/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061009.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 9, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 200


AT&T WIRELESS: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $150M Stock Suit Deal
BAPTIST HEALTH: Ark. Court Reverses Class Certification Ruling
BARTON BRANDS: Agrees on Hearing Date for Ken. Pollution Suit
BENQ MOBILE: Suit Planned to Keep Jobs at Insolvent German Firm
CANADA: Suit Against Longueuil City Over Property Taxes Junked

CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Federal Rubber Chemicals Suit for $51M
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Labor Cases Deal Approval Foreseen in 2007
FREEMOTION FITNESS: Recalls Exercise Machines to Secure Pins
GOLDMAN SACHS: Added as Defendant in D.C. Fannie Mae Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: D.C. Court Rejects Claims in Iridium World Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Excluded in Amended N.Y. Refco Stock Complaint
GOLDMAN SACHS: Ruling in 2001 Exodus Offering Suit Appealed
H&R BLOCK: Ill. Woman Files Suit Over Refund Anticipation Loans
INDONESIA: Minister Faces Suit Over Anti-Corruption Campaign
JUMBO FOODS: Recalls Turkey Sandwiches Over Possible Health Risk

KENTUCKY: Dilcrest Residents Sue City of Florence Over Zoning
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2006 Sedona to Re-position Wiring Harness
KIRBY MCINERNEY: Appeals Court Dismisses Malpractice Complaints
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 18 Hearing Set for $7.025M Deal
LOUISIANA: "Brou" Suit Settlement Gets Federal Court Approval

MERCK & CO: Faces New Ohio Product Liability Suit Over Vioxx
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Sides With State in "Bryson" Litigation
NEW ORLEANS: Parent of Student Sues to Uphold Transport Law
OREGON: County Hires Davis Wright in Suit Over Police Brutality
SANTA BARBARA: Lawsuit Over Refund-Anticipation Loans Reinstated

VILLAS PARKMERCED: Tenants File Calif. Suit Over Rental Scheme
WOODWARD GOVERNOR: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Racial Bias Suit
WORLDCOM INC: McCormick, et al., to Appeal La. Settlement Ruling

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNECTICS CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in Calif.
LOUDEYE CORP: Announces Filing of Securities Fraud Lawsuit


AT&T WIRELESS: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $150M Stock Suit Deal
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $150 million settlement in the matter, "In re AT&T
Wireless Tracking Stock Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-
8754 (MGC)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
in Courtroom 14A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse,
500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312.

Deadline to file for exclusion was Oct. 5, 2005.

The settlement covers all investors who bought AT&T Wireless
Tracking Stock during the period April 26, 2000 through May 1,

The complaint alleges that the defendants, AT&T Corp. and C.
Michael Armstrong, violated the federal securities laws by
failing to disclose certain material adverse trends in AT&T's
business in the Prospectus for the AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock
initial public offering.  

For more details, contact AT&T Wireless Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 94975-
8061, Phone: 415-461-0410 or 800-447-7657, Fax: 415-461-0412,
Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e16.

BAPTIST HEALTH: Ark. Court Reverses Class Certification Ruling
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a circuit judge's decision
authorizing a class action against Baptist Health Systems, Inc.
for alleged overcharging of uninsured patients, The Springdale
Morning News reports.

The high court pointed out that Judge Timothy Fox of the Pulaski
County Circuit Court failed to properly document how the 2,000
patients in the lawsuit had similar claims.

Initially, three patients sued the hospital, alleging that that
uninsured or underinsured patients pay a higher price for care
at Baptist Health facilities, which are nonprofit, than those
who are covered by medical insurance.

Back in December 2005, Judge Fox granted the plaintiffs class-
action status, which allowed more people to join in the lawsuit.

Baptist Health would later appeal the ruling, arguing that Judge
Fox abused his discretion in determining that the plaintiffs met
the requirements for class-action status.  They also contend
that the judge failed to enter specific findings of fact to
support his order.

Thus, in a unanimous decision handed down on Oct. 5, 2006, the
Supreme Court ruled that Judge Fox's order lacked specific
findings of fact to support his decision.

Justice Tom Glaze, writing on behalf of the high court's panel,
pointed out that although the court's order provides that
"approximately 2,000" patients each year sign an identical
contract with Baptist Health, the order does not explain what
the common issues of fact are, nor does it explain how or why
those common issues predominate, or why a class action is a
superior method of adjudicating the plaintiffs' claim.

Previously, Judge Fox had rejected requests by both parties to
add specific findings to his ruling.  

The high court did not rule on Baptist Health's other appeal.

Jacksonville, Florida-based Baptist Health System, Inc. --
http://www.e-baptisthealth.com-- is health care system that  
serves the Jacksonville, Florida area through four hospitals.  
Baptist Medical Center, its flagship facility, is a full-service
tertiary medical center.  Across the street is Wolfson
Children's Hospital, which cares for the city's youngest
residents.  Baptist Medical Center Beaches is an acute care
facility with more than 120 beds, and its Baptist Medical Center
Nassau hospital has more than 50 beds.  Baptist Health Systems
offers centers for specialties such as cardiac care, cancer
treatment, and emergency medicine.

BARTON BRANDS: Agrees on Hearing Date for Ken. Pollution Suit
Attorneys representing both sides in a complaint against Barton
Brands Ltd. over pollution, met to schedule court proceedings,
according to The Kentucky Standard.

Louisville attorney Matt White, who represents plaintiffs suing
the distillery, said both sides agreed to have a hearing
regarding the certification within six months.

Six plaintiffs filed a suit against Barton Brands Ltd. and
Constellation Brands, Inc. in U.S. District Court in July.  They
claim that the company's Bardstown distillery is contaminating
the air and water with particulate fallout, wastewater and
noxious odors.  One of the plaintiffs is Dallas Armstrong.  

In a written statement, Barton Brands representative disputed
the claims in July.

Mr. White is member at Gray & White, 1200 PNC Plaza, 500 West
Jefferson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (Jefferson Co.),
Phone: 502-585-2060, Toll Free: 866-585-2060, Fax: 502-581-1933.

BENQ MOBILE: Suit Planned to Keep Jobs at Insolvent German Firm
The IG Metall union in Germany said it was investigating the
possibility of a legal action, possibly through a class action,
to preserve the job of 3,000 BenQ Mobile GmbH & Co OHG staff who
now stand to lose their jobs after the insolvency of the

The planned suit is aimed at forcing the former owner of the
company, Siemens AG, to re-employ the workers.  

"It's new legal territory, but of course we will try it," Munich
representative Harald Flassbeck told Reuters.

BenQ Mobile filed for insolvency in Germany on Sept. 29.  The
collapse follows a year after Siemens sold the company to
Taiwanese technology group BenQ.  BenQ Mobile has lost market
share against giant competitors.

CANADA: Suit Against Longueuil City Over Property Taxes Junked
The Quebec Superior Court rejected a class action against the
City of Longueuil to recover millions of dollars collected from
taxpayers in three South Shore communities that voted last year
to demerge, The Gazette reports.

In 2005, Michel Marcotte, a property manager from the former
municipality of St. Lambert filed a motion to obtain
authorization to launch a class action against the city of

He sought to represent the taxpayers of Brossard, St. Bruno de
Montarville and St. Lambert, three former South Shore

Mr. Marcotte is demanding that the city of Longueuil refund the
general property tax illegally charged to the taxpayers of these
three former municipalities.  The taxpayers of the demerging
municipalities account for 40% of all the city of Longueuil

According to the motion for authorization, the city of Longueuil
illegally raised the general property tax over and above the
ceiling of five per cent established in Section 87.1 of the
Charter of the city of Longueuil.  This ceiling was set by the
provincial government to protect taxpayers of former
municipalities against steep increases in property taxes, which
might result from the municipal merger initiatives in 2002.

The municipal taxes were frozen by the city of Longueuil in
2004, the year when the referendums on demergers were held.  
That year, the citizens of the former municipalities of
Brossard, St. Bruno de Montarville and St. Lambert elected to
demerge from the City of Longueuil.  These demergers will take
effect this year.  

In the aftermath of these referendums, the city of Longueuil
raised the property taxes for 2005 in each of these demerging
sectors over and above the five per cent ceiling imposed by law.

The lawsuit includes individuals as well as corporate taxpayers
with less than 50 employees.

CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Federal Rubber Chemicals Suit for $51M
Chemtura Corp. agreed to pay $51 million to resolve federal
class actions involving rubber chemicals.  This agreement,
combined with settlements with other entities, means that
Chemtura has now resolved over 90 percent of its exposure for
U.S. rubber chemicals claims.

The $51 million settlement, which will be paid in the fourth
quarter, is subject to court approval.  In anticipation of this
settlement, $12.2 million was added to already existing rubber
chemicals reserves in the third quarter.

"This represents another important step in Chemtura's resolution
of legacy issues so that we may continue to focus on the
future," said Robert Wood, chairman and chief executive officer.

Chemtura has previously pleaded guilty in a federal case and was
fined by European regulators for its role in artificially
boosting prices of chemicals to make rubber between 1995 and

In 2005, Chemtura Corp. disclosed that the European Commission
has imposed a fine of $16 million on the company in connection
with the EC's rubber chemicals investigation (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com-- with pro forma 2005  
sales of $3.9 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of
specialty chemicals, crop protection and pool, spa and home care

For more information, contact William Kuser and Mary Ann Dunnell
both of Chemtura Corp., Phone: 203-573-2213 or 203-573-3034.

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Labor Cases Deal Approval Foreseen in 2007
Darden Restaurants Inc. expects to receive preliminary court
approval for the settlement of several class actions pending
against it in California state courts on the first half of
fiscal 2007, according to the company's quarterly regulatory

Beginning in 2002, a total of five purported class actions were
filed against the company in Superior Courts of California, two
each in Los Angeles County and Orange County, and one in
Sacramento County.

Plaintiffs allege that they and other current and former service
managers, beverage and hospitality managers and culinary
managers were improperly classified as exempt employees under
California labor laws.
The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties.  Two of
the cases were removed to arbitration under its mandatory
arbitration program, one was stayed to allow consideration of
judicial coordination with the other cases, one is proceeding as
an individual claim, and one remains a purported class action.

Following mediation in February 2006, a tentative settlement was
reached.  Without admitting any liability, the company agreed to
pay up to a maximum total of $11,000 to settle all five cases.

The company recorded settlement expenses amounting to
approximately $9,000 associated with these lawsuits during the
quarter and nine months ended Feb. 26, 2006, which are included
in selling, general, and administrative expenses.   

The settlement amounts of these lawsuits are included in other
current liabilities at Feb. 26, 2006.  The tentative settlement
will be documented in a full settlement agreement and must have
court approval.

Darden Restaurants expect to receive final court approval no
earlier than the second quarter of fiscal 2007.

FREEMOTION FITNESS: Recalls Exercise Machines to Secure Pins
FreeMotion Fitness Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 5,600 units of FreeMotion Cable Cross and Dual
Cable Cross exercise machines.

The company said the selector pin for the weight plates can slip
out of its slot if the edges of the pin are worn, allowing the
weights to drop suddenly.  Falling weight plates can hit
consumers using the machines.

FreeMotion has received nine reports of consumers receiving
contusions to the head and shoulders from falling weights after
pins disengaged.

The recall includes FreeMotion Cable Cross and Dual Cable Cross
Exercise Machines with model numbers GZFM6006 and GZFM6024.  The
recalled machines can be identified by the name Cable Cross
located on the upper frame.  

The FreeMotion Cable Cross machines are used to exercise by
pulling on cables on each side of the machine to raise a series
of weight plates.  The arms where the cables enter the machine
can be moved through an arc using 13 position points spaced from
straight down to straight up.  An enclosed weight stack is
situated directly in front of the user for selection of the
amount of weight to be raised.

Picture of the recalled exercise machine:

These exercise machines were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold by exercise specialty stores nationwide and through
direct sales from FreeMotion from December 1999 through May 2006
for between $3,750 and $4,500.

Consumers are advised to stop using these machines and contact
FreeMotion Fitness to receive a free repair kit.

For more information, contact FreeMotion Fitness Inc. at (800)
201-2109 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Added as Defendant in D.C. Fannie Mae Litigation
Goldman, Sachs & Co. revealed that it has been added as
defendant in amended securities fraud class action complaints
against Fannie Mae's accounting practices, MarketWatch reports.  
The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the District of

In its quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company said that the complaint accuses it of
violating laws, including U.S. securities laws, in connection
with some Fannie Mae-sponsored bond deals that were allegedly
arranged by the company.

The deals relate to real estate mortgage investment conduits,
which are bonds collateralized with mortgage-backed securities.
The other defendants include Fannie Mae and some of its past and
present officers and directors, accountants, and other
financial-services firms.

The company's SEC filing indicated that the amended complaint
was filed in Aug. 14, 2006 in a purported class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The amended complaint stated that several Fannie Mae real estate
mortgage investment conduit transactions -- wherein Goldman
acted as dealer and underwriter -- were designed solely for the
purpose of shifting $107 million of the company's earnings into
future years and was part of the overall scheme to defraud
investors (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 30, 2006).

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.

Mr. Downey is member at Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth
Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20005-5901,
Phone: 202-434-5000, Fax: 202-434-5029.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:

      (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
          (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
          617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:

      (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite
          500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:
          202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
          lawinfo@cmht.com; and

      (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513
          Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,
          Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax:
          513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com.

GOLDMAN SACHS: D.C. Court Rejects Claims in Iridium World Suit
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted
summary judgment motion that dismisses certain claims in the
securities fraud class action, "Maytorena v. Iridium World
Comm., et al.," which names Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant.

The company was named on May 26, 1999 as a defendant in two
purported class actions commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on behalf of purchasers of Class A
common stock of Iridium World Communications, Ltd.  The
transaction relates to a January 1999 underwritten secondary
offering of 7,500,000 shares of Class A common stock of Iridium
World at a price of $33.50 per share, as well as in the
secondary market.  

The defendants in the actions include:

      -- Iridium, certain of its officers and directors,

      -- Motorola, Inc. (an investor in Iridium), and

      -- the lead underwriters in the offering, including
         Goldman, Sachs & Co.

The complaints in both actions allege violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seek
compensatory and/or rescissory damages.  

On May 13, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging substantively identical claims as the
original complaints.  

The consolidated suit arose out of alleged misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications
business.  The suit was originally filed on April 22, 1999.

On July 15, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and by a decision dated Aug. 31,
2004, the motion was denied.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the underwriter defendants moved for summary
judgment.  On April 15, 2005, plaintiffs moved for class
certification, and the district court granted the motion,
certifying two subclasses, by a decision dated Jan. 9, 2006.  

Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 996,500 shares of common stock
and Goldman Sachs International underwrote 320,625 shares of
common stock for a total offering price of approximately $44

By a decision dated Sept. 15, 2006, the federal district court
denied the underwriter defendants' motion for summary judgment
as to claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, but
granted summary judgment dismissing claims under Section 12(2)
of the Securities Act against Goldman, Sachs & Co. and all but
one of the other underwriter defendants.

The suit is "Maytorena v. Iridium World Comm., et al., Case No.
1:99-cv-01333," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen
Milstein Hausfield & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, West
Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone:
(202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: afriedman@cmht.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Thomas Russell Leuba of Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 1701
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-5866,
         Phone: (202) 956-7560, Fax: (202) 293-6330, E-mail:
         leubat@sullcrom.com; and

     (2) James B. Weidner and James F. Moyle of Clifford Chance
         US LLP, 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6131,
         Phone: (212) 878-8000 or (212) 878-8508, Fax: 212-878-
         8375, E-mail: james.weidner@cliffordchance.com and

GOLDMAN SACHS: Excluded in Amended N.Y. Refco Stock Complaint
Goldman, Sachs & Co. revealed that an amended complaint filed on
Sept. 5, 2006 in a purported securities fraud class action
related to Refco, Inc.'s initial public offering of August 2005,
dropped as defendants the company and other underwriters of the

The action was originally brought on behalf of customers that
held securities in custody of some Refco affiliates.  Earlier
this year, Goldman Sachs disclosed that it, along with other
underwriters, was named as a defendant in a putative shareholder
class actions over Refco's IPO.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by publishing financial statements of Refco,
including in the IPO prospectus, that were false and misleading.

Recently, according to the company's Oct. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 25, 2006, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and other
underwriters of Refco's initial public offering were not
included as defendants in the amended complaint filed on Sept.
5, 2006.  The case was brought on behalf of customers that held
securities custodied with certain Refco Inc. affiliates.

                        Case Background
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of New York, was consolidated in April (Class Action  
Reporter, Apr. 7, 2006).  It claimed the collapsed commodity
brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far more than
previously thought.  It also accuses company executives, company
auditors, and investment bankers of negligence.  

This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the
company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public
offering of common stock, and only fourteen months after its
issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  The company
filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Max W. Berger (MB-5010), John P. Coffey  (JC-3832),  
         John C. Browne (JB-0391) and Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203)  
         of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP, 1285  
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:  
         (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and  

     (2) Stuart M. Grant (SG-8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454),  
         Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, Christine M.  
         Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,  
         Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax: (646)  
         722-8501 and (302) 622-7100.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Ruling in 2001 Exodus Offering Suit Appealed
An appeal was filed with regards to a decision by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California that
denied a motion by two proposed new plaintiffs to intervene, and
dismissed the class action against Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
other defendants.

The suit was in relation to the February 2001 offering of
13,000,000 shares of common stock and $575,000,000 of
convertible subordinated notes of Exodus Communications, Inc.  

By an amended complaint dated July 11, 2002, the company and the
other lead underwriters for the February 2001 offering were
added as defendants in the purported class action.  The
complaint, which also names as defendants certain officers and
directors of Exodus Communications, alleges violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seeks
compensatory damages.

On Sept. 26, 2001, Exodus Communications, Inc. filed for
protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.  On Oct. 23, 2002,
the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  By a
decision dated Aug. 19, 2003, the district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to replead, and the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 15, 2004.

On March 12, 2004, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss
the third amended complaint, and by a decision dated Aug. 5,
2005, the district court denied the motion.

The underwriter defendants moved for reconsideration and
clarification on Aug. 30, 2005, but the motion was denied by an
order dated Sept. 12, 2005.  Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote
5,200,000 shares of common stock for a total offering price of
approximately $96,200,000, and $230,000,000 principal amount of
the notes.

In a decision dated Aug. 14, 2006 the district court denied the
motion to intervene by two proposed new plaintiffs and entered
judgment dismissing the action.  On Aug. 30, 2006, the proposed
new plaintiffs moved to vacate the judgment, according to the
company's Oct. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Aug. 25, 2006.

The suit is "In re Exodus Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:01-cv-02661-MMC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Maxine M. Chesney with referral to Judge Maria-Elena

The plaintiffs are represented by:

    (1) Michael David Braun of The Braun law Group, P.C., 12400
        Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025,
        Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:

    (2) Connie M. Cheung, John K. Grant, Reed R. Kathrein and Ex
        Kano S. Sams, II all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
        Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
        Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
        4534, E-mail: conniec@lerachlaw.com or  
        johnkg@lerachlaw.com or reedk@lerachlaw.com or  

    (3) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
        & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
        CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-
        mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;

    (4) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
        LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA
        90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
        mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

    (5) Leigh A. Parker of Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire Blvd.,
        Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: 310-208-2800,
        310-209-2348, E-mail: info@wllawca.com; and

    (6) Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue,
        Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025,
        Fax: (212) 682-3010.

Representing the defendants are Paul J. Collins and Jonathan C.
Dickey of Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher LLP, 1530 Page Mill Road, Palo
Alto, CA 94404, Phone: (650) 849-5300, Fax: (650) 849-5333, E-
mail: pcollins@gibsondunn.com and jdickey@gibsondunn.com.

H&R BLOCK: Ill. Woman Files Suit Over Refund Anticipation Loans
H&R Block, Inc. faces a purported class action in Madison County
Circuit Court, Illinois, which claims that it defrauded
consumers seeking instant income tax refunds, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Filed by Cheryl Reynolds on Sept. 15, the suit is the 400th case
seeking class-action status in Madison County since January
2000.  The suit also named as a defendant Household Bank.

According to the complaint, the defendants make refund
anticipation loans to taxpayers who file their tax return
electronically.  It alleges that RALs are made at a very high
interest rate, often as much as 800%.  Plaintiff contends that
since the consumer is required to file electronically as a
condition of obtaining an RAL, the electronic filing fee is a
finance charge.  

Ms. Reynolds claims that the defendants misrepresent material
terms of the RAL, including cost.  She states in her complaint
that defendants unlawfully bait the consumer with low fees and
then switch to higher fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and similar unfair
and deceptive acts and practices statues of other states.

Anyone in the country who obtained a RAL from the defendants
from 1987, are eligible to join the class, the complaint states.

The suit is asking the court to enter judgment in plaintiff's
favor and in favor of the class for:

      -- actual damages;
      -- punitive damages;
      -- statutory damages and penalties;
      -- prejudgment interest;
      -- an injunction halting the practices complained of;
      -- attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs;
      -- maintaining this case as a class action; and
      -- for such further relief and other relief the court
         deems appropriate.

The case is currently waiting to be assigned by Chief Judge Ann

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB) --
http://www.handrblock.com-- is a diversified company with  
subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage and business
services and products.  The company operates through four
business segments.  The Tax Services segment provides income tax
return preparation and other services and products related to
tax return preparation to the general public in the U.S.,
Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.  The Mortgage Services
segment offers a range of home mortgage services through H&R
Block's subsidiaries, Option One Mortgage Corp. and H&R Block
Mortgage Corp.  The Business Services segment offers middle-
market companies accounting, tax and business consulting
services, wealth management, retirement resources, payroll
services, corporate finance and financial process outsourcing.
The Investment Services segment offers investment services and
securities products to the general public through the company's
subsidiary, H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc.

INDONESIA: Minister Faces Suit Over Anti-Corruption Campaign
The United Trade Union Federation of the State Enterprises is
initiating a class action in the Central Jakarta District Court
against State Minister for State Enterprises Sugiharto, Antara

The organization is against the minister's establishment of an
ad hoc team for the eradication of corruption in state
enterprises because it is allegedly tainted with political

General Chairman Arief Poyuono said the existence of the ad hoc
team is against Article 61 of Presidential Regulation No.10/2005
on the organizational unit and tasks of echelon I of the state
ministers' offices.

Mr. Poyuono also alleged that the ad hoc team, instead of
accelerating efforts to eradicate corruption in state
enterprises, caused contra-productive results.  He cited the
case of fertilizer company PT Pupuk Kalimantan Timur whose
performance between 2004 and 2005 was good until its president
director is arrested for alleged corruption.

Mr. Poyuono also cited the case of Bank Mandiri whose
performance was good but its president director ECW Neloe had to
undergo a legal process for graft at the state bank.

He further cited as an example the insurance company PT
Jamsostek and the State Electricity Co.

JUMBO FOODS: Recalls Turkey Sandwiches Over Possible Health Risk
Jumbo Foods, Inc. of Mukilteo, Washington is recalling 1360
Tuscan Sun Turkey sandwiches with a Production code of 35E,
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
Monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Tuscan Sun Turkey sandwiches with a Production Code of 35E
were distributed in Washington, Oregon and Northern California
through Convenience stores.

The Tuscan Sun Turkey sandwich is contained in a plastic
package, Net weight 5.9 oz., (167 g.) label.  The Production
Code of 35E is located adjacent to the UPC code on the front

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
Washington State Department of Agriculture, which revealed that
the Tuscan Sun Turkey sandwich with a Production Code of 35E
contained the bacteria.

Jumbo Foods has ceased the distribution of the Tuscan Sun Turkey
sandwich with a Production Code of 35E as the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and Jumbo Foods continue their investigation as
to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Tuscan Sun Turkey sandwiches with a
Production Code of 35E are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Jumbo Foods' Recall
Coordinator Dave Johnson, Monday to Friday between 7 AM and 7
PM, at 425-508-7567 or 1-800-563-6507, E-mail:

KENTUCKY: Dilcrest Residents Sue City of Florence Over Zoning
Residents of Dilcrest Manor subdivision filed a purported class
action in Boone Circuit Court against the city of Florence,
Kentucky, challenging a zone change it recently approved, The
Community Press & Recorder reports.

The change allowed for the development of a 6,000-square-foot
office building, which some residents are concerned will worsen
traffic in the neighborhood.

Filed on Sept. 21, 2006, the lawsuit is the most recent action
in a long-term conflict over potential commercial development at
the main entrance to the subdivision.

Florence attorney Teresa L. Cunningham, whose father Harold
Cunningham is one of the plaintiffs, brought the suit on behalf
of the homeowners.  She also named as defendants in the case
Mayor Diane Whalen, the Florence city council members and city
developer/lawyer Dennis Helmer.

According to the suit, which lists 29 residents as plaintiffs,
the city council's decision to approve the zone change was "not
supported by substantial evidence" and violated the rights of
the residents, who should be compensated.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Cunningham, Phone: (717)

KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2006 Sedona to Re-position Wiring Harness
Kia Motors America, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 4,753
units of 2006 Sedona.

The company said that on certain passenger vehicles equipped
with adjustable brake pedals, the stop lamp switch wiring
harness may be out of position.  An improperly positioned stop
lamp switch wiring harness could make contact with the u-joint
assembly of the steering column.  Repeated contact may
eventually cause the wiring harness insulation to chafe.

Chafed insulation could cause a short of the wiring harness
resulting in the loss of brake lights, engine stalling, or an
inability to start the vehicle increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect the wiring harness for chafing and, repair
if necessary. In addition, the dealer will secure the wiring
harness to prevent contact with the u-joint assembly.

Owners of Kia 2006 Sedona may contact Kia at 1-800-333-4542.

KIRBY MCINERNEY: Appeals Court Dismisses Malpractice Complaints
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in "Achtman v. Kirby
McInerney, Case No. 04-cv-5473," that two prominent New York
plaintiffs firms are not liable to former clients for failing to
sue accounting firm Arthur Andersen in relation to its auditing
work at Bennett Funding Group, the New York Law Journal reports.

In 1997, Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman, LLP filed a class action against Bennett
Funding for $570 million worth of securities fraud.  It did not
sue Arthur Andersen, BFG's auditor in 1989 and 1990.

The suit settled in 1998 for $129 million -- the $125 million
paid by Bennett Funding's and the $14 million by Mahoney Cohen &
Co., which succeeded Andersen as the group's auditor.

In 2002, Florida firm of Chikovsky & Shapiro sued Kirby
McInerney and Bernstein Litowitz for legal malpractice for
failing to sue Arthur Andersen.  

Southern District of New York Judge John Sprizzo dismissed the
legal malpractice action.  Arnold E. DiJoseph of New York's
DiJoseph & Portegello appealed.

On Sept. 25, Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin wrote on behalf of a
unanimous panel that a U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in
"Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver,"
which held that third-party "aiders and abettors" could not be
sued for securities fraud had created "serious doubt as to
auditor securities liability."  

The 2nd Circuit also said damages from Arthur Andersen were
uncertain because of the nature of a Ponzi scheme, in which
early participants earn high "returns" from money that is
actually coming from more recent investors.

Regarding questions on jurisdiction, the appeals court affirmed
Judge Sprizzo's enjoining of Chikovsky & Shapiro from filing a
legal malpractice suit other than in his court.  The court said
Judge Sprizzo had properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction
because of his great familiarity with the underlying BFG

The two plaintiff firms were represented on appeal by Bertrand
C. Sellier of Proskauer Rose.

Kirby, McInerney & Squire on the Net: http://www.kmslaw.com/.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman on the Net:

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 18 Hearing Set for $7.025M Deal
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 18, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $7,025,000 settlement in the matter, "Primavera
Investors, et al. v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23-EAJ."

The court will hold the settlement fairness hearing at the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on Dec. 18, 2006.  
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Oct. 11, 2006.

The case was filed on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between May
21, 2002 and May 13, 2004, including those who purchased shares
pursuant or traceable to the company's registration statement
and prospectus for its May 21, 2002 IPO of 5,000,000 shares at
$15.00 per share.

The consolidated amended class action complaint dated Jan. 12,
2005 filed in this case generally alleges that:

      -- defendants issued a materially false and misleading
         registration statement and prospectus in connection
         with the initial public offering on May 21, 2002 of
         5,000,000 shares of Liquidmetal common stock at a price
         of $15.00 per share, thereby violating Section 11 of
         the U.S. Securities Act of 1933;

      -- individual defendants as control persons are liable
         under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933;
      -- defendants Liquidmetal and John Kang violated Section
         10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
         Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and
         misleading press releases and other statements
         regarding Liquidmetal's financial condition during the
         class period -- May 21, 2002 through and including May
         13, 2004 -- in a scheme to artificially inflate the
         value of Liquidmetal's common stock; and

      -- Individual defendant John Kang as a control person is
         liable under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit sought money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Liquidmetal Technologies Securities Litigation c/o
         Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8040,
         San Rafael, CA 94912-8040, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web
         site: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1304.

     (2) Maya Saxena, Esq., Saxena White P.A., 5200 Town Center
         Circle, Suite 600, Boca Raton, Florida 33486, Phone:
         (800) 361-5096; and

     (3) Jack Reise, Esq., Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca
         Raton, Florida 33432, Phone: (561) 750-3000.

LOUISIANA: "Brou" Suit Settlement Gets Federal Court Approval
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
approved the settlement of the class action, "Brou et al. v.
Federal Emergency Management Agency et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-

The class consists of all individuals who:

     -- as of Aug. 29, 2005, resided in Louisiana or  
        Mississippi in areas declared to be Federal Disaster  
        Areas as a result of Hurricane Katrina; or as of  
        Sept. 24, 2005, resided in Louisiana in areas  
        declared to be Federal Disaster Areas as a result of  
        Hurricane Rita;  

     -- were displaced from their pre-disaster primary residence  
        or whose pre-disaster primary residences have been  
        rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage caused by  
        Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita;  

     -- are in receipt of, or who qualify or will qualify for,  
        direct assistance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section  
        5174(c)(1)(B); and  

     -- are persons with disabilities and have informed or will  
        inform defendants of their need for a unit that  
        accommodates their disabilities, but who have not  
        received a unit with the requested accessibility  

The settlement provides that FEMA will:
     -- mail and distribute to print media, radio stations, and  
        TV stations a notice explaining what is meant by  
        "disability," notifying class members that accessible  
        trailers and accessibility modifications are available,  
        and describing the procedures class members must follow  
        to have FEMA address any unmet accessibility needs;

     -- establish a special toll-free number for class members  
        to call and provide information to help FEMA determine  
        whether Class Members need an accessible trailer,  
        whether modifications can be made to a FEMA trailer they  
        already have to make it accessible, what type of  
        accessibility features they need; and whether they need  
        financial assistance to pay for a hotel or some other  
        type of temporary housing unit an accessible trailer can  
        be provided.  

     -- require that a minimum of 10% of all mobile homes or  
        travel trailers ordered on or after June 1, 2006 for use  
        as temporary housing for victims of Hurricane Katrina or  
        Hurricane Rita shall comply with the Uniform Federal  
        Accessibility Standards (UFAS);

     -- hire a separate contractor for the exclusive purpose of  
        providing all materials, labor, equipment and support  
        services such as required permitting and local  
        inspections for installation of UFAS compliant  
        manufactured homes and travel trailers;

     -- require that the contractor selected by FEMA use its  
        best efforts to provide accessible mobile homes or  
        travel trailers within 90 days and to make any necessary  
        modifications to make an existing trailer accessible  
        within 60 days after a Class Member contacts FEMA (30  
        days for installation of external ramps, steps, or grab   

      -- ensure that the common areas and at least 5% of mobile  
         homes or travel trailers in group sites operated by  
         FEMA for Class Members in Louisiana or Mississippi are  
         accessible to persons with disabilities;

      -- appoint an ombudsperson to work to resolve complaints  
         and to monitor and recommend improvements to FEMA's  
         procedures for meeting the needs of people with  
         disabilities; and

      -- pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of  

On Feb. 17, 2006, individual plaintiffs Claire Brou, Darlene
Crosby, Willie Foster, Donna Graffagnino, Carla Hagler, Angela
Breaux Hardy, Robert Thomas Harris, Eugene Johnson, Victoria
Sumrall, Terry West, and Anita Wilson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed the instant lawsuit
against FEMA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael
Chertoff in his official capacity as Secretary of DHS, and David
Paulison in his official capacity as Director of FEMA (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2006).

The complaint charged defendants with disability discrimination
in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 794(a); the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604;
and the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5170 et seq., in FEMA's
direct temporary housing assistance program, by their alleged
delay and/or failure to provide accessible trailers, and alleged
delay and/or failure to modify trailers to make them accessible
to people with disabilities.

In support of their claims, plaintiffs argue that FEMA has
failed to provide evacuees with disabilities with meaningful
access to its programs.

Defendants deny any liability and maintain that they have
administered their programs in a lawful manner.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available for free at:


The suit is "Brou et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00838-SRD- DEK," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge  
Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., with referral to Judge Daniel E.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Melissa Losch Boudreaux of The Advocacy Center, 2704  
         Wooddale Blvd., Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70805, Phone:  
         225-925-8884, E-mail: mlosch@advocacyla.org; Ellen  
         Bentley Hahn of The Advocacy Center for the Elderly &  
         Disabled, 600 Jefferson St., Suite 812, Lafayette, LA  
         70501, Phone: 337-237-7380, E-mail:  

     (2) Marc Cohan, Caroline LaCheen and Cary LaCheen all of  
         The Welfare Law Center, Inc., 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite  
         1506, New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-633-6967; and

     (3) Peter Asplund and Robert Cohen both of Kirkland & Ellis  
         (New York), 153 East 53rd St., New York, NY 10022-4575.

Representing the defendants is Diane Kelleher of The Dept. of  
Justice, Federal Programs Branch (DC), P.O. Box 883, Washington,  
DC 20044, Phone: 202-514-4775, E-mail: Diane.Kelleher@usdoj.gov.

MERCK & CO: Faces New Ohio Product Liability Suit Over Vioxx
Ironton, Ohio resident Betty Pickett filed a product liability
lawsuit at the Lawrence County Clerk of Courts concerning the
arthritis painkiller drug, Vioxx, the Huntington Herald Dispatch

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Merck & Co.,
     -- Medicare, and
     -- the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

The suit contends that Ms. Pickett was prescribed Vioxx and was
diagnosed with congestive heart failure and suffered a heart
attack in 2003.  The suit alleges that Vioxx caused the heart

The suit, seeking class-action status, is asking for an
unspecified amount of alleged compensatory and punitive damages.

In September 2004, the company voluntarily withdrew VIOXX in
response to a Merck-sponsored study, called APPROVe.  The study
showed there was an increased relative risk of thrombotic events
in patients taking VIOXX continuously for 18 months compared to
patients taking a sugar pill.  That increased relative risk did
not appear to be statistically significant until 30 months or
more of continuous use, and there was no detectable difference
in risk for patients taking VIOXX for a short duration.

According to the suit, the Food and Drug Administration required
consumer warnings for Vioxx saying patients could suffer serious
gastrointestinal problems, including potentially fatal internal
bleeding, as a result of taking the drug.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Sides With State in "Bryson" Litigation
Judge Steven McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire has ruled in favor of the state in the
protracted class action, "Bryson, et al. v. HHS NH, et al.,"
which accused the state and certain of its agencies of unfairly
keeping disabled people institutionalized, The Associated Press

The suit names as defendants the state's Department of Health
and Human Services, and the Division of Developmental Services.

Bonnie Bryson and Claire Shepardson sued the agencies in late
1999, arguing that the state is violating the federal law by
failing to provide support services that would allow them to
live at home.  The matter would later become a class action.

Both women sued on behalf of themselves and others with acquired
brain disorders most of whom are people disabled from accidents,
strokes or degenerative neurological diseases such as multiple
sclerosis.  They sought to force the state to pay for services
that would let people move from nursing homes, psychiatric
facilities and rehabilitation centers to private apartments or
group homes.

In 2001, a federal judge ruled in plaintiffs' favor; however,
the state appealed and thus on Sept. 29, 2006, Judge McAuliffe
favored the state and closed the case.

In his ruling, the judge pointed out that the state's program is
sizable and that its commitment to moving people out of
institutions into community-based care is "genuine,
comprehensive and reasonable, though obviously not complete."

Judge McAuliffe said the basic point of contention is whether
both women are entitled to relief that would force the state to
obtain enough program slots to afford placement in the program
to all eligible candidates.

In that regard the judge wrote in his ruling that they were not
entitled.  He further wrote that the request would constitute a
"fundamental alteration of the state's program," which is not
required by the American Disabilities Act.

He points out that federal law does not require states to
"raise, appropriate, and spend whatever amount is necessary to
immediately afford all qualified disabled persons community-
based services, without regard to other needs and spending

The suit is "Bryson, et al. v. HHS NH, et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-
00558-SM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.

Representing the plaintiffs is Amy Beth Messer of Disabilities
Rights Center, Inc., 18 Low Ave., Concord, NH 03301-4971, Phoen:
603 228-0432, E-mail: amym@drcnh.org.

Representing the defendants is Suzanne M. Gorman of NH Attorney
General's Office (Civil), Civil Bureau, 33 Capitol St., Concord,
NH 03301-6397, Phone: 603 271-3658, E-mail:

NEW ORLEANS: Parent of Student Sues to Uphold Transport Law
A Lusher Elementary parent filed a lawsuit to demand that the
school provide bus service to its students, the New Orleans
Times-Picayune reports.

The suit was filed in Orleans Parish Civil Court on behalf of
Kenneth and Karran Harper Royal against the Orleans Parish
School Board, which granted Lusher's charter about a year ago.

Lusher's charter agreement does not stipulate provision of such
transportation.  But the lawsuit says state law requires public
schools to provide transportation to students.  It is asking the
court to order the school to uphold that law.  The law also
allows schools to provide "reimbursement" of up to $375 a year
per student in lieu of transportation, typically in the form of
vouchers or tokens that can be used on regular city buses,
according to the report.

School board member Lourdes Moran said that Lusher operates
independently and so is not bound to orders of the board.

Attorney Tracie Washington said she plans to convert the suit
into a class action that includes other schools not offering bus
service to younger students.

OREGON: County Hires Davis Wright in Suit Over Police Brutality
Jackson County has hired Davis Wright Tremaine LLP to represent
it in a class action that stemmed from a police clash with
protesters during a 2004 visit of President Bush in the county,
it emerged in a report by the Mail Tribune.

Jackson County and Jacksonville are facing a lawsuit filed by
the American Civil Liberties Union because of an Oct. 14, 2004
encounter between protesters and authorities.  The suit alleges
that the U.S. Secret Service and local and state police acted
with unnecessary violence and discrimination when clearing
Jacksonville streets for the presidential visit.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Medford against the
county and several individuals, including:

     -- U.S. Secret Service Director Ralph Basham,
     -- former Oregon State Police Capt. Kurt Barthel,
     -- Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters, and
     -- Jacksonville Police Chief David Towe

Jacksonville Police Chief David Towe said his city has hired
Eugene attorney Robert Franz to handle the lawsuit.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on the Net: http://www.dwt.com/.

SANTA BARBARA: Lawsuit Over Refund-Anticipation Loans Reinstated
The district of California Court of Appeal in Div. 6 reinstated
a putative class action against Santa Barbara Savings and Loan
Association, a provider of "rapid refunds" loans, Kenneth Ofgang
of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

The loans permit a taxpayer to borrow funds short-term in
anticipation of a tax refund that will be large enough to cover
the principal and interest.

The suit was filed by Canieva Hood, who said she was evicted
from her residence after Santa Barbara Savings and Loan
Association seized her refund under a cross-collection provision
in 2001, so that she was unable to pay her rent.

The loan has a "cross-collection" provision that permits the
lender to apply the taxpayer's refund to debts owed by the
borrower to other lenders participating in the program.

Ms. Hood's complaint includes causes of action under the Unfair
Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as California common

Santa Barbara filed a cross-complaint against the other lenders
for indemnity.  Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed an
amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.

On Sept. 29, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge James Brown
granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the lenders,
ruling that federal law does not bar California consumers from
suing banks for alleged misrepresentations in the marketing of
tax refund appreciation loans.

The case is "Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust, 06 S.O.S.

VILLAS PARKMERCED: Tenants File Calif. Suit Over Rental Scheme
The law firm of Brayton Purcell filed a purported class action
in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of tenants in the
Villas Parkmerced apartments, alleging that their landlords
violated the city's rent control laws, CBS 5 reports.

Specifically, the suit is alleging that Villas Parkmerced owners
uses a rebate coupon scam to inflate the true cost to initially
rent an apartment so that rents could be unlawfully raised after
a year.

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

Brayton Purcell said that the plaintiffs from 3,456 units cited
in the lawsuit include David Franklin and Derek Tanguay, who
allegedly agreed to rent a unit for $1,325 per month in
September 2005.

The firm said that both had signed a lease that said the monthly
rent was $1,625, but were issued 12 $350 "bonus bucks" coupons
to be discounted from the rent.

Under the rent control ordinance, a landlord charging $1,325 per
month would have only been able to raise an existing tenant's
rent by $22.52, a 1.7 percent increase, however, according to
Brayton Purcell, the plaintiffs' rent was raised to $1,703, a
28.5 percent increase.

Brayton Purcell hopes to gain restitutions for their clients and
have tenants rents restored to their legal limits.

For more details, contact Peter Fredman, Esq. of Brayton
Purcell, Phone: 415-898-1555, E-mail: pfredman@braytonlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.braytonlaw.com.

WOODWARD GOVERNOR: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Racial Bias Suit
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  
Illinois gave preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of
the class action and EEOC lawsuits against Woodward Governor Co.  
The alleged race- and gender-based discrimination affect the
company's Rockford and Rockton, Illinois facilities.

The proposed $5 million settlement will resolve the lawsuits in
a manner that all parties believe to be fair and equitable.

Of the $5 million settlement fund, $2.4 million is allocated for
the class members in the race discrimination lawsuit employed at
the Rockford or Rockton, Illinois facilities any time on or
after May 8, 1999.  Some $2.6 million is allocated for female
members and former female members of Woodward who worked at the
Rockford or Rockton, Illinois facilities since June 26, 2002.

Thomas A. Gendron, Woodward President and Chief Executive
Officer, noted that the costs associated with this settlement
and legal expenses were previously accrued.

Woodward denies that it engaged in any policy or practice of
unlawful discrimination, or that it engaged in any other
unlawful conduct.  Woodward's members have always enjoyed equal
employment opportunity with respect to job assignment,
compensation, promotion, and all other terms and conditions of

"The company voluntarily settled because we believe the actions
we agreed to undertake demonstrate our strong commitment to
equal employment opportunity.  We also believe it is in the best
interest of our shareholders and members to end an expensive
four-year defense of Woodward's employment policies and
practices.  We have always ensured and will continue to ensure
all our members are treated equitably and have the opportunity
to build successful careers," Mr. Gendron said.

"We are satisfied with this resolution," said Steve Meyer,
Woodward Global Human Resources Director.  "This settlement
allows Woodward to move forward with the commitments outlined in
the agreement, which include process enhancements to our Human
Resources program."

About 86 current and former minority company employees brought
the suit, which was filed on May 8, 2003.  Jennifer Soule of the
Chicago law firm Soule, Bradtke & Lambert is representing the
minority workers (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2005).

Woodward Governor Co. on the net: http://www.woodward.com.

The suit is "Bell, et al. v. Woodward Gov Co, et al., case No.
3:03-cv-50190," filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Philip G. Reinhard with
referral to Judge P. Michael Mahoney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Jennifer Kay Soule of Soule, Bradtke & Lambert, 155 N.  
         Michigan Ave., 500 Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 616-
         4422, Fax: (312) 616-4422, E-mail: jenksoule@aol.com;

     (2) Robert D. Allison of Robert D. Allison & Associates,  
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850, Chicago, IL 60603,  
         Phone: 427-4500, E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com.

Representing the defendant are:

     (i) Thomas F. Hurka and Keenan Jakarta Saulter of Baker &  
         McKenzie, LLP, (Chicago), One Prudential Plaza, 130  
         East Randolph Drive, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601,  
         Phone: (312) 861-8000 and (312) 861-8035, E-mail:
         thomas.f.hurka@bakernet.com and

    (ii) Dax Lopez, Nancy E. Rafuse and Daniel E. Turner of  
         Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP, 1355 Peachtree Street, NE
         Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30309-3232, Phone: 404-253-6009  
         and 404-253-6000, E-mail: daxlopez@asherafuse.com and

WORLDCOM INC: McCormick, et al., to Appeal La. Settlement Ruling
About 20 individuals notify the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New York that they will file an appeal to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York of the
Honorable Arthur Gonzalez's order certifying a Settlement Class
and approving the Louisiana Right of Way Settlement:

   * Randolph McCormick,
   * Allen Bellow,
   * Calvin Delafossie,
   * Carla Karam,
   * Charles Stuart Burk,
   * Dennis P. Gobert,
   * Elberta Fruge,
   * Francis Duplachan, Jr.,
   * Jenora Negata,
   * Joseph Tanny Devillier,
   * Kenneth and Elise Miller,
   * Kenneth Jones,
   * Lloyd Manuel,
   * Lloyd P. Leonards, Sr.,
   * Moise Fruge,
   * Nicki Gaspar,
   * Robert Glen Fruge,
   * Ronald Hilts, Sr.,
   * Steve D. Ortego,
   * Wilson Papillion, and
   * Yvonne M. Hyatt

The court has previously approved the revised individual notices
mailed to more than 7,000 class members regarding settlement of
a class action suit, which the Louisiana claimants filed against
the company.

The court also gave the counsel for the Louisiana right of way
claimants until Sept. 28, 2006, to file their applications for
interim attorneys' fees.

The Louisiana claimants are landowners holding potential claims
based on the presence of WorldCom Inc. and its affiliates' fiber
optic cables in the rights of way on or adjoining the claimants'

The Louisiana claimants are represented by:

   a) Victor L. Marcello, Esq., Donald T. Carmouche, Esq., and
      John H. Carmouche, Esq., at Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello;

   b) Michael R. Mangham, Esq., and Donald J. Ethridge, Esq., at
      Mangham & Associates LLC;

   c) Willaim E. Steffes, Esq., at Steffes, Vingiello, &
      McKenzie, LLC;

   d) Patrick W. Pendley, Esq., at Patrick W. Pendley, APLC; and

   e) Allen J. Myles, Esq., at Myles & Myles.

                      Louisiana Suit Settlement

On Oct. 5, 1994, William Kimball, H.M. Kimball, Jr., and
Elizabeth Kimball Lewis, together with XCL, Ltd., Katherine
McClelland Sibille, The Sibille Co., Inc., Lutcher Moore Land &
Royalty Co., L.M. Holding Associates, LP, Colonial Sugars,
Inc., and David Odom filed two separate class action petitions
against the company in the 18th Judicial District Court, West
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, which were consolidated for pre-
trial management, administration and discovery on July 3, 1996.

In their class action petitions, the Louisiana Plaintiffs
alleged improper location of Sprint Communications' and the
predecessors of MCI WorldCom Network Services Inc.'s
telecommunications facilities on their lands.

On Nov. 18, 2000, the parties to the Louisiana Suits reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the claims, which
settlement was approved by the Louisiana State Court in
September 2001.

On May 29, 2002, the Louisiana court approved the form of notice
and the procedure of distribution of the Notice of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.  The Notice was distributed to more
than 8,000 landowners.

As of the company's bankruptcy filing, the Louisiana Suits were
stayed as to MWNS.  However, it went forward with respect to
Sprint.  The Louisiana court granted final approval to Sprint's
Settlement Agreement on Dec. 5, 2002.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued
a decision, reversing the approval on the ground that the class
members were not given adequate notice about MWNS's bankruptcy
filing, which could have an effect on how the settlement was
implemented with respect to the remaining parties.

After the company's bankruptcy filing, numerous Louisiana
landowners filed timely proofs of claims asserting right-of-way
claims or claims based on the Settlement Agreement.  To resolve
the proofs of claim and the underlying right-of-way causes of
action, the Claimants and MWNS agreed to go forward with the
Settlement Agreement with respect to MWNS as a prepetition

On May 18, 2005, William Kimball, H.M. Kimball, Jr., Elizabeth
Kimball Lewis and the Debtors executed a Settlement
Implementation Agreement.

The Kimballs then asked the court to, among others:

   (a) certify a settlement class of Louisiana landowners with
       potential claims based on the presence of the company's
       fiber optic cables in the rights of way on or adjoining
       the landowners' property; and

   (b) designate representatives of the settlement class.

Judge Gonzalez preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes pursuant to Civil Rule 23 and Rule 7023 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also appointed William Kimball, H.M. Kimball Jr., and
Elizabeth Kimball Lewis as representatives of the Settlement

WorldCom, Inc., a Clinton, Miss.-based global communications
company, filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532).  On March 31, 2002,
WorldCom listed  $103,803,000,000 in assets and $45,897,000,000
in debts.  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.  On Jan. 6,
2006, MCI merged with Verizon Communications, Inc.  MCI is now
known as Verizon Business, a unit of Verizon Communications.  
(WorldCom Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 125; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNECTICS CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in Calif.
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Connetics
Corp. from June 28, 2004 through July 9, 2006.

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

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

      -- that the company would be unable to obtain U.S. Food
         and Drug Administration approval for its new acne drug
         Velac due, in part, to high incidence of tumors in a
         carcinogenicity study;

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements concerning Velac's approvability and future
         financial expectations from its success were lacking in
         any reasonable basis when made;

      -- that the company improperly accounted for rebates;

      -- specifically, that the company, among other things,
         understated its rebate reserves;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;

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

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company would
         be unable to achieve its forecasted operating results;

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On April 26, 2005, Connetics stunned investors when the company
announced that the FDA had requested additional information
concerning the company's new drug to treat acne, Velac.

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

On June 13, 2005, Connetics, before the market opened, further
shocked investors when the company announced that it had
received a non-approvable letter from the FDA for Velac.

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

On Mar. 28, 2006, the SEC announced that it had filed suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendant Alexander J. Yaroshinsky, charging him with
illegally trading on the basis of non-public, inside information
after learning the FDA's preliminary reactions to a study
relating to cancer tests of Velac, Connetics' new drug for the
treatment of acne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties must move for appointment as lead plaintiff
on or before Nov. 17, 2006.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq., 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.

LOUDEYE CORP: Announces Filing of Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Loudeye Corp. between May 19, 2003 and Nov.
9, 2005.

Contrary to the representations made by the company during the
class period, Loudeye was operating well below guidance, Loudeye
was not successfully integrating its acquisitions, and the
company's recent restructuring was failing.

Also, as investors ultimately learned, at all relevant times,
Loudeye suffered from severe financial and operational control

The shocking revelation of the truth about the company had a
material and adverse impact on the price of Loudeye stock and
following each of these disclosures shares of the company
declined precipitously -- falling from a class period high of
almost $30 per share in late 2004, to less than $2.00 per share
by the time that defendants announced that the remaining assets
of the company would be sold to Nokia.

Loudeye and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Particularly, the complaint alleges that Loudeye:

      -- deceived the investing public regarding Loudeye's
         business, operations, management and the intrinsic
         value of Loudeye common stock;

      -- raised almost $60 million through the sale of stock and
         warrants to private equity investors while materially
         misrepresenting its business prospects;

      -- used almost $25 million of its artificially inflated
         shares to purchase the once valuable asserts of
         companies such as Overpeer Inc. and OD2 during the      
         class period; and

      -- caused plaintiffs and other class members to purchase
         Loudeye common stock at artificially inflated prices.

Moreover, investors also charge that Loudeye insiders have
negotiated the merger with Nokia mainly for the purpose of
insulating themselves from liability for their prior illicit and
improper conduct.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.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


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  * * *