.

Defendants in the case are Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.,
the accounting firm that offered advice to Thaxton's management;
and Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, the law firm that represented
Thaxton.

Headquartered in Lancaster, South Carolina, The Thaxton Group,
Inc., is a diversified consumer financial services company.
The company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Oct. 17, 2003
(Bankr. Del. Case No. 03-13183).

This proposed partial settlement will provide up to $9,350,000
additional funds to Thaxton for the sole purpose of paying
claims of subordinated note holders or their assignees.  This is
a partial settlement that will resolve claims involving the two
settling defendants.  Litigation will continue as to the
remaining defendant, Finova Capital Corporation.

However, this remaining litigation against Finova is not being
pursued on a class-wide basis.  Only individuals expressly named
as plaintiffs in the litigation against Finova can recover any
benefits of the litigation.  The court has granted preliminary
approval of this settlement and the Settlement class but still
has to decide whether to grant final approval.

For more information, contact Thaxton Securities Litigation by
mail c/o Berdon Claims Administration, P.O. Box 8914, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 1-800-766-3330, 1-800-466-8660 (toll free)
Fax: 1-516-931-0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims,
http://www.ThaxtonClassAction.com.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Ohio Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remittances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Online hotel booking agents in Columbus and Dayton cities are
facing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio over alleged underpayment of taxes for
brokering hotel rooms, the Business First of Columbus reports.

The suit alleges that several online travel agents negotiate
discounted room rates with hotels, sell the rooms at marked-up
prices, but only pay taxes on the lower discounted rates.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.,  
     -- Hotels.com, Inc.,  
     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC,  
     -- Hotwire, Inc.,  
     -- Cheap Tickets, Inc.,  
     -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.,  
     -- Expedia, Inc.,
     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a/ Lodging.com),  
     -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.,  
     -- Maupintour Holding, LLC,  
     -- Orbitz, Inc.,  
     -- Orbitz, LLC.,  
     -- Priceline.com, Inc.,  
     -- Travelocity.com, L.P.,  
     -- Travelweb, LLC, and
     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

The suit accuses the Internet companies of unjust enrichment.

The cities are seeking restitution of lost tax revenue, damages
and a court judgment that the defendants' actions are illegal,
according to the report.

Michael Foley, the cities' attorney and a partner at Rendigs Fry
Kiely & Dennis LLP in Cincinnati, said potential damages for
each city are likely well over $1 million.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including    
California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter,
April 4, 2006).

The suit is "City of Columbus et al v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00677-JDH-MRA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge John D.
Holschuh, with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are

Christopher J. Aluotto and Michael P. Foley both of Rendigs Fry
Kiely & Dennis LLP, Suite 900, One West Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-381-9369 or 513/381-9200, Fax:
513-381-9206, E-mail: cja@rendigs.com or mfoley@rendigs.com; and
Jonathan P. Saxton of Rendigs Fry Kiely & Dennis - 1, Fourth &
Vine Tower, Fourth & Vine Streets, Suite 900, Cincinnati, OH
45202-3688, Phone: 513-381-9200, Fax: 513-381-9206, E-mail:
jsaxton@rendigs.com.


VIACOM INC: Shareholder Files Suit in Del. Over Blockbuster Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action was filed in the Chancery Court of
Delaware against Viacom, Inc.'s leaders, alleging that they lied
about the financial state of Blockbuster, Inc. when it was spun
off in a 2004 stock swap deal, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

The suit alleges that Blockbuster's launch as a separate company
was engineered to benefit Viacom founder Sumner Redstone.  It
specifically questions the role of Viacom's board in looking out
for the interests of small stockholders.

Filed on Aug. 3, 3006 by former Viacom shareholder Beverly
Pfeffer of Queens, New York, the suit is targeting Mr. Redstone,
whose National Amusements Inc. controls the majority voting
power at Viacom, which separated from CBS Corp. earlier this
year.

Previously, the company explained that the 2004 decision to send
Blockbuster out on its own was done so as to better position the
video retailer.  As Blockbuster's largest shareholder, the
company reaped $738 million of a $905 million dividend paid in
connection with the deal.

To fund the dividend, Blockbuster took on more than $900 million
in debt.  According to the lawsuit, Mr. Redstone knew, but other
shareholders did not, that the additional debt was enough to
cripple Blockbuster.

The suit, which seeks damages for all who agreed to swap their
Viacom shares for stock in Blockbuster, also alleges Mr.
Redstone knew Blockbuster would be in no shape to execute on its
business plan after the spinout, and steered clear of the
exchange.

Based in New York, New York, Viacom, Inc. (NYSE:VIA.B) --
http://www.viacom.com/-- is comprised of MTV Networks (MTV,  
VH1, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, Comedy Central, CMT: Country
Music Television, Spike TV, TV Land and many other networks
around the world), BET, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home
Entertainment and Famous Music.


WEST VIRGINIA: Federal Judge Remands Suit Over Medicaid Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia remanded back to Kanawha Circuit Court the class
action, "Fleshman v. Walker, Case No. 2:06-cv-00573," which was
filed against the state's Department of Health and Human
Resources, The West Virginia Record reports.

Filed by Bren Pomponio of the non-profit group Mountain State
Justice, the suit stems from new Medicaid policy of state health
departmetn that is alleged to be discriminatory.

Mr. Pomponio argued back and forth with the defense that Jackie
Fleshman's case belonged in Circuit Court, suggesting the only
reason it was moved to federal court was to waste time.

Mr. Fleshman is the listed plaintiff in the class action filed
on July 3 against the department.  It claims that his Medicaid
Home and Community Based Aged/Disabled Waiver Program benefits
were unfairly taken from him.

The plaintiff is a 65-year-old Green Sulphur Springs mildly
mentally retarded man with a history of dementia who originally
qualified for the ADWP, which provided nursing care to his home
to assist with the administering of his medications.

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

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

However, on Aug. 7, 2006, Judge Goodwin sent the case back to
Kanawha Circuit Court, where Judge Charlie King was originally
assigned to it.

In remanding the case, Judge Goodwin cited that the question of
federal law is not substantial, since no federal cause of action
exists under the Medicaid statutes.

                        Case Background

According to the complaint filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, "This
case arises out of the defendant's policy of discriminating
against qualified recipients of and applicants to the Medicaid
Home and Community Based Aged/Disabled Waiver Program on the
basis of mental disability and denial of due process to
applicants and recipients of the program" (Class Action Reporter
July 14, 2006).

The complaint further states, "The ADWP provides benefits to
individuals who qualify for Medicaid nursing home care so that
the individuals may receive community-based skilled nursing
care.  The defendant conducts annual eligibility determinations
to verify that recipients still qualify for ADWP services."

In Mr. Fleshman's case, the lawsuit claims that he was a member
of the program from 2000 until earlier this year, when he was
told he no longer meets the eligibility requirements.  It also
claims that modifications to several of the requirements that
Mr. Fleshman previously met left him without care.

Previously, the DHHR demanded that an applicant meet at least
five of its requirements, according to the suit.  However, the
suit claims that after it initiated changes, which made
eligibility requirements more stringent, Mr. Fleshman and
members of the class he is representing, no longer met five
requirements.

The suit claims that the DHHR now discriminates against
applicants with mental disabilities, a violation of the West
Virginia Constitution and the West Virginia Human Rights Act, by
making changes in the areas of:

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

      -- walking; and

      -- the ability to self-administer medications.

Mr. Pomponio claims that without care his client who has a
history of paranoia, brain atrophy and seizures faces the
possibility of dying.

The suit seeks:

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

      -- the DHHR being found of denying due process;

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

      -- forward adjustments of benefits.

According to statistics from the DHHR, about one-third of the
program's previous 5,400 recipients lost their benefits due to
the changes implemented.  Mr. Pomponio argues that the cut
discriminates against individuals with mental disabilities and
violated Mr. Fleshman's right to due process.

Despite federal funding, Governor Joe Manchin triggered the
changes by declaring the program needed to reduce its size.  Its
budget was frozen in 2003 at $60 million.  A five-year plan was
submitted to the federal government outlining the changes.

For more details, contact:

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

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


WISCONSIN PUBLIC: Class Status Sought in Suit Over Easements
------------------------------------------------------------
A South Range property owner is seeking class-action status for
a suit against Wisconsin Public Service Corp. over the company's
building of high voltage power transmission line on private
property, The Daily Telegram reports.

Patricia Andrews, who owns affected land in South Range, filed
an amended counterclaim with the Douglas County Circuit Court
seeking a court order that would allow her to sue on behalf of
others who are similarly affected.  

The suit stemmed from a civil suit filed by Wisconsin Public
seeking a summary judgment to enforce an existing easement to
construct a 345-kilovolt Arrowhead-Weston power line on Ms.
Andrews' land.  Ms. Andrews responded with a counter claim.

Earlier, Circuit Court Judge George Glonek had ruled that
builders of a controversial high voltage power transmission line
don't have an automatic right to build new utilities on old
easements through private property under a 1975 Wisconsin
statute that grants landowners stronger protections when faced
with the construction of new high-voltage power lines.  The
company must negotiate new right-of-way agreements through
private property.

According to the report, there are 135 additional Douglas County
landowners plus ones in seven other counties who could force
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. to renegotiate easements.

Ms. Andrews is represented by attorney Forrest Maki of the Maki,
Bick and Olson of Superior, Wisconsin (Douglas Co.).

Wisconsin Public is represented by Wausau attorney Thomas
Terwilliger at Terwilliger, Wakeen, Piehler & Conway, S.C.
555 Scott Street, P.O. Box 8063, Wausau, Wisconsin 54402-8063
(Marathon Co.), Phone: 715-845-2121, Fax: 715-845-3538.


WORLDCOM INC: Ex-CEO's Columbus Lumber Interest Sold to Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Managers at Columbus Lumber Co. and a private equity group have
purchased the lumber and wood products supplier that the former
chief executive of Worldcom Inc. turned over to trustees to
settle a securities class action, The Clarion-Ledger reports.

Columbus Lumber, of which Bernie Ebbers once held a 68%
interest, had been held in trust as part of the liquidation of
the former Worldcom executive's assets.

A suit filed against Mr. Ebbers by investors who lost money when
WorldCom collapsed in 2002, calls for him to pay $5 million up
front and to place the remainder of his assets in a trust that
is expected to be sold for an estimated $25 million to $40
million.  All monies from the sale of Mr. Ebber's property are
to be deposited in a fiduciary fund for disbursement to
plaintiffs in the class action.

Columbus Lumber's primary business contains a southern yellow
pine sawmill operation including a log yard, wet yard, sawmill
equipment, planer mill, material handling equipment, kilns, a
wood treating facility, rolling rock, sheds and buildings all
situated on approx. 91 acres of property.

Development Specialists, Inc., as Trustee, pursuant to a Trust
that was created under a settlement agreement In re: WorldCom,
Inc., Securities Litigation 02-Civ. 3288 (S.D.N.Y.), is selling
Mr. Ebbers' assets.  The Trustee's counsel is Burr & Forman LLP.

Headquartered in Clinton, Mississippi, WorldCom, Inc., now known
as MCI -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- is a pre-eminent global  
communications provider, operating in more than 65 countries and
maintaining one of the most expansive IP networks in the world.
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532).  The Bankruptcy Court
confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr. 20,
2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11
protection as MCI, Inc. (Troubled Company Reporter Vol. 10, No.
160)

The Worldcom stock suit -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com--  
is a consolidated, certified class action pending in the
Southern District of New York before District Court Judge Denise
L. Cote.  It is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified
class of all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired
publicly traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999
through and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured
thereby.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CENTENE CORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Centene Corp. between June 21, 2006 and July 17, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri against defendant Centene and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 2, 2006
to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2005 and May 2, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah against defendant NPS and one or more of its officers
and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 11,
2006 to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


SCOTTISH RE: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Federamn & Sherwood announced that on Aug. 2, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Scottish Re Group Limited (SCT).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Dec. 16, 2005 through July 28, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 2, 2006
to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


SCOTTISH RE: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Scottish Re Group LTD between Dec. 16,
2005 and July 28, 2006.

The action, "Komito v. Scottish Re Group Ltd., Case No. 06-CV-
5994," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and names as defendants, the company as
well as certain senior officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Scottish Re and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
Scottish Re's financial health and business prospects.  It also
alleges that the company and its officers and directors covered
up serious operational and financial problems.  

In February 2006, the company reported strong earnings for the
2005 fourth quarter.  They also stated that this positive
momentum would continue going forward.

In early May 2006 Scottish Re announced that it had refinanced,
at favorable rates, all of its regulatory reserves for the
business acquired in its acquisition of ING, Scottish Re's
reinsurance business.

The company also reported reduced earnings for the first quarter
of 2006, but dismissed it as temporary, and certainly not a
cause for major concern.

However, on July 28, 2006, the defendants jolted the market on
news that CEO Scott Willkomm had resigned, and that for the
second quarter, the company would report a gigantic loss of $130
million, and that results for the remainder of the year would be
negatively affected.  On this news the company's share prices
plummeted from $16.00 to $3.99, a 75% decline.

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood,
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, New York 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 257), E-mail: clowther@whesq.com,
Web site: http://www.whesq.com.  


SUNTERRA CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Sunterra Corp. between Aug. 14, 2003 and May 17,
2006.  The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Sunterra securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Sept. 11, 2006, in which to move
for Lead Plaintiff status.

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