CAR_Public/061004.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 4, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 197

                            Headlines

ADE CORP: Mass. Court Re-Opens Securities Litigation Over Merger
AMERICREDIT CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Calif. Court Okays $1.175M Labor Suit Deal
BAYVIEW CREMATORIUM: Lead Witness Against Former Operator Dies
BIOPURE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mass.

CALIFORNIA: Court Sides with San Diego in Welfare Program Suit
CANON INC.: Consumers File Suit Over Defective Digital Cameras
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
ELMIRA BUSINESS: Files Motion to Dismiss Fraud Suit by Students
FORD MOTOR: Canadian Supreme Court Approves CA$1.5M Settlement

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Stock Suit Related to Compaq Deal Dismissed
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Suits Over "Smart Chips"
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Appeals Court Hears N.Y. Apartheid Lawsuit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: ERISA, WARN Claims in Idaho Suit Dismissed
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces Consumer Suits in Several States

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces Consumer Suits Over P4 Processor
HILTON HOTELS: Enters Tentative Settlement in "Resort Fees" Suit
H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Peace of Mind Litigation
IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Enters $1.9M Settlement in Mass. Stock Lawsuit
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Suit Deal Yet to Receive Court Okay

JACKSON HEWITT: Calif. Court Considers Appeal in RAL Litigation
JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in RAL Lawsuit
JAPAN: Teachers Win Suit Challenging National Anthem Order
JOURNAL SENTINEL: Wis. Court Gives Final OK to Subscribers Suit
KENTUCKY: Federal Judge Holds Suit by Kenton County Jail Inmates

LIGHTSPAN INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
MAINE: Knox County Settles Strip Search Lawsuit for $375T
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces N.J. Consolidated Stock Suit
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Stock Suit
MCDATA CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval

NORTHERN MARIANAS: $5M Paid to Claimants in Garment Firms Suit
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: EEOC Files Job Discrimination Suit in Colo.
PREMCOR INC: Missouri Attorneys Object to Ill. Vapor Suit Deal
PROVIDENT BANKSHARES: Md. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Mortgage Fee
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Removes PPO Lawsuit to Ill. Federal Court

STATE FARM: Executives Testify in Okla. Policyholders Lawsuit
TIVO INC: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
TIVO INC: Still Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Gift Subscriptions
TYSON FOODS: Motion to Junk Executive Pay Suit Still Unresolved


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
CONNETICS CORP: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suit Filing
MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.


                            *********


ADE CORP: Mass. Court Re-Opens Securities Litigation Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
re-opened the class action filed against ADE Corp., each of the
company's directors, KLA-Tencor Corp. and South Acquisition
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of KLA-Tencor, in connection
with a merger agreement among the defendants.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger with KLA-Tencor and South.  
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, each share of the company's
common stock was to be exchanged for 0.64 shares of KLA-Tencor
common stock on a fixed basis.

On May 26, 2006, the company entered into a definitive Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger with KLA-Tencor and
South.  The Amended Merger Agreement amended and restated the
Merger Agreement, and changed the consideration payable to the
company's stockholders from 0.64 shares of KLA-Tencor common
stock to $32.50 in cash per share of the company's common stock.

The Amended Merger Agreement provides that, among other things,
upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Amended Merger Agreement, South will merge with and into the
company, with the company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of KLA-Tencor.  The
company's stockholders approved the merger on July 13, 2006.
Consummation of the merger is subject to customary closing
conditions, including the approval of German antitrust
authorities.

                        The Class Action  

Dean Drulias, a purported stockholder of the company, filed the
suit on June 7, 2006 in Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk
County.

The suit alleges that in connection with the merger, the
directors of the company breached their fiduciary duties, the
company's preliminary proxy statement related to the merger
contained inaccurate statements of material facts and omitted
material facts, and KLA-Tencor aided and abetted the company's
directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaint sought a determination that the class-action
status was proper, an injunction preventing the merger or, if
the merger were consummated, a rescission of the merger, and the
payment of compensatory damages and other fees and costs.

                     Subsequent Proceedings

The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  On June 14, 2006, the company
filed a definitive proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and mailed it to all of the company's
stockholders of record as of the close of business on May 30,
2006.

On June 27, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleged, among other things, that, in connection with the
merger, the directors of the company breached their fiduciary
duties, the company's definitive proxy statement related to the
Merger contained inaccurate statements of material facts and
omitted material facts and KLA-Tencor aided and abetted the
company's directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The amended complaint sought a determination that the class
action status was proper, an injunction preventing the merger
unless certain disclosures were made in advance of the merger,
and the payment of compensatory damages and other fees and
costs.  Plaintiff has not identified or alleged an amount of
damages that are sought in the action.

On June 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction and a hearing on the motion took place on July 6,
2006.  

On July 7, 2006, a supplement to the definitive proxy statement
was mailed to all of the company's stockholders of record as of
the close of business on May 30, 2006, and the court was
notified that defendants and plaintiff were in settlement
discussions.  On July 11, 2006, the court dismissed the action
as settled and without prejudice.

The parties continued their settlement discussions; and, on July
19, 2006, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing in
principle to settle all claims brought on behalf of the putative
class.

However, effectuation of the settlement embodied in the MOU is
contingent on, among other things, the court's review and final
approval of the settlement, and entry of a final order and
judgment.

Therefore, on July 28, 2006, the parties requested that the
court reopen the action.  On Aug. 2, 2006, the court re-opened
the action, according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended July 31, 2006.

The suit is "Drulias v. ADE Corp., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
11033-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris with referral to Judge
Leo T. Sorokin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard B. Brualdi of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway
         Suite 2400, New York, NY 10006, US, Phone: 212-952-
         0602, Fax: 212-952-0608, E-mail:
         rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com; and

     (2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Barry S. Pollack of Sullivan & Worcester, LLP, One Post
         Office Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-338-2910,
         Fax: 617-338-2880, E-mail: bpollack@sandw.com; and

    (ii) Euripides D. Dalmanieras of Foley Hoag, LLP, World
         Trade Center - West, 155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, MA
         02210-2600, Phone:  617-832-3006, Fax: 617-832-7000, E-
         mail: edalmani@foleyhoag.com.


AMERICREDIT CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities fraud class
action against AmeriCredit Corp., according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006.

In fiscal 2003, several complaints were filed by shareholders
against the company and certain of the company's officers and
directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's
secondary public offering of common stock on Oct. 1, 2002.

These complaints were consolidated into one action, "Pierce v.
AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," pending in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  

The plaintiff in Pierce sought class-action status.  In Pierce,
the plaintiff claimed, among other allegations, that deferments
were improperly granted by the company to avoid delinquency
triggers in securitization transactions and enhance cash flows
and to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency
percentages, thereby causing the company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.

The plaintiff also alleged that the company's registration
statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make other statements in the registration statement
not misleading.

On Aug. 16, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing the
Pierce case as to all remaining claims and to all parties, with
prejudice.  The plaintiff had thirty days from Aug. 16, 2006
within which to initiate an appeal of the dismissal.

The suit is "In Re: AmeriCredit Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-026," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Terry R. Means.  

Plaintiffs firms named in complaint:

      (1) Emerson Poynter, LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock,
          AR, 72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
          tanya@emersonfirm.com; and

      (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
          Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
          201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
          info@glancylaw.com.


ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Calif. Court Okays $1.175M Labor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County gave final
approval to the $1,175,000 settlement in a class action filed
against Anthropologie Inc., a unit of Urban Outfitters Inc.,
alleging misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime.

On March 26, 2004, an employee filed the suit in the Superior
Court of California for Orange County seeking class-action
status, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief.

It alleges that under California law, plaintiff and certain
other employees were misclassified as employees exempt from
overtime and seeks recovery of unpaid wages, penalties and
damages.

On Oct. 6, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Although the company has denied any
charges of wrongdoing or liability, it agreed on May 12, 2006 to
settle the suit by paying an aggregate of up to $1,175,000,
which amount, less fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel and
other costs, will be disbursed to the members of the class
submitting claims based on their number of weeks of service to
the company.  Any settlement amounts not claimed by the class
members will be returned to the company.

The Superior Court provided final approval of the settlement on
Aug. 17, 2006, according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended July 31, 2006.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based Urban Outfitters, Inc. (NASDAQ:
URBN) -- http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/-- is a lifestyle  
merchandising company that operates specialty retail stores
under the Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie and Free People
brands, as well as a wholesale division under the Free People
brand.  In addition to its retail stores, it offers products and
markets its brands directly to the consumer through e-commerce
Websites, and Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie and Free People
catalogs.  It operates two business segments: a lifestyle
merchandising retailing segment and a wholesale apparel
business.  The retailing segment consists of Urban Outfitters,
Anthropologie and Free People stores and the direct-to-consumer
operations consist of a catalog and Website for each of these
brands.


BAYVIEW CREMATORIUM: Lead Witness Against Former Operator Dies
--------------------------------------------------------------
The prime witness against the former owner of Massachusetts'
Bayview Crematorum, which is subject of a class action, has died
of lung cancer, reports say.

The witness, James Fuller, who ran the crematorium, pleaded
guilty to illegally performing dozens of cremations earlier this
year (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2006).  He also admitted
forging paperwork needed for the cremations.   He operated the
crematory from 2000 until it was closed in 2005.  

Bayview's owner, Derek Wallace, is charged with eight felony
counts of theft by deception and one misdemeanor of abuse of a
corpse in the operation of the Bayview Crematory in Seabrook.  
He is set to appear for a pre-trial hearing on Dec. 21 and for
trial on Jan. 8 in Rockingham County Superior Court.

Rockingham County Deputy Attorney Tom Reid was awaiting the
outcome of Mr. Fuller's case before prosecuting the criminal
charges against Mr. Wallace.  Mr. Fuller was to have been
sentenced on Nov. 8.

In May 2005, 36 Massachusetts residents filed a class action
against Bayview and 11 Bay State funeral homes.  The suit was
filed in Essex Superior Court seeking unspecified monetary
damages for "negligent and intentional emotional distress"
caused by the discovery of how the bodies of their relatives
were handled at the crematory.

The suit named Linda Stokes, owner of the property where the
Seabrook crematory is located, and funeral directors in
Lawrence, Haverhill, Boston, Quincy, Dracut, Brighton and
Newburyport.  

The funeral homes named in the suit were Farrah Funeral Home and
Hart-Wallace Funeral Home in Lawrence and the Scatamacchia
Funeral Home in Haverhill, as well as William F. Spencer Funeral
Services, American Cremation Society, Cremation Society Inc.,
Commonwealth Cremation & Shipping Service, Commonwealth Funeral
Service, Dracut Funeral Home, Hamel, Wickens & Troupe Funeral
Home and Simplicity Burial & Cremation.

The lead plaintiff is Paul Anzalone of Mansfield, Massachusetts,
who is represented by:

     (1) Charlip Law Group, LC at Harrison Executive Centre,
         1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208, Hollywood, FL 33020,
         Phone: 1-800-773-1955, (954) 921-2131, Fax: (954) 921-
         2191, Web site: http://www.charliplawgroup.com;and  

     (2) Lisa DeBrosse Johnson at The Pilot House, Lewis Wharf
         Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-
         854-3740, Fax: 617-854-3743.


BIOPURE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
class action pending in U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was
being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director),
its former chief executive officer, former chief technology
officer and former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a number of similar, purported class action
complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by
alleged purchasers of the company's common stock.

Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action
as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated complaint claims that the company violated the
federal securities laws based on the same allegations pursued by
the SEC.  It does not specify the amount of alleged damages
plaintiffs seek to recover.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the suit so as to include
allegations made by the SEC; the motion was granted and the
company's motion to dismiss was denied.  The most recent
complaint sets forth a class period of April 9, 2003 through
Dec. 24, 2003.  

The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-687-7230;

     (2) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA
         02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com; and

     (3) Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate
         Center, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231-
         7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 (fax) E-mail:
         palagorio@gilmanpastor.com or dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA
         02110, Phone: 617-951-8717, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
         robert.buhlman@bingham.com, eunice.lee@bingham.com and
         raquel.webster@bingham.com; and

    (ii) Mary P. Cormier of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal
         St., Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2225, Fax: 617-
         439-4170, E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com.


CALIFORNIA: Court Sides with San Diego in Welfare Program Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal court
ruling that cleared San Diego County of charges of violating
federal and state constitutions by conducting in-home visits to
welfare benefit applicants, Scott Marshall of The NCTimes.com
reports.

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial
Counties filed a class action against the county in 2001 on
behalf of five recipients.  The suit argued that the visits
amounted to illegal searches, violating state welfare
regulations.

On a Sept. 19 decision, the appeals court denied the allegations
basing on a precedent U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that
home visits in the county's Project 100% program are not
"searches."

Under the program that began in 1997, a district attorney's
investigator visits the homes of applicants to interview and
"walk through" their residences and gather information on
welfare eligibility.  Welfare applicants were told and asked for
consent when they submitted applications that a home visit was
mandatory and would occur during normal business hours, but the
dates of the visits were not given in advance, according to
Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima who wrote the appeals court's
majority opinion.

The appeals court ruling stated that "even if [the visits] were
[searches], they would be reasonable because they "serve an
important governmental interest, are not criminal
investigations, occur with advance notice and the applicant's
consent, and alleviate the serious administrative difficulties
associated with welfare eligibility verification."

The attorney for the residents who sued the county is Eric
Isaacson at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4297
(San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-1058; 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-
231-7423.


CANON INC.: Consumers File Suit Over Defective Digital Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied certification to a lawsuit filed
against Canon Inc. over faulty cameras, ConsumerAffairs.com
reports.

The judge said plaintiffs, at a minimum, have failed to satisfy
the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) that questions of law or fact
common to the members of the class predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Having also considered plaintiffs' other arguments and finding
them without merit, the judge denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

In 2005, a lawsuit was filed in New York accusing Canon Inc. of
selling digital cameras with a serious defect, the so-called
"e18" error that occurs when the lens sticks and will not move
in or out, which in essence renders the camera inoperable.

The suit is "In re Canon Cameras Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-
07233-JSR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Jed S. Rakoff.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard J. Doherty of Horwitz, Horwitz& Associates, 25
         E Washington, Ste 900, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312)-
         372-8822, Fax: (312)-372-1673, E-mail:
         rich@horwitzlaw.com;

     (2) Richard N. Kessler of Harris, Kessler & Goldstein, LLC,
         640 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone:
         (312) 280-0111;

     (3) Jonathan K. Levine of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo,
         LLP, 601 California St, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA
         94108, Phone: 415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846, E-mail:
         jkl@girardgibbs.com;

     (4) Brant C. Martin of Wick Phillips, LLP, 2600 Airport
         Freeway, Fort Worth, TX 76111, Phone: (817) 338-1717;
         and

     (5) Paul Oliva Paradis and Gina M. Tufaro both of Abbey  
         Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax:
         (212) 684-5191, E-mail: pparadis@abbeygardy.com or
         GTufaro@abbeygardy.com.

Representing the defendant are Richard Howard Silberberg of
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 250 Park Avenue, NY, NY 10177, Phone:
(212) 415-9231, Fax: (212) 953-7201, E-mail:
silberberg.richard@dorsey.com; and David Jay Stone of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone:
(212) 801-2124, Fax: (212) 754-8543, E-mail: dstone@gtlaw.com.


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class action
complaint filed against Ditech Communications Corp.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion
was granted on Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend.

Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class actions were
filed purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased the company's stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26,
2005.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer in
connection with alleged misrepresentations concerning Voice
Quality Assurance orders and the potential effect on the company
of the merger between Sprint and Nextel.

All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, "In
re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
C05-02406-JSW."  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
Feb. 2, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion
was granted on Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs were ordered to file any amended complaint by Sept.
11, 2006.

The suit is "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants is William S. Freeman of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 9406-2155, Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax: 650 857-0663, E-
mail: freemanws@cooley.com.


ELMIRA BUSINESS: Files Motion to Dismiss Fraud Suit by Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phillip Rumsey in the state Supreme Court in Broome
County, New York, heard a lawsuit by students charging Elmira
Business Institute of deceptive practices, Star-Gazette reports.  
He is expected make a ruling in early November, the report said.

Thirty-four present and former students of Elmira Business sued
the school seeking unspecified monetary damages, refund of
tuition paid by students, and a directive to stop the school
from continuing to defraud its students regarding
transferability of credits, among others (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 4, 2006).

The suit alleges that:

     -- EBI engaged in deceptive practices by advising students
        that credits earned at EBI were transferable to other
        colleges when in most cases this was not the case;

     -- EBI personnel placed undue pressure on students to
        enroll immediately and those who were able to escape the
        initial interview were hounded by e-mails and telephone
        calls, some at their places of employment;

     -- students were coerced into enrolling before EBI knew
        their academic or financial status; and

     -- EBI engaged in deceptive and fraudulent practices by
        exercising total control over grants and loans made to
        students.

In response to the original complaint, the college asked the
court to reject the plaintiffs' request for the four
injunctions; deny their request for class-action certification;
and dismiss the entire complaint.  EBI argued that none of the
students followed the college's mandatory grievance procedure,
included in its catalog, for academic and non- academic issues.

EBI is a privately owned business college offering degree and
certificate programs.  It has a campus in Elmira and a campus in
Vestal that opened in May 2003.

Representing the students is Ronald R. Benjamin.  Representing
the school is Paul Sheppard at Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP
700 Security Mutual Building, 80 Exchange Street, P.O. Box 5250
Binghamton, New York 13902-5250 (Broome Co.), Phone: 607-723-
5341, Fax: 607-723-6605, Web Site: http://www.hhk.com.


FORD MOTOR: Canadian Supreme Court Approves CA$1.5M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, granted approval
to a CA$1.5 million settlement of a class action filed against
Ford Motor Co. and Ford Motor Co. of Canada Limited over a
defect in the companies' distributor mounted thick film ignition
module, the Canadian Business reports.

Under the settlement, Ford will:

     (a) provide Class Members who currently own a Class Vehicle
         an extension of new vehicle warranty coverage with
         respect to TFI Modules to the first 160,000 kilometers
         of vehicle operation; and

     (b) set aside CA$1,500,000 to reimburse Class Members for
         the actual amounts paid by them for costs (i.e. parts,
         labor, and towing) incurred, up to a maximum of
         CA$325.00 (inclusive of taxes), in replacing TFI
         Modules in Class Vehicles that had been in operation
         for 160,000 kilometers or less at the time of such
         replacement.

If the claims exceed the Settlement Fund, the payment will be
effected on a pro-rata basis.

Further, the settlement stipulates that Ford will pay the all
inclusive amount of CA$300,000 to plaintiffs and their lawyers
disbursements and taxes.

A further CA$200,000 or less for fees, disbursements, and taxes
may be paid to plaintiffs from the Settlement Fund if there is
money left after all claims are paid.

Levine Sherkin Boussidan initiated the class action in Ontario
against Ford Motor Co. and Ford Motor Co. of Canada Limited, on
behalf of Colin Stevenson and Harvin Pitch.

The suit alleges that the defendants manufactured in the 1983
through 1995 model years Ford, Lincoln or Mercury motor vehicles
with a distributor mounted TFI module.

The TFI module regulates the current that creates the ignition
spark and was mounted on the distributor above the engine block.
The TFI module is an integral part of the solid state ignition
system that the defendants use in most of their vehicles.  The
TFI module was mounted on the distributors, which allegedly made
it susceptible to malfunctions due to overheating.

The claim alleges that the TFI defect poses a real substantial
danger to the health and safety to the members of the class and
other occupants of the motor vehicle.

The claim, therefore, is based on negligence including the
failure to warn the class of the problems and to rectify the
problems.

On May 3, 2005, Justice E. Macdonald certified the suit as a
class action.

The order allowed trial of various common issues, including the
central issues of whether:

     (a) mounting the TFI modules on the distributor of the
         class vehicles would:

              (i) subject the TFI modules to temperatures in
                  excess of what are safe operating limits
                  during normal vehicle operation; and

             (ii) cause the TFI modules to fail; and

     (b) did Ford know or ought it to have known that the
         failure of the TFI modules could cause the class
         vehicles to stumble or stall suddenly and without
         warning during normal operations? Did this place the
         occupants and others at risk of personal injury and
         death from loss of vehicle control and collision.

Ford denies these allegations.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?12d6


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Stock Suit Related to Compaq Deal Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice in the
purported securities class action against Hewlett-Packard Co.,
according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2006.

The suit, "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Co. and Carleton
Fiorina," was filed on Nov. 3, 2003 in U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of a putative class of
persons who sold common stock of the company from Sept. 4, 2001
to Nov. 5, 2001.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and generally alleges that
HP and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws by
making statements during this period that were misleading in
failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the
proposed acquisition of Compaq by the company prior to Mr.
Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed
transaction.  

The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  On June 16, 2006, the
court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.  The
plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.

The suit is "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-02047-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiff is Edward F. Haber of Shapiro Haber &
Urmy, LLP, 53 State St., 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-439-3939, E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas G. Rohback of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103,
         Phone: 860-293-3500, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail:
         trohback@llgm.com; and

     (2) Steven M. Schatz of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:
         650/493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
         sschatz@wsgr.com.  


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Suits Over "Smart Chips"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the dismissal of some cases, Hewlett-Packard Co.
continues to face several purported class actions over the
"smart chips" in certain of its inkjet printing products,
according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2006.

                  Consolidated Federal Litigation

"Feder v. HP," formerly "Tyler v. HP," is a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 16, 2005, asserting breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart
chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register
ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable
through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit, "Ciolino v. HP," was also filed in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in "Feder," and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California as, "In Re: HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  

                   Dismissed U.S. Litigation

Plaintiffs have dismissed these related lawsuits filed in
California state court without prejudice:

      -- "Tyler v. HP," (filed in Santa Clara County on February
         17, 2005);

      -- "Obi v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on February
         17, 2005); and

      -- "Weingart v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on March
         18, 2005).

In addition, plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice two related
lawsuits filed in federal court.  The suits are:

      -- "Grabell v. HP" (filed in the District of New Jersey on
         March 18, 2005); and

      -- "Just v. HP" (filed in the Eastern District of New York
         on April 20, 2005).

                      Canadian Litigation

Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and
its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian
class actions:

     -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006;
     -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
        respectively; and
     -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006

all seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages.

The consolidated federal suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bruce Lee Simon of Cotchett Pitre
& Simon, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road,
Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: 650.697.6000, Fax:
650.692.3606, E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Sally J. Berens of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A.,
Phone: 650-849-5300, Fax: 650-849-5333, E-mail:
sberens@gibsondunn.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Appeals Court Hears N.Y. Apartheid Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
regarding the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York of the class action, "Digwamaje et
al. v. IBM et al."

The case is a purported class action that names Hewlett-Packard
Co. and numerous other multinational corporations as defendants.  
It was filed on Sept. 27, 2002 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former
South African citizens and their survivors who suffered violence
and oppression under the apartheid regime.

The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped
perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and abetted the
apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling
products and services to agencies of the South African
government.

Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture
Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' complaint.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' appeal, but has not yet issued a
decision, according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660;

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and

     (3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508)
         620-4798.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500
         Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973)
         549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site:
         http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and  

    (ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP,
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone:
         (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail:
         kristin.heine@dbr.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: ERISA, WARN Claims in Idaho Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. obtained dismissal of two major claims in
the class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho, according to the company's Sept. 11,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons
who were employed by third-party temporary service agencies and
who performed work at the company's facilities in the U.S.

Filed on Mar. 21, 2005, the suit, "Miller et al. v. Hewlett-
Packard Co.," claims that plaintiffs were incorrectly classified
as contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were
wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and benefits not covered
by ERISA.

It also claims that plaintiffs were denied participation in HP's
Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance
program, credit union, dependent care reimbursement program,
educational assistance program, time off programs, flexible work
arrangements, and the 401(k) plan.

On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint,
which added a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
claim and defined the class to include those persons who have
been, or now are, hired by the company through agencies to work
at HP facilities in the U.S. from March 21, 2000 through the
present who have been deprived of the full benefit of employee
status by being misclassified as contractors, contingent workers
or temporary workers or were otherwise misclassified.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive
and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages
and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

HP successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and WARN claims.  The
sole remaining claim being advanced by the remaining plaintiffs
in this case is a breach of contract claim.

The suit is "Miller v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00111-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing the plaintiffs are Christopher F. Huntley, Robert
C. Huntley, Steven L. Olsen, William H. Thomas, Daniel E.
Williams of Huntley Park, P.O.B. 2188, Boise, ID 83701-2188,
Phone: 208-388-1230 and (208) 345-7800, Fax: 208-388-0234 and 1-
208-345-7894, E-mail: chuntley@huntleypark.com,
rhuntley@huntleypark.com, solsen@huntleypark.com,
wmthomas@huntleypark.com and danw@huntleypark.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) D. Ward Kallstrom of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, One
         Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105,          
         Phone: (415) 984-8200, Fax: (415) 984-8200, E-mail:
         dwkallstrom@morganlewis.com;

     (2) Patricia M. Olsson of Moffatt Thomas Barrett Rock &
         Fields, P.O. Box 829, Boise, ID 83701, Phone: (208)
         345-2000, Fax: 1-208-385-5384, E-mail: pmo@moffatt.com;
         and

     (3) Kimberly R Sayers-Fay of Stevens O'Connell, LLP, 400
         Capitol Mall, Ste. 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814-4498,
         Phone: 916-329-9111, Fax: 916-329-9110, E-mail:
         ksf@stevensandoconnell.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces Consumer Suits in Several States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. remains a defendant in several purported
class actions filed in Texas, Oklahoma and California over
faulty floppy disk controllers in some of its products,
according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2006.

"Alvis v. HP" is a nationwide defective product consumer class
action filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas in
April 2001.  In February 2000, a similar suit captioned, "LaPray
v. Compaq" was filed in the District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas.

The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers
containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user
to certain floppy disk controller errors.  That failure is
alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.

The complaints in "Alvis" and "LaPray" seek injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002,
and the Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification and
remanded to the trial court in May 2004.

On March 29, 2005, the "Alvis" court certified a Texas-wide
class action for injunctive relief only, which HP appealed on
April 15, 2005.

On June 4, 2003, each of "Barrett v. HP" and "Grider v. Compaq"
was filed in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma,
with factual allegations similar to those in "Alvis" and
"LaPray."

The complaints in "Barrett" and "Grider" seek, among other
things, specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 22, 2003, the court entered an order staying the Barrett
case until the conclusion of "Alvis."  On Sept. 23, 2005, the
court granted the "Grider" plaintiffs' motion to certify a
nationwide class action, which HP has appealed to the Oklahoma
Court of Civil Appeals.

On Nov. 5, 2004, "Scott v. HP" and, on Jan. 27, 2005, "Jurado v.
HP," were filed in state court in San Joaquin County,
California, with factual allegations similar to those in
"LaPray" and "Alvis," seeking a California-only class
certification, injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including
punitive damages), restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ) --
http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products, technologies,  
solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses and large enterprises.  Its offerings
span enterprise storage and servers; multi-vendor services,
including technology support and maintenance; consulting and
integration, and managed services; personal computing and other
access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and
services.  


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces Consumer Suits Over P4 Processor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face purported consumer fraud
class actions in Illinois and California over the performance of
its Intel Pentium 4 processor, according to the company's Sept.
11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

                      Neubauer Litigation

The company is facing the suits:

     -- "Neubauer, et al. v. Intel Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co.,
         et al.," and

     -- "Neubauer, et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp.,"

filed on June 3, 2002 in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial
District, Madison County, Illinois.  The suits claim that HP and
Compaq, along with Intel, misled the public by suppressing and
concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the
Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than
systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and processors
made by a competitor of Intel.

The court in the HP action has certified an Illinois class as to
Intel but denied a nationwide class, and proceedings have been
stayed pending resolution of the parties' appeal of this
decision.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class.  

The class action certification against Compaq has been stayed
pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal in the HP action.

                        Skold Litigation

"Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co." is a
lawsuit that was initially filed in state court in Alameda
County, California, to which HP was joined on June 14, 2004,
which is based upon factual allegations similar to those in the
Neubauer cases.

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in
Santa Clara County, California.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and
certification of a nationwide class.

Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ) --
http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products, technologies,  
solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses and large enterprises.  Its offerings
span enterprise storage and servers; multi-vendor services,
including technology support and maintenance; consulting and
integration, and managed services; personal computing and other
access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and
services.  


HILTON HOTELS: Enters Tentative Settlement in "Resort Fees" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Hotels Corp. reached a preliminary settlement in a class
action filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Belleville,
Illinois over resort fees charged on top of room rates, the
STLtoday reports.

Under the settlement, Hilton agreed to discount its resort fee
at the hotels by 75 percent for an extended period until the
company has refunded 22.5 percent of the fees it collected
through 2003.

In 2002, a class action was filed against Hilton Hotels alleging
breach of contract and fraud.  The suit claimed the Beverly
Hills-based company quoted a certain room rate to customers,
only to add on extra non-tax charges when it came time to pay
the bill.

A hearing on the settlement has been set for Nov. 14.


H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Peace of Mind Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing for the purported class action, "Lorie J.
Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois in relation to Peace of Mind program.

The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and was granted class
certification on Aug. 27, 2003.  Plaintiffs' claims consist of
five counts relating to the POM program under which the
applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability
for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  The trial court
subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class
certification issues for interlocutory appeal.  

Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set, according
to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2006.

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.


IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Enters $1.9M Settlement in Mass. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ibis Technology Corp. reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action pending in U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts against the company and its
president and chief executive officer.

The proposed settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiffs
of $1.9 million, which amount will be funded entirely by the
company's insurance carrier.

The settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a
formal settlement agreement and to final court approval.

Initially, these five securities class actions were filed
against the company and its president and chief executive:  

      -- "Martin Smolowitz v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et  
         al., Case No. 03-12613 (RCL)";  

      -- "Fred Den v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al., Case
         No. 04-10060 (RCL)";  

      -- "Weinstein v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al., Case
         No. 04-10088 (RCL)";  

      -- "George Harrison v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et  
         al., Case No. 04-10286 (RCL)"; and  

      -- "Eleanor Pitzer v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al.,  
         Case No. 04-10446 (RCL)."  

On June 4, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating these
actions as, "In re Ibis Technology Securities Litigation, Case  
No. 04-10446 RCL."  

On July 6, 2004, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed which alleges, among other things, that the company
violated federal securities laws by allegedly making
misstatements to the investing public relating to demand for
certain Ibis products and intellectual property issues relating
to the sale of the i2000 oxygen implanter.  Plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages.  

On Aug. 5, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others,
that it failed to state a claim on which the relief could be
granted.  

On Sept. 25, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the company's motion be granted
in part and denied in part.

The company and the plaintiffs both filed partial objections to
the report and recommendation with the court.  On March 31,
2006, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation, and thus granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.

The suit is "In Re IBIS Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-10446-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53  
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,  
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com;and  

     (2) Gregory M. Nespole, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &  
         Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,  
         Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 2112-545-4653, E-mail:  
         nespole@whafh.com.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Christine A. S. Chung and Brian E. Pastuszenski,  
         Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place, 53 State Street,  
         Boston, MA 02109, E-mail: cchung@goodwinprocter.com or  
         BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com; and  

    (ii) Laura M Stock of Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place 53  
         State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1709,  
         Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: lstock@goodwinprocter.com.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Suit Deal Yet to Receive Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Inrange Technologies Corp., according to the McDATA
Corp.'s Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2006.

A shareholder class action was filed against Inrange and certain
of its officers on Nov. 30, 2001, in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeking recovery of damages
caused by Inrange's alleged violation of securities laws,
including section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and
section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which was also filed against the various
underwriters that participated in Inrange's initial public
offering, is identical to hundreds of shareholder class actions
pending in this court in connection with other recent IPOs and
is generally referred to as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."

The complaint alleges that the underwriters combined and
conspired to increase their respective compensation in
connection with the IPO by receiving excessive, undisclosed
commissions in exchange for lucrative allocations of IPO shares,
and trading in Inrange's stock after creating artificially high
prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in" or "laddering"
arrangements and dissemination of misleading market analysis on
Inrange's prospects.  Through the "tie-I" or "laddering"
recipients of allocations of IPO shares allegedly agreed to
purchase shares in the aftermarket for more than the public
offering price for Inrange shares.

It also alleges that Inrange violated federal securities laws by
not disclosing these underwriting arrangements in its
prospectus.  

The defense has been tendered to the carriers of Inrange's
director and officer liability insurance, and a request for
indemnification has been made to the various underwriters in the
IPO.  At this point, the insurers have issued a reservation of
rights letter and the underwriters have refused indemnification.  

The court has granted Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under
section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
because of the absence of a pleading of intent to defraud.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to replead these claims, but
no further amended complaint has been filed.  It denied
Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933.  The court has also dismissed Inrange's
individual officers without prejudice, after they entered into a
tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.

On July 25, 2003, Inrange's board of directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide, among other things,
a release of Inrange and of the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the complaint.

Inrange would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims Inrange may have
against its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is to be borne by Inrange's insurers.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  On Aug. 31, 2005, the court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement.  A fairness
hearing was held in April 2006 before any final settlement is
approved.

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


JACKSON HEWITT: Calif. Court Considers Appeal in RAL Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara has
yet to rule on an appeal of the dismissal of the purported class
action against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. and several other
defendants in connection with the provision of Refund
Anticipation Loans.

On or about April 4, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors brought a purported class action against:

     -- Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (SBB&T), and
     -- the company in the Superior Court of California, County
        of San Francisco,

subsequently adding

     -- Cendant Corp., in the Superior Court of California
(Santa Barbara, following a transfer from San Francisco),

in connection with the provision of RALs, seeking declaratory
relief as to the lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt
collection, the validity of SBB&T's cross-lender debt collection
provision and whether the method of disclosure to customers with
respect to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.

The company was joined in the action for allegedly
collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.
The company filed a demurrer and subsequently answered the
amended complaint, denying any liability.

The court has granted a motion to dismiss SBB&T and other banks,
which are third-party defendants on the ground that the claims
are preempted by federal law.  

Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.  The court has stayed
all other proceedings, pending appeal.

Parsippany, New Jersey-based Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides  
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-
owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt
Tax Service in the U.S.  The company provides its customers with
accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing.
Its customers may select various financial products to suit
their needs, including refund anticipation loans.


JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in RAL Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint in the class action
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. over Refund Anticipation
Loans.

On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought a purported class action
against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co. and the company in
connection with disclosures made in the provision of RALs,
alleging that the disclosures and related practices are
fraudulent and otherwise unlawful.  The plaintiffs sought
equitable and monetary relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.  In
response, Mr. Benton withdrew his original complaint and filed
an amended complaint on Jan. 3, 2005.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment and the
plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.  On July
26, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for summary
judgment in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's amended
complaint.  

The plaintiff has the right to appeal, according to the
company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2006.

Parsippany, New Jersey-based Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
(NYSE: JTX) -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides  
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual
income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-
owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt
Tax Service in the U.S.  The company provides its customers with
accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing.
Its customers may select various financial products to suit
their needs, including refund anticipation loans.


JAPAN: Teachers Win Suit Challenging National Anthem Order
----------------------------------------------------------
The Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of teachers and
librarians who filed a class action challenging an order
compelling them to participate in patriotic ceremonies in
school.

The court ruled that teachers in Tokyo could not be compelled to
participate in ceremonial exercises that clashed with their
beliefs, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

In 2003, the board governing conduct at school entrance and
graduation ceremonies required all public employees to stand and
face the Japanese flag while singing the national anthem.  The
campaign aims to instill a greater sense of patriotism among
youth.

The school board has reprimanded, suspended or fired about 350
of its employees for refusing to comply.  In response, 401
teachers and librarians filed a class action challenging the
order.

On Sept. 21, Judge Koichi Namba ruled that patriotic acts should
be voluntary.  Forcing the teachers to participate unwillingly
in the ceremony violates constitutional guarantees of free
thought and conscience, the court ruled.  

The plaintiffs were awarded $US260 ($345) each in damages.


JOURNAL SENTINEL: Wis. Court Gives Final OK to Subscribers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Court Judge Richard Sankovitz of Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin, approved on Sept. 29 the settlement of a class action
against Journal Sentinel, Inc. over the company's reporting of
the subscriber base of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

On April 25, 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Journal Sentinel
by Shorewest Realtors, which sought to bring a class action on
behalf of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel advertisers.  It alleges
that the newspaper improperly inflated its circulation numbers
from 1996 onward.  

Shorewest sought disgorgement or restitution by Journal Sentinel
of alleged improperly collected charges (with interest), plus an
unspecified amount of damages.  

Journal Sentinel filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims on July 20, 2005 and the court subsequently dismissed
Shorewest's contract-base cause of action.  

On May 30, 2006, the parties filed a proposed settlement
agreement with the court.  Although Journal Sentinel and its
counsel continue to believe the claims lack merit, and Shorewest
and its counsel continue to believe the claims have merit, by
agreeing to a settlement, the parties avoid the costs and risks
of additional litigation on terms that are mutually agreeable.  

The settlement is on behalf of a proposed class of advertisers
similar to Shorewest who placed ads in the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2005.  The proposed
settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June
16, 2006.  

According to The Business Journal of Milwaukee, the settlement
calls for the newspaper to provide discounts on future
advertising for some 187,000 commercial and individual
advertisers who had purchased space in the Journal Sentinel
between 1999 and 2005.

Judge Sankovitz also approved a $640,000 in legal fees to
Shorewest and a $10,000 incentive payment to Shorewest.

Journal Sentinel publishes the flagship Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel newspaper as well as a range of other print and
electronic products, primarily serving southeast Wisconsin
people and businesses.  


KENTUCKY: Federal Judge Holds Suit by Kenton County Jail Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman in Covington put on
hold a lawsuit seeking to address overcrowding at Kenton County
Detention Center, The Kentucky Post reports.

Judge Bertelsman said he will revisit the suit after three
months to see whether county officials fulfilled their promise
to build a new jail.  The rulings were made at a hearing on the
county's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Earlier this year, Cincinnati lawyer Robert Newman filed a suit
over conditions at the Kenton County jail (Class Action
Reporter, April 6, 2006).

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Covington on behalf
of three current and former inmates.  The suit claims the jail
is exceeding its capacity of 330 inmates to house more than 400
prisoners in 2005.  It said the jail averaged 465 inmates in
2004 and hit as high as 530.  

Mr. Newman asked the federal court to grant class-action status
to the case to include additional current and former inmates.

The suit is "Wilson, et al. v. Kenton County, KY, et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00060-WOB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert B. Newman of Newman & Meeks Co., 617 Vine
         Street, Suite 1401, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
         639-7000, Fax: 513-639-7011, E-mail:
         robertnewman@newman-meeks.com; and

     (2) Suzanne Cassidy and Michael J. O'Hara of O'Hara,
         Ruberg, Taylor, Sloan & Sergent, 25 Crestview Hills
         Mall Road, Suite 201, P.O. Box 17411, Covington, KY
         41017-0411, Phone: 859-331-2000, Fax: 859-578-3365, E-
         mail: scassidy@ortlaw.com and mohara@ortlaw.com.


LIGHTSPAN INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice the complaint "Liu, et al. v. Credit
Suisse First Boston Corp., et al.," which names as defendant
Lightspan, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston, its
affiliates, and the securities issuer defendants manipulated the
price of the issuer defendants' shares in the post-initial
public offering market (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).  

The securities issuer defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in September 2004 on the grounds of multiple
pleading deficiencies.  

On April 1, 2005, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice,
and all subsequent plaintiff motions and appeals to date have
been denied or rejected, the latest of which occurred on July
10, 2006, according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended July 31, 2006.

Plato Learning, Inc. acquired Lightspan in November 2003.

The suit is "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Case No.
1:04-cv-03757-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs is John G. Watts, Yearout & Traylor,
P.C., 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Ste 500 Birmingham, Al 35209,
Phone: (205) 414-8160.  

Representing the company is Michael L. Hirschfeld, Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, L.L.P., 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New
York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-5000, Fax: (212) 530-5219.


MAINE: Knox County Settles Strip Search Lawsuit for $375T
---------------------------------------------------------
Knox County commissioners approved a $375,000 settlement in a
class action filed by a Thomaston woman over illegal strip-
searching at the jail, the Bangor Daily News reports.

U.S. District Judge Gene Carter in Portland is to hold a
fairness hearing on the settlement on Oct. 11.  Details of the
agreement, including the periods that it covers, were not
disclosed, the report said.

The proposed class action was filed by Laurie Tardiff in
December 2002 against the jail, jail personnel and Sheriff Dan
Davey.  She alleges that her civil and constitutional rights
were violated when she was strip-searched by a female officer at
the Rockland jail after being arrested on a felony charge of
tampering with a witness.  That charge and a charge of violating
conditions of release, a misdemeanor, later were dismissed.

Judge Carter certified the lawsuit in 2003 as a class action.  
People charged with nonviolent misdemeanors who were strip-
searched at the Rockland jail between Nov. 19, 1996, and Dec.
31, 2004 are made eligible to join the suit.  

In November 2005, Judge Carter ruled that the county is liable
for illegally strip-searching arrestees between Nov. 19, 1996,
and Aug. 31, 2002.  

The suit was supposed to go to trial on Oct. 2 to determine
whether illegal strip-searches were conducted at the jail
between Sept. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2004.

In mid-September, Judge Carter ordered a mediation of the suit
when he split it into two: a trial to determine the county and
the sheriff's liability, and a series of subsequent trials to
determine damages.  Before approving the settlement, Judge
Carter will have to reverse that decision and reunify the case,
according to the report.

The suit is "Tardiff v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-
00251-GC," filed in the U.S. District for the District of Maine
under Judge Gene Carter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sumner H. Lipman of Lipman, Katz & Mckee, P.O. BOX
         1051, Augusta, ME 04332-1051, Phone: 207-622-3711, E-
         mail: slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com; and

     (2) Dale F. Thistle of Law Office of Dale F. Thistle, 103
         Main Street, P.O. BOX 160, Newport, ME 04953, Phone:
         (207) 368-7755, E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are: Peter t. Marchesi of Wheeler &
Arey, P.A., 27 Temple Street, P.O. BOX 376, Waterville, ME
04901, Phone: 873-7771, E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com; and John
J. Wall, III of Monaghan Leahy, LLP, P.O. BOX 7046 DTS,
Portland, ME 04112-7046, Phone: 774-3906, E-mail:
jwall@monaghanleahy.com.


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces N.J. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  

In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its current and former
directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class action complaint was
filed in the same court on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased shares of the company's common stock on Jan. 26, 2005
offering of six million shares of common stock.

The complaint named as defendants the company, current and
former officers of the company, and certain financial
institutions who served as underwriters with respect to the
offering.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the court consolidated the five cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  On Dec. 14, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, which is now
the operative complaint.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- Carl Yankowski,
     -- Jan E. Chason,
     -- Jesse Sutton,
     -- Joseph Sutton,
     -- Morris Sutton,
     -- Laurence Aronson,
     -- F. Peter Cuneo,
     -- James Halpin,
     -- Louis Lipschitz,
     -- Marc Weisman,
     -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.,
     -- JMP Securities LLC,
     -- Harris Nesbitt & Corp.,
     -- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and
     -- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the company's offering and certain
of the company's press releases and other public filings
contained material misstatements and omissions about the
company's financial condition and prospects as well as its
products.

The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act against all the defendants on behalf of investors
who purchased in the offering.  It asserts a Section 12(a)(2)
claim against the company and the financial institutions who
served as underwriters in connection with the offering, and a
Section 15 control person claim against defendants Carl
Yankowski, Jan Chason, Jesse Sutton, Joseph Sutton, and Morris
Sutton.

The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under
against the company and the defendants and a claim under Section
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act against the defendants.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The
proposed class period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8,
2004 through Sept. 12, 2005.

The suit is "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Majesco
Entertainment Co., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.  

Representing the plaintiff is Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov
Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Ave., P.O. BOX 1277,
Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail:
procco@lawssb.com.  

Representing the defendants is Joseph Domenick Giacoia of
Capuder Fazio Giacoia, 90 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, US,
Phone: 212-509-9595, E-mail: jgiacoia@cfgny.com.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated securities fraud
class action against Martek Biosciences Corp., which is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making
similar allegations were filed against the company and certain
of its officers.

The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing
lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and
liaison counsel.

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."

While the court has not made a determination of whether a
putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint
claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's
common stock during a purported class period beginning Dec. 9,
2004 and ending April 28, 2005.

At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of
damages they are seeking in the actions.  The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-
5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding its
business and prospects in public statements the company made or
failed to make during the period and, in the case of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005
prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion
was held on May 22, 2006.

On June 14, 2006, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss and on July 25, 2006, the court entered a scheduling
order for further proceedings in the case.  Discovery has
commenced and is anticipated to continue into 2008.

The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corp. et al.,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP,  
         280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:  
         16108220262, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail:  
         cnelson@sbclasslaw.com;   

     (2) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World  
         Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,  
         MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:
         piven@pivenlaw.com; and  

     (3) Lawrence Joseph Quinn of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP,  
         100 E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         14107529700, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:  
         lquinn@tydingslaw.com.   

Representing the defendants is Steven F. Barley of Hogan and  
Hartson, LLP, 111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600, Baltimore, MD  
21202, Phone: 14106592700, Fax: 14105396981, E-mail:  
sfbarley@hhlaw.com.


MCDATA CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against McDATA Corp., according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

The company, Mr. John F. McDonnell, the former chairman of the
board of directors, Mrs. Dee J. Perry, a former officer and Mr.
Thomas O. McGimpsey, a current officer were named as defendants
in purported securities class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The first of these lawsuits, filed on July 20, 2001, is
captioned "Gutner v. McDATA Corp., Credit Suisse First Boston,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Bear, Stearns
& Co., Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens et al., No. 01 CIV.
6627."  

Three other similar suits were filed against the company and the
individuals.  The complaints are identical to numerous other
complaints filed against other companies that went public in
1999 and 2000.  

These lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that:

     -- the registration statements and prospectus filed with
        the SEC by such companies were materially false and

        misleading because they failed to disclose that certain
        underwriters had allegedly solicited and received
        excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
        investors in exchange for which the underwriters
        allocated to those investors material portions of shares
        in connection with the initial public offerings, or
        IPOs; and

     -- that certain of the underwriters had allegedly entered
        into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters
        agreed to allocate IPO shares in exchange for which the
        customers agreed to purchase additional company shares
        in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The complaints allege claims against the company, the named
individuals, and CSFB, the lead underwriter of the company's
Aug. 9, 2000 initial public offering, under Sections 11 and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act.

The complaints also allege claims solely against CSFB and the
other underwriter defendants under Section 12(a) (2) of the
Securities Act, and claims against the individual defendants
under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

In September 2002, plaintiffs' counsel in lawsuits offered to
individual defendants of many of the public companies being
sued, including the company, the opportunity to enter into a
Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement that would dismiss
without prejudice and without costs, all claims against such
persons if the company itself had entity coverage insurance.

This agreement was signed by Mr. John F. McDonnell, the former
company Chairman, Mrs. Dee J. Perry, the former chief financial
officer, and Mr. Thomas O. McGimpsey, the current general
counsel and vice president of business development and the
plaintiffs' executive committee.  Under the Reservation of
Rights and Tolling Agreement, the plaintiffs dismissed the
claims against such individuals.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court in the lawsuits entered a ruling on
the pending motions to dismiss, which dismissed some, but not
all, of the plaintiffs' claims against the company.

These lawsuits have been consolidated as part of "In Re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The company has
considered and agreed to enter into a proposed settlement offer
with representatives of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
proceeding, and it believes that any liability on behalf of the
company that may accrue under that settlement offer would be
covered by the company's insurance policies.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement.  A fairness hearing was held in April 2006.

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


NORTHERN MARIANAS: $5M Paid to Claimants in Garment Firms Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Pamela Parker told the U.S. District Court of the
Northern Mariana Islands that a total of over $5 million in
checks have been mailed to about 29,700 workers for the
settlement of the class action against the Commonwealth's
garment factories, the Saipan Tribune reports.

At a status conference on Sept. 29 in federal court, Ms. Parker
told Judge Alex R. Munson that the checks are expected to arrive
in Saipan anywhere after between eight and 14 days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an interview with the Saipan Tribune, Mr. Bellas had said the
checks are not only going to Saipan, but also to China,
Bangladesh, the Philippines, and other countries where there are
workers who were part of the class action.
Defendants are represented by Pamela M. Parker of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax:
(619) 231-7423; and Steven P. Pixley and Eric S. Smith both of
Saipan, U.S. Pacific Territories (Mariana Islands).


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: EEOC Files Job Discrimination Suit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging discrimination against women in promotions, the Rocky
Mountain News reports.

Named defendants in the suit are Outback Steakhouse of Florida,
Inc. and OS Restaurant Partners, Inc.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Jennifer Turner- Reiger, Kelly
Altizer and others in similar situations, claims Ms. Altizer was
denied management training in favor of less- qualified male
candidates in September 2001.  Further, the suit claims
Ms.Turner-Reiger was similarly passed over for a promotion in
December 2002.

According to the complaint, in both cases, managers allegedly
have made comments that disparaged women workers.

Ben Martinez, a managing partner, allegedly told Ms. Altizer she
should be a teacher instead of working in the restaurant
business.  He also said women could not work in the kitchen and
that he would never allow his wife to work, according to the
lawsuit.

Tom Flanagan, a joint venture partner, allegedly said women
managers had "let him down" and "lost focus" when they had
children.  He also allegedly said women managers had trouble
"saying no" and that he wanted "cute girls" to work in the front
as servers.

In a statement, Joseph Kadow, executive vice president for
Outback Steakhouse, said the company does not believe there is
any merit whatsoever to the EEOC's allegation that female
Outback employees are denied management opportunities in the
Denver region area based on their sex."

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Outback
Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01935-EWN,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
under Judge Edward W. Nottingham.

Representing the plaintiffs are Ann Louise Fuller, Rita Byrnes
Kittle and Nancy A. Weeks all of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission-Colorado, 303 East 17th Avenue, #510
Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-866-1319 or 303-866-1347 or 303-
866-1947, Fax: 303-866-1375, E-mail: ann.fuller@eeoc.gov or
rita.kittle@eeoc.gov or nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov.


PREMCOR INC: Missouri Attorneys Object to Ill. Vapor Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Missouri have asked the Illinois Supreme Court to
overturn a Madison County Circuit Court's preliminary approval
of an $8 million settlement of a class action against Premcor,
Inc. and Equilon Pipeline Co. over petroleum vapors in the
village of Hartford, The Madison St. Clair Record.

Seven Missouri attorneys filed the suit against Premcor Refining  
Group Inc., Shell Oil and other oil companies in 2003, alleging  
that the company's refinery created an underground pool of  
gasoline whose vapors are causing damage to Hartford residents'  
homes.  They proposed and obtained a positive ruling to make
Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff in the suit.

In 2004, the Edwardsville firm of Goldenberg Heller Antognoli  
Rowland Short & Gori in Illinois sued most of the same companies  
for individual damages on behalf of 65 plaintiffs.  

The Goldenberg Heller clients did not became part of the  
"Sparks" class.  Apex Oil and Sinclair moved for
reconsideration, and Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack  
granted it.  He did not decertify Ms. Sparks as class  
representative in the Missouri suit.  Afterwards, Goldenberg  
Heller negotiated with Premcor and Shell Oil on a settlement  
that would apply throughout Hartford.  The parties reached a  
settlement, and Judge Stack approved it.

The agreement stipulates that $3.5 million of it will be legal
fees handed down to Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli.  The
final approval for the hearing is scheduled for Jan. 11, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006).

On Sept. 5, the Missouri lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court
directly for a supervisory order against Judge Stack, and moved
for an emergency stay of proceedings in Madison County.

After several motions, on Sept. 12, Justice Thomas Fitzgerald
denied the emergency motion to stay the Madison County
proceedings.  On Sept. 13, Justice Charles Freeman turned down
the Heller firm's motion to deny the supervisory order.

On Sept. 19, Elizabeth Heller objected to the supervisory order
stating the Missouri attorneys "strained the bounds of ethical
propriety" in pursuing the settlement.

On Sept. 20, Equilon attorney Gregory Mollett filed an
objection.

The court has not set a date for a hearing on the supervisory
order, according to the report.

For more information, contact Teresa Woody at Stueve Siegel  
Hanson Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City,  
Missouri 64112 (Cass, Clay, Jackson & Platte Cos.), Phone: 816-
714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101.

For more details, contact Goldenberg, Heller & Antognoli, P.C.,  
2227 S. State Route 157, P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, Illinois  
62025, Phone: (618) 656-5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail:  
info@ghalaw.com.  


PROVIDENT BANKSHARES: Md. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Mortgage Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore City Circuit Judge Martin P. Welch dismissed a lawsuit
accusing Provident Bankshares Corp. of illegally charging
clients a fee for pre-paying a mortgage, the Baltimore Sun
reports.

The suit was filed by the Peter G. Angelos law firm.  It alleged
that the defendant engaged in predatory lending practices by
collecting what it claims as a prepayment penalty that is
illegal in Maryland.  The suit sought class-action status.

In a summary judgments, Judge Welch ruled that Provident had
disclosed the fee to the borrower, who signed a waiver of
closing costs provided that the loan is maintained for three
years, according to the report.  

The lead attorney on the cases is John A. Pica Jr., associate at
the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, One Charles Center, 100
North Charles Street, 22nd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(Independent City), Phone: 410-649-2000, Toll Free: 800-252-
6622, Fax: 410-659-1780, 1781, 1782, Fax: 410-649-2111, 2112.

Provident Bankshares' lawyer is Brian L. Moffet at Gordon,
Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC, The Garrett
Building, 233 East Redwood Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(Independent City), Phone: 410-576-4000, Fax: 410-576-4246
Telex: 908041 BAL.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Removes PPO Lawsuit to Ill. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Co. of America removed a class action filed
by a chiropractor in Madison County, Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The case was removed at the contention of the defendant that a
second amended complaint filed by the plaintiff brings new
allegations that effectively opened a new case under the Class
Action Fairness Act, giving the federal court jurisdiction.

The suit was filed by the Lakin Law Firm on behalf of Mark
Eavenson, a Granite City chiropractor, according to a report by
Steve Gonzalez of The Madison St. Clair Record.  The
chiropractor's original complaint, filed as a class action
complaint in October 2003, alleges that the company only paid
part of a claim he filed for treating a Selective Insurance-
insured patient for personal injuries sustained in a workplace
accident in 2001.  The total bill was more than $1,000.

He accuses the insurance company of using computer software to
uniformly reduce benefits paid to doctors.  Selective Insurance
uses software provided by CorVel Corp.

In an amended complaint, the company allegedly did not process
plaintiff's invoices, according to Selective Insurance's
attorney, Mark Bauman of Belleville.  

"The Consumer Fraud Act claim now alleges that it is the
Explanation of Benefits forms that CorVel generated and sent to
the Plaintiff, not Selective's policy, that contains improper
representations that a [preferred provider organization]
discount is proper," Mr. Bauman writes.  Selective allegedly is
bound to "steer" or "channel" patients under the agreement.

Selective Insurance argues that the aggregate amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.

The suit is "Eavenson v. Selective Insurance Co. of America,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00731-MJR-CJP," filed before Judge Michael J.
Reagan with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the defendant is:

     (1) Mark D. Bauman at Hinshaw & Culbertson - Belleville
         Generally Admitted, 521 West Main Street, Suite 300,
         P.O. Box 509, Belleville, IL 62222, Phone: 618-277-
         2400, E-mail: mbauman@hinshawlaw.com;

     (2) Daniel K. Ryan at Hinshaw & Culbertson - Chicago,
         Generally Admitted, 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
         Chicago, IL 60601-1081, Phone: 312-704-3000.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (i) Richard J. Burke, Jr. and Bradley M. Lakin, at the
         Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood
         River, IL 62095-0027, Phone: 618-254-1127, E-mail:
         richardb@lakinlaw.com, or bradl@lakinlaw.com; and

    (ii) Michael J. Freed at Much, Shelist et al., Cook County
         191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60606-
         1615, Phone: 312-521-2000.


STATE FARM: Executives Testify in Okla. Policyholders Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.'s top management gave sworn
testimony in a class action filed by policyholders over
insurance payments for families whose homes were damaged by
tornadoes in 1999, The Sun Herald reports.

The executives who gave the testimonies were Chairman and Chief
Executive Edward B. Rust Jr., Vice Chairman and Chief Operating
Officer Vincent J. Trosino, and Claims Vice President Susan Q.
Hood.

According to the report, the testimony revealed that State Farm
has initiated an independent investigation of one of its
vendors, Haag Engineering Co.  But company executives could not
produce any paperwork generated by the investigation.

State Farm hired Haag to adjust claims in Oklahoma and also used
the company to assess Hurricane Katrina damage, train adjusters
who handled policyholder claims on the Coast and provided
individual property damage assessments of some claims.

Seventy-one policyholders alleged in a suit the company
intentionally underpaid claims.  It accuses the company of
wrongfully adjusted or denied claims by relying at the opinion
of Haag Engineering Co.

Representing the plaintiffs is lawyer Jeff Marr at 210 Park
Ave., Ste. 1130 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


TIVO INC: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against TiVo, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 11, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

On June 12, 2001, a securities class action in which the company
and certain of its officers and directors are named as
defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

This action, "Wercberger v. TiVo et al.," also names several of
the underwriters involved in the company's initial public
offering as defendants.  This class action was brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from Sept. 30, 1999, the time of its initial public offering,
through Dec. 6, 2000.

The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters
in the initial public offering solicited and received
undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed
arrangements with, certain investors who purchased TiVo common
stock in the initial public offering and the after-market.

The complaint also alleges that the TiVo defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the initial
public offering prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in
these alleged arrangements.  More than 150 issuers have been
named in similar lawsuits.

In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints
against issuers and individual defendants affiliated with
issuers, including the TiVo defendants, was filed by the entire
group of issuer defendants in these similar actions.  On Oct. 8,
2002, TiVo's officers were dismissed as defendants in the
lawsuit.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court in this action issued its decision
on defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss.  This decision
dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to TiVo but denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to TiVo and virtually
all of the other issuer-defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement
with the company and the other issuer defendants.  The proposed
settlement provides that the insurers of the company and other
issuer defendants will guarantee the plaintiffs $1.0 billion
dollars in recoveries.  

Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is to be borne by the company's insurers in
accordance with the proposed settlement.

In addition, the company and the other settling issuer
defendants will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that
they may have against the underwriters.  If the plaintiffs
obtain recoveries in excess of $1.0 billion dollars from the
underwriters, the company and the other issuer defendants'
monetary obligations to the class plaintiffs will be satisfied.

Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the court overseeing the litigations.  On Feb.
15, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the
terms of the proposed settlement.  The court also certified the
settlement classes and class representatives for purposes of the
proposed settlement only.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing to
determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved.

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


TIVO INC: Still Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Gift Subscriptions
--------------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. remains a defendant in a consumer class action filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco on Dec. 22, 2005 in relation to gift subscriptions
that it sold.

The action, "Nolz, et al. v. TiVo, Inc.," was brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's gift
subscriptions, which were allegedly sold to consumers in
violation of a California law that allegedly makes it unlawful
to sell gift certificates in California containing an expiration
date.

TiVo, Inc. -- http://www.tivo.com-- through its subsidiaries,  
provides technology and services for digital video recorders.  
The company offers a subscription-based television service that
enables consumers to record, watch, and control television.


TYSON FOODS: Motion to Junk Executive Pay Suit Still Unresolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable William B. Chandler III, chancellor of the
Delaware Court of Chancery has yet to make a decision on Tyson
Foods Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed
against the company, current and former company executives, and
board members over alleged improper executive payouts, the
Richmond Times Dispatch reports.

"There are some unusual and difficult issues that are implicated
in this case," the chancellor said.  He, however, did not
indicate when he would issue a ruling, but said it would take
some time.

On Sept. 20, attorneys for Tyson Foods presented 20 arguments
supporting its motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed
against the company, current and former company executives, and
board members over alleged improper executive payouts (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

In court papers, Tyson argues that each of the items charged
against the company should be dismissed because the plaintiffs
waited too long to sue and that the issues, in some cases,
cannot be brought under Delaware law.  Tyson attorney David
Graham argued that most of the option grants in question date to
1999 and 2001.

Defendants include former chairman Don Tyson, who retired in  
2001, current chairman John Tyson, and current chief executive  
Richard Bond.

The lawsuits include a consolidated class action and a
derivative suit by New Jersey resident Eric Meyer, a Tyson
shareholder, and New York-based Amalgamated Bank, trustee of an
index fund that owns Tyson stock.

The plaintiffs is challenging option grants granted to Tyson
officials that were allegedly timed in advance of favorable news
likely to boost the company's stock price.  

They also allege that Tyson failed to disclose in proxy
materials that executives and board members had set up related
party transactions under which they received millions of dollars
from the company for farm and aircraft leases, livestock
operations and other services; and that Tyson family members and
friends unfairly received millions of dollars from lucrative
"consulting" contracts.

The plaintiffs are seeking to regain profits for the company as
well as some shareholder compensation from the directors, said
Megan McIntyre, partner of Eisenhofer and Grant, the firm
representing the plaintiffs.   

The suit is "Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:01-cv-00425-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  Representing
the plaintiffs is John Leonard Reed of Edwards Angell Palmer &
Dodge, LLP, 919 North Market Street, Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE
19801, Phone: (302) 777-7770, Fax: (888) 325-9165, E-mail:
jreed@EdwardsAngell.com.  Eisenhofer and Grant also represents
plaintiffs in the suit.

Representing the defendants are Anthony W. Clark and Robert
Scott Saunders of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, One
Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302)
651-3000, E-mail: tclark@skadden.com and rsaunder@skadden.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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


October 4-5, 2006
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 5-7, 2006
LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Ballantyne Resort, Charlotte, NC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2006
CORPORATE E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 10, 2006
TORT REFORM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 12, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com   

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased securities of ADVO, Inc. between July 6, 2006 and Aug.
30, 2006.  The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.

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

The deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff is Nov.
10, 2006.  

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


CONNETICS CORP: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Connetics Corp. during the period June 28, 2004 through May
3, 2006.  The matter is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to present the truth regarding the
clinical studies and results of its potential new drug, Velac.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that despite Connetics'
knowledge of the high level of carcinogenic reactions to Velac
in studies on mice, Connetics continues to promote Velac as a
drug, which would be approved by the FDA.  

The complaint further alleges that Connetics disseminated false
or misleading financial results during the class period in order
to artificially inflate its stock price, allowing defendants to
reap millions of dollars from stock sales.

The deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff is Nov.
17, 2006.  

For more details, contact Vahn Alexander and Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite
3000, Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020,
E-mail: bparekh@yaplaw.com, Web site: http://www.yaplaw.com.


MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven filed a class action in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Meade Instruments, Inc. between Sept. 27, 2001 and Aug. 29,
2006.

The suit alleges 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.

Interested parties have until Nov. 27, 2006 to ask the court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven of Brower Piven,
Baltimore, Maryland, Phone: 410/986-0036.


                            *********


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  * * *