CAR_Public/061017.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 206

                            Headlines

51JOB INC: Amended Complaint in N.Y. Securities Suit Due Oct. 30
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: South African Mineworkers File Injury Lawsuit
BLUE CROSS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Insurance Rescission Policy
BROADCOM CORP: Ohio A.G. Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status for STRS
CENTRA SOFTWARE: N.Y. IPO Suit Agreement Yet to Receive Approval

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Calif. Court Denies Class Status for "Jimenez"
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Expects to Spend $11.9M More to Settle EIFS Suit
ENRON CORP: Former CFO to Give Depositions in Investors Lawsuit
FARMERS INSURANCE: Rudy, Exelrod Settles Calif. Malpractice Suit
FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Improper Accounting

GLOBAL CROSSING: Oct. Hearing Scheduled for $99M N.Y. Settlement
INTRAWARE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of $1B IPO Suit Deal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Ruling in Suit Over Blood Sugar Meter
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Negligence Claims Over Kidney Program
KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Faces Second N.J. Suit Over High Mercury Levels

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fla. Court Sides With Truckers in OOIDA Lawsuit
LAWYERS TITLE: Settles Suit Over Title Insurance Policy in Tenn.
MAINE: Plaintiff Objects to $3M Settlement of Strip Search Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Five Students Sue School District in Truant Issue
NEW JERSEY: Files Motion to Junk Suit Demanding School Vouchers

OCCAM NETWORKS: N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Approval
PLANTATION INN: Evacuees File Racial Discrimination Suit in La.
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Oct. 26 Hearing Set for $8M Stock Suit Deal
SOUTH SHORE: N.J Lawmakers Urge State to Sue Over Bankruptcy
ST. JUDE: Minn. Judge Certifies Suit Over Faulty Heart Valves

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suits
VENDOME APARTMENT: Calif. Court Approves Deal in Tenants Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Penn. Court Enters $78M Verdict in Labor Suit
ZALE CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud, ERISA Suits in N.Y.

* Group Actions Against U.K. Companies Increase, Survey Shows


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LOUDEYE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 4, 2006
TVIA INC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set for Dec. 5, 2006


                            *********


51JOB INC: Amended Complaint in N.Y. Securities Suit Due Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a purported class action filed against 51job, Inc. and
certain of its officers on behalf of all securities purchasers
of 51job, Inc.

In 2005, 51job, Inc. and certain of its officers faced several
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all securities
purchasers of 51job, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31,
2005).

The complaints charge 51job and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

More specifically, the complaints allege the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

      -- that the company improperly recognized recruitment
         advertising revenue in the third quarter;

      -- that the company, a purported expert in Chinese labor
         markets, failed to realize that the drop in late-
         December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms
         have adopted a more Western schedule for hiring;

      -- that as a result of this market shift, the company was
         forced to sharply lower its profit outlook; and

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
         lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
         about the company's growth and progress.

Further, on or around Jan. 18, 2005, before the market opened,
51job announced softness in sales for the latter part of the
month of December 2004, the exit of the peripheral stationery
and office supplies business and updated guidance for the fourth
quarter of 2004.

The company expected fourth quarter total revenues to be between
RMB117 and RMB121 million ($14.79 million to $15.296 million),
compared with RMB140 million ($17.698 million), the low-end of
its previous forecasted range.

The news shocked the market.  As a result, shares of 51job fell
$15.49 per share, or 35.37 percent, on Jan. 18, 2005, to close
at $28.32 per share, on unusually high volume.

Between Jan. 21, 2005 and March 10, 2005, seven putative class
actions alleging securities fraud were filed against the
defendants.

On July 26, 2005, the court consolidated these actions and
appointed Floyd W. Webster, Keith Webster, Kent Webster, Amil
Dipadova, and Robert Wistrand (collectively, the 'Webster
Group') as Lead Plaintiffs.

On Aug. 25, 2005, the Webster Group filed its complaint.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to satisfy the
heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
9(b) is granted.

The court granted plaintiffs leave, if so advised, to file and
serve an amended complaint on or before Oct. 30, 2006, if
plaintiffs are able to so in a manner consistent with the
provisions of FRCP 11.

Defendants are directed to answer an amended complaint, if one
is served and filed, in the form and within the time specified
by the rules.

The suit is "Goplen v. 51JOB, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00769-CSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Charles S. Haight.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 58 South Service Road,
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison
         Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-
         7400, Fax: 212 753-3630, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com;

     (3) Darren T. Kaplan of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 11
         Grace Avenue, Suite 3, Great Neck, NY 11021, Phone: 212
         755 0022, Fax: 212 755 0005, E-mail:
         dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com; and

     (4) January Leigh Kerr of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-946-9431, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         jlkerr@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are Glenn Charles Colton and
Meredith Eve Kotler both of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
(NYC), 12 East 49th Street, 30th Flr., New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 212-637-2200 or 212-999-5803, Fax: 212-637-2390 or 212-
999-5899, E-mail: gcolton@wsgr.com or mkotler@wsgr.com; and
David L. Lansky of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (CA), 650
Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650)-320-4776, Fax:
(650)-493-6811, E-mail: dlansky@wsgr.com.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: South African Mineworkers File Injury Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. in South Africa is to be served summons
in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee of the
company, Mining MX reports.

The suit estimated at ZAR2.6 million ($347,679), was brought by
human rights and occupation injuries lawyer Richard Spoor and
fellow attorney Charles Abrahams and an international alliance
of class action law firms centered in Washington.

The suit highlights the case of former AngloGold worker
Thembekile Mankayi whose health suffered as a result of his
working at the mines.  He was paid ZAR16,300 ($2,178) in
compensation after 16 years at AngloGold Ashanti's Vaal Reef
operations, the report said.

Plaintiff lawyers are challenging an Act that limits payouts to
workers who fell ill from working conditions.  

South Africa's Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act protects employers from being sued for injury or
death incurred at the work place by offering payouts to victims.  
The Mineworkers Occupational Diseases in Mineworkers Act,
however, limits the payouts in event of falling ill from working
conditions to just a fraction of that awarded under the other
Act.  Mr. Abrahams puts it at roughly a tenth, according to the
report.

The suit, if successful, is expected trigger thousands of other
similar cases by mineworkers who suffered lung damages as a
result of their work.

AngloGold Ashanti is 41.8% owned by Anglo, and the world's
largest platinum producer Anglo Platinum, which is 79% held by
Anglo.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Insurance Rescission Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The national health law firm of Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, seeking to expand protection of hospitals statewide from
the practice by:

     -- Blue Cross of California,
     -- Blue Cross Life and Health, and
     -- their parent company, Wellpoint, Inc., of

retroactively rescinding insurance policy coverage for numerous
patients after the health care services have been provided by
the hospitals.

The complaint explains that California law prohibits Blue Cross
from retroactively denying payment after the services have been
provided in good faith.

The class action complaint comes on the heels of the California
Department of Managed Health Care's $200,000 fine recently
levied against Blue Cross in response to a case of coverage for
a patient that was improperly rescinded.

This class action complaint also follows lawsuits that were
filed by Hooper, Lundy & Bookman in May of this year, on behalf
of other hospitals challenging these types of retroactive policy
rescissions.

"Hospitals are not opposed to health plans checking applications
for accuracy," said Daron Tooch, one of the lead attorneys in
the case.  "But health plans should check applications prior to
the hospital performing health care services."

Blue Cross has been the subject of dozens of lawsuits by
patients alleging that Blue Cross routinely looks for after-the-
fact reasons to cancel policies by reviewing previously approved
applications.

The rescissions, however, directly impact the hospitals, because
they are not being paid for their services, and instead are
being directed by Blue Cross to collect from the patients.

"The entire health care system is strained when insurers do not
pay valid claims," said Glenn Solomon, who filed the complaint
with Mr. Tooch.  "It not only hurts the patients and weakens the
providers, but also taxes limited public resources, because
patients become unable to get insurance elsewhere, and have to
default to government programs like Medicaid."

The case is BC360235 (CCW).

For more information, contact Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., Los
Angeles Daron Tooch, Principal, 310-551-8192 Cell: 310-702-8192
Glenn Solomon, Principal, 310-551-8179 Cell: 310-503-2553,
Website: http://www.health-law.com.


BROADCOM CORP: Ohio A.G. Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status for STRS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro asked the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California to appoint the State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) lead plaintiff in a
class action over stock options backdating at Broadcom Corp.

As of July, Broadcom Corp. reportedly faces three shareholder  
class actions over its stock-option costs (Class Action  
Reporter, July 20, 2006).  The lawsuit was filed in July after
the semiconductor company disclosed it would restate past
earnings to record more than $750 million in additional
compensation costs tied to accounting discrepancies with its
stock options grants.

Since then, Broadcom has doubled that estimate to at least $1.5
billion over six years, and the company's chief financial
officer has resigned.

STRS has lost more than $10 million as a result of the alleged
fraud after Broadcom's stock price quickly fell by more than 30
percent on the July news, according to court papers the attorney
general filed.

Irvine, California-based Broadcom Corp. (NASDAQ: BRCM) --
http://www.broadcom.com/-- is a global semiconductor company  
with reported annual revenues of more than $2.5 billion.

For more details, contact Mark Anthony, A.G.'s Office, Phone:
614-466-3840, Web site: http://www.ag.state.oh.us.


CENTRA SOFTWARE: N.Y. IPO Suit Agreement Yet to Receive 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 Centra Software, Inc.

In December 2001, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Centra,
certain of its former officers and directors, and the managing
underwriters of Centra's initial public offering.

The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of
certain persons who purchased Centra's common stock between Feb.
3, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.  

The complaint alleges violations by Centra and its officers and
directors of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and other related provisions in
connection with certain alleged compensation arrangements
entered into by the underwriters in connection with the
offering.

An amended complaint was filed in April 2002.  Similar
complaints have been filed against hundreds of other issuers
that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors in the IPO
offering agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares
in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Centra's
stock.  The complaints were later consolidated into a single
action.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and
expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the actions, including the
action involving Centra.

On July 15, 2002, Centra, along with other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to dismiss the
litigation.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions.  The court
denied Centra's motion to dismiss the claims against it under
Rule 10b-5.  The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11
of the Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the
defendants in the consolidated cases, including Centra.

Centra's former officers and directors, Leon Navickas and
Stephen A. Johnson, signed tolling agreements and were dismissed
from the action without prejudice on Oct. 9, 2002.

In June 2003, Centra conditionally approved a proposed partial
settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement
would provide, among other things, a release of Centra and of
the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action
to be wrongful in the amended complaint.

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

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  The court granted the
preliminary approval motion on Feb. 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  

The court also appointed the notice administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members by Jan. 15, 2006.

The settlement fairness hearing occurred on April 24, 2006 and
the court reserved decision, according to an Oct. 13, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2006 of Saba Software, a
company that was acquired by Saba Software, Inc. on Jan. 31,
2006.

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


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Calif. Court Denies Class Status for "Jimenez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied class-action status for the lawsuit, "Jimenez v. Domino's
Pizza LLC," which was filed by a former general manager.

Filed on Aug. 19, 2004 in Orange County Superior Court, the suit
is alleging that the company misclassified the position of
general manager.  It also alleges that the company did not
provide meal/rest periods and overtime pay as required by state
law for hourly employees.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Sept. 17, 2004 and the motion for
class certification was heard on June 5, 2006.  

On Sept. 26, 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, according to he company's Oct. 12, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 10, 2006.

The federal suit is "Wilber Jimenez v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, et
al., Case No. 8:04-cv-01107-JVS-RC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge James
V. Selna with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew Roland Bainer and Scott Edward Cole of Scott
         Cole and Associates, World Savings Tower, 1970
         Broadway, Suite 950, Oakland, CA 94612, US, Phone: 510-
         891-9800, E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com and
         scole@scalaw.com;

     (2) Timothy D. Cohelan, Isam C. Khoury, Kimberly Dawn
         Neilson and Michael D Singer of Coheland and Khoury,
         605 C. Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-595-3001, Fax: 619-595-3000, E-mail:
         kneilson@ck-lawfirm.com and
         msinger@californiaclassactions.com; and

     (3) Jose R. Garay of Jose Garay Law Office, 2030 Main St.,
         Ste. 1300, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-260-9193.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Timothy M. Freudenberger, Ursula R. Kubal and Jehan N
         Jayakumar of Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger, 2600
         Michelson Dr., Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612, Phone: 949-
         622-1661, Fax: 949-622-1669; and  

    (ii) Jennifer White-Sperling of Morgan Lewis and Bockius,
         300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA     
         90071, Phone: 213-612-7205, E-mail:
         jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com.


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Expects to Spend $11.9M More to Settle EIFS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dryvit Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International
Inc., has paid a total of 1,460 claims in a class action over
its residential exterior insulated finish systems product line
for a total of approximately $12.9 million.

The company said additional payments have and will continue to
be made under the terms of the settlement agreement.  It expects
to pay $11.9 million more, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 31, 2006.

Dryvit was previously a defendant in a class action filed on
Nov. 14, 2000 in Jefferson County, Tennessee styled "Bobby R.
Posey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.," formerly "William J.
Humphrey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., Case No. 17,715-IV)."

A preliminary approval order was entered on April 8, 2002 in the
Posey case for a proposed nationwide class action settlement,
which was subsequently approved after several appeals.  The
deadline for filing claims in the Posey class action expired on
June 5, 2004 and claims have been processed during the pendency
of the various appeals.

On Sept. 15, 2005, a final, non-appealable order was entered
finally approving the nationwide class.  As of June 30, 2006,
approximately 7,196 total claims had been filed as of the June
5, 2004 claim filing deadline.  Of these 7,196 claims,
approximately 4,410 claims have been rejected or closed for
various reasons under the terms of the settlement.  
Approximately 1,326 of the remaining claims are at various
stages of review and processing under the terms of the
settlement and it is possible that some of these claims will be
rejected or closed without payment.

As of Aug. 31, 2006, a total of 1,460 claims have been paid for
a total of approximately $12.9 million.  Additional payments
have and will continue to be made under the terms of the
settlement agreement, which include inspection costs, third
party warranties and class counsel attorneys' fees.

Based upon the final court order approving the Posey national
class action settlement and Dryvit's claims experience to date,
Dryvit determined that a $11.9 million increase to its existing
reserves was necessary and appropriate to fully cover the
anticipated costs of the Posey settlement.  It is anticipated
that $5.0 million of this reserve increase will be recovered
from third party insurance carriers and accordingly, insurance
receivables were increased by that amount, which was recorded in
the third quarter of fiscal year 2006.


ENRON CORP: Former CFO to Give Depositions in Investors Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon has agreed to release former
Enron Corp. finance chief Andrew Fastow for several days this
month to give depositions, Mr. Fastow's lawyer, David Gerger,
told Bloomberg News.

In September, Judge Kenneth Hoyt of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas ordered Mr. Fastow to six years
in prison for his role in the bankruptcy of Enron (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).  

In a sworn declaration filed with the federal court during his
sentencing hearing in Houston on Sept. 26, Mr. Fastow provided
information against several banks in relation to their role in
the collapse of the company.  The banks include Barclays plc,
Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Royal
Bank of Canada, and Toronto Dominion.

A review of Mr. Fastow's sworn declaration and the thousands of
pages of internal documents show that the banks and Enron
allegedly engaged in bogus financial deals that led to the
bankruptcy of the company.  The declaration relates to the class
action, "Mark Newby et al. v. Enron Corp. et al., Case No. 4:01-
cv-03624" filed in U.S. District for the Southern District of
Texas.

Representing consolidated defendant Barclay's Capital Inc. is
Barry Abrams of Abrams Scott et al., 700 Louisiana, Ste 4000
Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-228-6601, Fax: 713-228-6605, E-
mail: babrams@asbtexas.com.

Representing consolidated defendants UBS Warburg LLC and UBS
Painewebber Inc. is Rodney Acker at Jenkens & Gilchrist, 1445
Ross Ave., Ste 3200, Dallas, TX 75202, Phone: 214-855-4500, Fax:
214-855-4300.

Representing the plaintiff is Richard J. Zook at Cunningham
Darlow et al., 600 Travis, Ste 1700, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713-255-5500, Fax: 713-255-5555.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Rudy, Exelrod Settles Calif. Malpractice Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw in Alameda County, California
approved a $1.5 million settlement in a malpractice suit filed
against law firm Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff over its handling of an
employment class action against Farmers Insurance Exchange, The
Recorder reports.

The class action, "Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 774103-
0," settled for a total of $200 million.  But Rudy, Exelrod &
Zieff was later sued for malpractice over allegations that the
firm should have included an additional claim under California's
unfair competition law.  Its failure allegedly resulted to the
loss of plaintiffs of an additional year of overtime back pay
for about one-third of the Bell class.  The Bell class numbered
about 2,400 claims adjusters.

Representing plaintiffs in the malpractice suit is Jeffrey
Wilens, senior attorney at Lakeshore Law Center, 17476 Yorba
Linda Boulevard, Suite 221, Yorba Linda, California 92886
(Orange Co.), Phone: 714-854-7205, Fax: 714-854-7206.

Representing the defendant is Wendy Thurm at Keker & Van Nest
LLP, 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94111-1704
(San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-391-5400, Fax: 415-397-7188.


FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Improper Accounting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forward Industries Inc. was served with summons and class action
complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida alleging improper financial accounting practices
between July 25, 2005 and Feb. 2, 206.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
"the complaint alleges that the company ... made certain
misrepresentations of fact, or failed to disclose certain
material facts, and violated certain generally accepted
accounting principles in the presentation of its financial
statements included in its periodic reports filed with the [U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission]."

The summons and complaint was served on the company on Oct. 3,
2006.  It was filed on behalf of some of the company's clients,
according to the SEC filing.  

Pompano Beach, Florida-based Forward Industries, Inc. (Forward)
-- http://www.forwardindustries.com/-- designs, markets and  
distributes carry solutions for hand-held consumer electronics
products, including soft-sided carrying cases, bags, clips, hand
straps, decorative face plates and other accessories for
cellular telephones, medical monitoring and diagnostic kits,
cameras, and other consumer electronic products.  The company
sells these products in two customer markets.  Forward's
principal customer market is original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), of these consumer electronic products, which ship its
products as accessories in box with their product offerings, and
to the contract-manufacturing firms of these OEM customers.
During the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, sales to OEM
customers (or their contract manufacturers) accounted for 97%,
while sales of licensed products accounted for 3% of the
company's revenues.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Oct. Hearing Scheduled for $99M N.Y. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $99 million settlement in the matter, "In Re Global
Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 910
(GEL)."

The court will hold the hearing at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York, in Courtroom 6B.

Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement was due Oct.
6, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons, entities, or legal
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Feb. 1,
1999 to Dec. 8, 2003, purchased, sold, exchanged, acquired,
disposed of, transferred or made any other investment decision
involving Global Crossing or Asia Global Crossing securities.

This lawsuit involves the demise of Global Crossing and Asia
Global Crossing, which were global telecommunications companies.  
Global Crossing was founded in 1997 and Asia Global Crossing in
1999.  Global Crossing became a public company on Aug. 13, 1998.  

Asia Global Crossing became a public company on Oct. 12, 2000,
although Global Crossing retained a 51% ownership interest in
Asia Global Crossing.  

The settlement described in this notice provides for the payment
of $99 million to settle claims brought by persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Global Crossing and Asia
Global Crossing securities during the class period.  

The settlement would result in the dismissal and/or release of
certain claims by all class members in the action as to the
persons and entities included within the definition of
"Releasees" in the Settlement Agreement.  

The Releasees include the "Underwriter Defendants":  

     -- Goldman, Sachs & Co.;

     -- Merrill Lynch & Co.;

     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;

     -- CIBC World Markets Corp. (CIBC WM);
  
     -- Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.;

     -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.;

     -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.;

     -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (including the former
        Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.);

     -- Morgan Stanley; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.;

     -- Lehman Brothers Inc.;

     -- ABN AMRO Rothschild LLC;

     -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.;

     -- Wachovia Securities (formerly First Union Securities,
         Inc.);

     -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.;

     -- Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein-Grantchester, Inc.
         (formerly Wasserstein Perella Securities, Inc.);

     -- Advest, Inc.;

     -- Harris Nesbitt Gerard, Inc. (formerly Gerard Klauer
        Mattison & Co., Inc.);

     -- Guzman & Co.; Kaufman Bros., L.P.;

     -- McDonald Investments, Inc.;

     -- Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., Inc.;

     -- Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc.;

     -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc.;

     -- Scott & Stringfellow, Inc.; and

     -- Stephens Inc.

The Releasees also include two Asia Global Crossing underwriters
that were not named in the action:

     * The Robinson-Humphrey Co. LLC, and
     * Williams Capital Group, L.P.

as well as the "CIBC Defendants":

     * Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
     * CIBC WM,
     * CIBC Capital Partners, and
     * CIBC Capital Partners (Cayman).  

In this settlement, the Underwriter Defendants and CIBC
Defendants are collectively referred to as the "Settling
Defendants."   

Since February 2002, over 50 putative class actions alleging
securities law violations have been filed against employees of
Global Crossing and other defendants, including the Settling
Defendants, on behalf of putative classes of holders of Global
Crossing securities.  

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized all
of these actions before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  

In December 2002, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and
appointed Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. as lead counsel in the
action.    

On Jan. 28, 2003, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed against various defendants, including 33 former officers
and directors of Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen LLP (Global
Crossing's former auditor), Citigroup Global Markets (formerly
known as Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.), CIBC, and other financial
institutions that acted as underwriters on certain of Global
Crossing's securities offerings during the Class Period.  

In May 2003, the court consolidated into the action five
putative class actions alleging securities law violations
against, among others, current and former officers, directors
and employees of Asia Global Crossing.  

On Aug. 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint to add claims on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Asia Global Crossing
securities during the class period.  

On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint to, among other things,
update factual allegations based upon lead plaintiffs'
continuing investigation of the claims in the action.   

In the action, plaintiffs claim that the Global Crossing and
Asia Global Crossing sold securities on the basis of inaccurate
and/or misleading financial information, and that the
Underwriter Defendants violated federal securities laws by
failing to exercise the requisite due diligence in underwriting
certain of Global Crossing's and Asia Global Crossing's public
offerings.  

They also allege that CIBC is liable for false statements
concerning Global Crossing and liable, as a control person of
Global Crossing, for Global Crossing's alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.  

In the complaint, plaintiffs assert causes of action against the
CIBC Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against the Underwriter
Defendants under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  

The settling defendants have denied violating any laws and have
raised or could raise numerous defenses, including that the
Underwriters conducted appropriate due diligence to verify the
accuracy of the disclosures and reasonably relied on audited
financial data.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. and Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
         of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Chase Manhattan Centre,
         1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, Delaware
         19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100; and

     (2) Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Financial
         Institutions Partial Settlement, c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6152,
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-866-808-3497, E-mail:
         http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com.


INTRAWARE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of $1B IPO Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Intraware, Inc.

In October 2001, the company was served with a summons and
complaint in a purported securities class action.  On or about
April 19, 2002, the company was served with an amended complaint
in this action, which is now titled, "In re Intraware, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the company's common stock from Feb. 25,
1999 -- the date of the company's initial public offering --
through Dec. 6, 2000.

It names as defendants Intraware, three of the company's present
and former officers and directors, and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the company's
initial public offering.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     -- the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
        to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
        excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     -- the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
        purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
        predetermined prices.  

The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused
their securities analysts to manipulate the price of the
company's stock.  No specific damages are claimed.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.

All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which Intraware and its three named current and former officers
and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.

On or about Oct. 9, 2002, the court entered and ordered a
stipulation of dismissal, which dismissed the three named
current and former officers and directors from the litigation
without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court entered an order denying in part the
issuer-defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss, including those
portions of the motion to dismiss relating to Intraware.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer-defendants, including the company, was submitted to
the court. The underwriter-defendants in the "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation", including the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering, are not
parties to the stipulation of settlement.

The settlement provides that, in exchange for a release of
claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the insurers of
all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a surety
undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery from
the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter-
defendants.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  A fairness hearing for the settlement took place in
April 2006.  After the hearing, the court took the matter under
submission and has not yet issued a final ruling, according to
the company's Oct. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Aug. 31, 2006.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Ruling in Suit Over Blood Sugar Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
for Ontario, Canada a decision by a Divisional Court in the
class action, "Serhan v. Johnson & Johnson, [2006] O.J. No. 2421
(Div. Ct.)," Mondaq reports.

In the lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson is accused of manufacturing
and marketing a defective blood glucose monitoring system, which
consisted of meters 'SureStep meters' and 'Strips' to be used
when testing blood.  

In some cases, the SureStep meters allegedly failed to register
the existence of high glucose levels, and instead displayed
either an erroneously low reading or an error message.  

While Johnson & Johnson knew of the problem, it is alleged to
have refrained from taking corrective measures until various
U.S. agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had commenced investigating consumer complaints.

Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
granted certification to a class of the monitor use in 2004 on
the basis of equitable doctrine of "waiver of tort."  

Under it, plaintiff gives up the right to sue in tort and
pursues a restitutionary claim; instead, in order to recoup the
profits the defendant has derived from its wrongful conduct.

In the Divisional Court, Madam Justice Epstein reviewed whether
waiver of tort constitutes an independent cause of action.  She
agreed with Justice Cullity that the issue is not settled in the
cases and should be resolved at trial.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Negligence Claims Over Kidney Program
-------------------------- -----------------------------------
Healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente is facing a class action
on how it is managing its kidney transplant program, Media
Monitors Network reports.

The suit was filed on June 5, 2006, alleging "negligence, fraud
and misrepresentation due to Kaiser's inability to properly
administrate the San Francisco Kidney Transplant Program," which
included approximately 2,000 patients in Northern California.  
It accuses Kaiser of failing to provide adequate care to
patients waiting to receive a kidney transplant, resulting to
harm, and in some cases death, to hundreds of kidney transplant
patients.

On June 23, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid issued a
report citing three problem areas in Kaiser Permanente's
management of its kidney transplant program:

      -- the governing body and management;

      -- patient rights and responsibilities; and

      -- the director of the transplant program.  

It threatened to cut off funding to the health care provider
that time.  

In August, Kaiser Permanente agreed to pay $2 million in fine.  
In September, CMS withdrew the threat to cut off funding based
on a survey conducted on Aug. 18, 2006, that showed the
deficiencies had been corrected and Kaiser was now in compliance
with federal standards.


KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Faces Second N.J. Suit Over High Mercury Levels
------------------------------------------------------------
Princeton, New Jersey attorney Stuart J. Lieberman filed a
lawsuit against Kiddie Kollege on behalf of Jonathan and
Patricia Conti whose son Jacob, attended a mercury-contaminated
day care facility, the Gloucester County Times reports.

Named defendants in the suit, which is similar to a lawsuit
filed in August against Kiddie Kollege, are:

     -- Jim Sullivan Inc.,
     -- Navillus Group LLC,
     -- Jim Sullivan Real Estate Services Inc.,
     -- James Sullivan III,
     -- James Sullivan IV,
     -- Accutherm Inc.,
     -- Philip J. Giuliano,
     -- Kiddie Kollege Day Care and Preschool Inc.,
     -- Stephen and Becky Baughman, and
     -- Julie and Matthew Lawlor.

The complaint contends that defendants were aware that the
operation of a day care center on a property with heavy mercury
contamination would injure those attending the school.

It added that negligent, reckless and intentional conduct of the
defendants has resulted in harm, damages, and injuries to the
plaintiffs.

The suit seeks to have the defendants:

     -- immediately remediate the site in accordance with state
        Department of Environmental Protection guidelines;

     -- institute a program for monitoring and any other
        "special maintenance" the court deems appropriate to
        reduce the plaintiff's health risks;

     -- pay compensatory damages for medical expenses for all
        injuries the contamination caused;

     -- pay attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- pay any further damages allowed by law.

In August, Haddonfield lawyer Philip Stephen Fuoco filed a
similar lawsuit against Kiddie Kollege on behalf Franklin
residents Marc and Jennifer Mignano, whose son Isaac, attended a
mercury-contaminated day care facility (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 24, 2006).

In July, Kiddie Kollege voluntarily shut down its facilities
after testing found abnormal mercury levels inside the building,
which used to be a thermometer factory.  Testing found elevated
mercury levels in 20 students and three employees.

Prolonged exposure to mercury vapor can cause neurological and
kidney damage.

In the current lawsuit, plaintiffs are represented by Stuart J.
Lieberman of Lieberman & Blecher, 10 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 100
Princeton, NJ 08540-9502, Phone: (732) 355-1311, Fax:  (732)
355-1310.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fla. Court Sides With Truckers in OOIDA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida ruled
in favor of truck drivers in the class action filed by the
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association against Landstar
System Inc.

U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. ruled Landstar System
violated federal leasing regulations with undocumented markups
on chargebacks such as tires and base plates.

Although the case must still go to trial to determine the actual
amount of money due to the truckers, OOIDA leaders said Judge
Adams' ruling is very good news.

"The days of secret, undocumented profits are coming to an end
following these rulings," said Jim Johnston, president and chief
executive of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

Having argued against Landstar's request that the judge throw
out the truckers' case, OOIDA's General Counsel Paul Cullen Sr.
said that the judge's ruling -- as well as a similar ruling this
fall from a federal judge in Utah in OOIDA's case against
carrier C.R. England -- will go far to put truckers back in the
driver's seat when it comes to their compensation.

Mr. Cullen said the rulings mean that motor carriers can only
earn profits on chargeback items if they document those profits,
or markups, and make that documentation available to drivers.

The judge's rulings came in response to "cross motions for
summary judgment."  Those motions basically had Landstar arguing
that there were no legal grounds to take the case to trial and
the truckers' attorneys arguing that there was no legal doubt
that the carrier's leases and actions were in violation of
federal regulations.

In addition to ruling that Landstar violated federal truth-in-
leasing regulations by not documenting markups on chargeback
items, Judge Adams firmly rejected Landstar's "substantial
compliance" defense.

"Landstar had taken the position that it need not make
disclosures in its written lease agreement so long as it made
disclosures outside of the agreement," Mr. Cullen said.  "The
court rejected Landstar's argument and sided with OOIDA and the
truckers, holding that the regulations called for strict
compliance in a motor carrier's written lease agreement."

On another point, the judge did not rule in favor of the
truckers, but neither did he rule in favor of Landstar.

"OOIDA's position is that the Landstar leases did not identify
all the reductions to adjusted gross revenue made before
Landstar calculated the driver's percentage share of the
revenue," Mr. Cullen said.  "While the court did not
affirmatively grant summary judgment to OOIDA on this claim,
neither did it award summary judgment to Landstar.  Thus, the
question of whether Landstar's conduct in calculating driver
compensation was lawful appears to be an issue for trial."

OOIDA's leaders were not disheartened by the judge's decision.

"While the court chose to disagree with some points in our
original complaint, we are satisfied that the core items of
documentation of all chargebacks and strict compliance to the
regulations were affirmed," Mr. Johnston said.

The truckers' attorneys estimate that monetary damages related
to the chargeback claims that the judge's October ruling
addressed, are more than $42.7 million.  Damages for items not
yet ruled on are estimated to be an additional $5.5 million.

On Nov. 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. and six individual BCO Independent Contractors
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville,
Florida, against the company (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25,
2006).

The complaint alleges that certain aspects of the company's
motor carrier leases with its BCO Independent Contractors
violate certain federal leasing regulations and seeks injunctive
relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees.

On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the court dismissed all claims of
one of the six individual plaintiffs on the grounds that the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act is not applicable
to leases signed before the Act's Jan. 1, 1996, effective date,
and dismissed all claims of all remaining plaintiffs against
four of the seven company entities previously named as
defendants.   

Claims currently stand against:  
         
      -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,  
      -- Landstar Ligon, Inc. and  
      -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.   

With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 order
held that the ICC Termination Act created a private right of
action to which a four-year statute of limitation applies.   

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
included additional allegations with respect to violations of
certain federal leasing regulations.  On Aug. 30, 2005, the
court granted a motion by plaintiffs to certify the case as a
class action.  

On Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit denied the defendants' petition for permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the defendants filed a motion, which is
pending, asking that the court bifurcate the proceedings such
that only common issues of law would be decided on a classwide
basis and any remaining issues of fact, including whether any
class member can prove liability or damages, would be tried on
an individualized basis.

A copy of the Summary Judgment is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?137f

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary  
         Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of  
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite  
         300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or  
         202/965-6100; and  

     (2) Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,  
         Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110,  
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax:  
         904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,  
         P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036-
         5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:  
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;

    (ii) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.  
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10  
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968,  
         Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; and

   (iii) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of  
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,  
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:  
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


LAWYERS TITLE: Settles Suit Over Title Insurance Policy in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action against Lawyers Title
Insurance Corp. that was filed in Dyer County Circuit Court in
Tennessee, The Dyersburg State Gazette reports.

The suit was against the company's "Residential Advantage" title
insurance policy.  The company also known as LandAmerica Lawyers
Title is a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, a $4
billion global financial concern.

The suit alleged that Lawyers Title wrongly forced loan
applicants to pay a $25 "commitment fee" that state regulators
said they could not.  Defendants allegedly pocketed the fee as
profit from 1998 to June 2006.

Richmond, Virginia-based LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
(NYSE: LFG) -- http://www.landam.com/-- is a holding company  
that, through its subsidiaries, provides products and services
used to facilitate the purchase, sale, transfer, and financing
of residential and commercial real estate.  The company's
principal business operations are organized under three primary
operating segments: Title Insurance, Lender Services and
Financial Services.  Its Other segment provides commercial and
residential inspections for real estate transactions, due
diligence services, commercial appraisals and valuations, and
home warranty contracts.  Through its Title Insurance division,
it underwrites policies that indemnify real estate buyers and
owners against title defects, liens and encumbrances.  The
Lender Services segment offers real estate tax processing, flood
zone certifications, consumer mortgage credit reporting,
default-management services and mortgage loan subservicing to
mortgage lenders.


MAINE: Plaintiff Objects to $3M Settlement of Strip Search Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the Knox County Jail strip-search case has
withdrawn from the case on Oct. 11, and has retained a new
lawyer, according to the Village Soup.

Laurie Tardiff, the Thomaston woman who brought a lawsuit
against Knox County and Sheriff Dan Davey for allegedly
illegally strip-searching her in 2001, has retained:

        Attorney William D. Robitzek
        Lewiston law firm Berman & Simmons  

The attorney filed notice with the court on Friday, Oct. 13,
indicating that he represents Ms. Tardiff in her individual
capacity.

In the original suit Ms. Tardiff, represented by attorneys Dale
F. Thistle, Robert J. Stolt and Sumner Lipman, 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.

The class was decertified last month, allowing Ms. Tardiff to
proceed to trial as an individual to determine liability, but
the court also requested that the parties attempt to reach an
out of court settlement.  On Oct. 2, the parties reached a $3
million settlement under which Ms. Tardiff was supposed to
receive a $50,000 bonus payment.  

The settlement was to be presented for approval to the court on
Oct. 11.  But on Oct. 10, Ms. Tardiff sent a letter to the U.S.
District Court Judge Gene Carter and Judge George Singal, the
mediator in the settlement, asking for $500,000 and for the
lawsuit to remain decertified.

A hearing to review the case was scheduled for April 2,
according to Bangor Daily News (Maine).

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.  

Berman & Simmons on the Net: http://www.bermansimmons.com/.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) 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

     (2) 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.


MASSACHUSETTS: Five Students Sue School District in Truant Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Springfield School District faces a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts that was filed
by five juveniles who claim that the district is illegally
taking truant students off school rolls under the age of 16,
Natalia E. Arbulu of The Republican reports.

Filed in August, the suit also alleges that the district is
arbitrarily enforcing its attendance policy for secondary
students.

The suit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction regarding
the school department's practice of taking off school rolls the
names of truant students who are absent for 15 consecutive days,
and its failure to disclose students' success plans to parents
or guardians upon request.  It also seeks class-action status.

Represented by attorney Bryan K. Clauson, each of plaintiffs
have missed more than 100 days of school during the 2005-06
school year.  A school year consists of 180 days.  Four
plaintiffs were taken off school rolls by the district in the
last two years, according to Mr. Clauson.

Named as defendants are:

      -- the city of Springfield,
      -- the public schools,
      -- the School Committee, and
      -- Superintendent Joseph P. Burke.

Mr. Clauson argues that the school district needs to revamp the
way it deals with attendance and truancy, since the system is
broken.

Additionally, the suit alleges that the school district has
stricken the names of more than 700 truant students from school
rolls in each of the past three years.

Mr. Clauson also argues that the plaintiffs did not receive due
process from school officials, who should have done more to get
them to school.

State law requires children between the ages of 6 and 16 to
attend a public school, day school, or approved home-school
program.  It also requires school committees to enforce the
attendance of all students.

The attendance policy for the 2005-06 school year called for
students with more than 12 absences a year to receive a "no-
credit" status on their report cards without successful appeal.

However, the suit notes that 10,256 city students were truant
for more than 12 days last year, yet the school district filed
truancy complaints in juvenile court for only 19 children. Of
these students there are plaintiffs in the suit.

The attendance policy requires that schools notify parents in
writing after a student's second absence per marking period. In
the event of third absence, teachers are required afterward to
refer the student to an attendance specialist for a follow-up
with parents and the initiation of support services, if needed.

The suit contends that the school district did not take these
measures in regard to the plaintiffs.

For more details, contact Bryan K. Clauson, 95 State Street,
Suite 701, Springfield, MA 01103, Phone: 413-781-7611, Fax: 413-
731-5235, E-mail: clausonatty@comcast.net.


NEW JERSEY: Files Motion to Junk Suit Demanding School Vouchers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The office of Attorney General Stuart Rabner filed a motion to
dismiss a case filed by parents of public school students
alleging that the state failed to provide essential basic
education to thousands of children, The Associated Press
reports.

The plaintiff is asking the state to provide vouchers for
families whose children attend low-performing schools so parents
could instead send their children to private schools or more
successful public ones.

The state's motion to dismiss argues that a school voucher
system is unconstitutional.

The suit, "Crawford v. Davy," was filed in the Superior Court of  
New Jersey in Newark, against State Commissioner of Education
Lucille Davy and 30 more defendants in July (Class Action
Reporter, July 19, 2006).

The case led by Van Ness Crawford represents a class of more
than 60,000 students in 96 failing schools in 25 districts.  The
lawsuit argues that the denial of basic educational
opportunities violates the children's right to a thorough and
efficient education under the state constitution, and to equal
protection of the laws under the state and federal
constitutions.

It seeks two interrelated remedies:  

     -- an end to district-based residential school assignments,  
        in which children are forbidden to cross attendance zone  
        lines to attend a different state-supported public  
        school; and  

     -- a pro rata share of public funds allocated for the  
        child's education, so that the family can secure a  
        better education in another public or private school.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:  
  
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ded   

The suit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, General Equity, Essex County.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patricia Bombelyn at Perez & Bombelyn, P.C. 402  
         Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901,  
         Phone: (732) 213-1166, Fax: (732) 846-6667; and  

     (2) Julio C. Gomez, Attorney at Law LLC, 152 Paterson Road,  
         Fairwood, New Jersey 07023-1065, Phone: (908) 490-0360,   
         Fax: (908) 490-0362.


OCCAM NETWORKS: N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive 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 Occam Networks, Inc.

In June 2001, three putative stockholder class actions were
filed against the company, certain of its then officers and
directors and several investment banks that were underwriters of
Accelerated Networks' initial public offering.

The cases, which have since been consolidated, were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
court appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
on April 19, 2002.

The complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
company's stock between June 22, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.  It
alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act against
one or both of the company and the individual defendants.

The claims were based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the company's initial
public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for the company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

These lawsuits are part of the massive "IPO allocation"
litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating
shares of successful initial public offerings.  

The company believes that over three hundred other companies
have been named in more than one thousand similar lawsuits that
have been filed by some of the same plaintiffs' law firms.

In October 2002, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
individual defendants without prejudice.  

On Feb. 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by the issuer
defendants was heard and the court dismissed the 10(b), 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 claims against Occam.

On July 31, 2003, the company agreed, together with over three
hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the
plaintiffs.  

A Memorandum of Understanding, along with a separate agreement
and a performance bond of $1 billion issued by the insurers for
these companies is a guarantee, allocated pro rata amongst all
issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part of an overall
recovery against all defendants including the underwriter
defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU.

Any recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter
defendants reduces the amount to be paid by the issuer
companies.

On April 24, 2006 the court heard oral and written arguments
concerning final approval of the settlement from all parties
including the underwriter defendants.  No decision has been
issued to date, according to the company's Oct. 13, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 24, 2006.


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


PLANTATION INN: Evacuees File Racial Discrimination Suit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plantation Inn of Houma, Inc. faces a purported racial
discrimination class action in U.S District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana over allegations that it turned
away black evacuees from New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina
even though rooms were available, according to WWL-TV New
Orleans.

About eight black evacuees filed the suit, alleging that the
motel rejected them solely on the basis of their race, a
violation of federal civil-rights laws.

In a response filed by New Orleans-based attorneys Jody R.
Montelaro and Leslie A. Lanusse, the motel's owner, Maya
Mallick, and manager, Virginia Maxwell, who were also named as
defendants, deny all claims.

The suit was filed by attorney Craig Stewart of Houma on Sept.
1, 2006.  It names as plaintiffs:

      -- Carol Harrison,
      -- Danon Smith,
      -- Ms. Bennett,
      -- Gary Wirick,
      -- Keith Allen Price,
      -- Patrick Thomas,
      -- Mr. Boudreaux, and
      -- Tony Smith.

Besides those already named, the suit seeks to represent any
black person who tried to stay at the Plantation Inn and was
either rejected or charged a higher rate than normal.  It claims
that more than 20 people are likely to have been discriminated
against by the motel.

Though no specific dollar figure is requested in the lawsuit, it
does ask for money as punishment and to cover attorney's fees,
alternative lodging, travel expenses, humiliation and emotional
distress.  It also requests a court order that requires the
motel to change its alleged behavior.

The suit is "Boudreaux et al. v. Plantation Inn of Houma, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05702-LMA-DEK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge
Lance M. Africk with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.

Representing the plaintiffs is Craig Henry Stewart of Craig H.
Stewart, Attorney at Law, 627 School St., Houma, LA 70360,
Phone: 985-223-2000, E-mail: astewart216@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are Leslie A. Lanusse and Jody R.
Montelaro of Adams and Reese, LLP, One Shell Square, 701 Poydras
Street, Suite 4500, New Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: 504-581-3234,
E-mail: leslie.lanusse@arlaw.com and jody.montelaro@arlaw.com.


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Oct. 26 Hearing Set for $8M Stock Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 26, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. for
the proposed $8 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: Sirius
Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-10863."

The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Griesa in the U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007.

The settlement covers all persons who, during the period from
Feb. 16, 2000 through April 2, 2001, purchased or otherwise
acquired company common stock.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Feb. 1,
2007.

In September 2001, a purported class action, entitled "Sternbeck
v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 2:01-CV-295," was filed against
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.  

Subsequently, additional purported class actions were filed,
which were consolidated in a single purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
"In re: Sirius Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-
10863," (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2005).

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons who acquired the
company's common stock on the open market between Feb. 16, 2000
and April 2, 2001.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and press
releases concerning when the company's service would be
commercially available, which caused the market price of the
company's common stock to be artificially inflated.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

In June 2002, the company filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York requesting the Court
to dismiss the complaint in this action with prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  In January 2004, the
Court denied its motion to dismiss this action.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re Sirius Satellite Securities Litigation c/o Berdon
         Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, New
         York 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-
         0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com;  

     (2) Linda P. Nussbaum and Steven Jeffrey Toll of Cohen,
         Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: (212) 838-
         7797 and (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
         lnussbaum@cmht.com and stoll@cmht.com; and

     (3) Katherine M. Ryan, Esq. and Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.


SOUTH SHORE: N.J Lawmakers Urge State to Sue Over Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey lawmakers stated on Oct. 13 that they want the state
to file a class action against South Shore Auto World on behalf
of customers caught up in the dealership's federal bankruptcy,
according to The Press of Atlantic City.

The announcement came as the customers met with the lawmakers to
share similar stories of financial troubles.  Aside from a
lawsuit, lawmakers are pressing the state Division of Consumer
Affairs to intercede in the bank disputes on behalf of the
beleaguered customers.

Since the dealership closed in July, many customers have learned
that the loans on their trade-in vehicles were never paid off.

As of the moment, the customers are faced with equally rotten
choices:

      -- make payments on cars they no longer have, or
      -- ignore late notices and bill collectors while their
         credit ratings tank.

Assemblyman Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic said
that he believes the state should be involved since it is a
government issue.


ST. JUDE: Minn. Judge Certifies Suit Over Faulty Heart Valves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted class certification to more than
11,000 people nationwide who received one of St. Jude Medical's
defective Silzone heart valves.

The class action consists of all persons in the U.S. who were
implanted with the flawed device prior to St. Jude Medical (STJ)
disclosing the life-threatening risks associated with the
device.

Gordon Rudd, an attorney at Zimmerman Reed representing the
implant recipients, responded to the court's ruling.  "These
patients were implanted with a device that was never part of a
wide-scale clinical trial before it was put on the market.  The
court's ruling is an important step in assuring that these
individuals have a vehicle to pursue their claims as a group.  
As a class action, we are able to move forward to protect the
interests of all affected individuals; they can now enjoy
representation through this case. We are eager to continue this
fight."

St. Jude Medical produced the prosthetic heart valve until
announcing the recall in January 2000, in response to mounting
pressure from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

Other governments had already responded by issuing warnings or
taking the devices off the market.  The U.S. recall came months
after tests sponsored by St. Jude showed a higher risk of
paravalvular leaks at the site where the valves were implanted.
Heart valves are typically surrounded on the outside by a
polyester cuff called a sewing ring.

The surgeon sews through this ring to stitch the artificial
valve to the heart muscle.  St. Jude's Silzone heart valves
contained one significant variation from previous models: a
sewing ring with a silver coating.  Although the silver coating
was designed to ward off infection, St. Jude's test revealed
that the coating also greatly increased the likelihood of leaks
and blood clots.

The patients' case has been difficult.  In 2004, the case was
certified to proceed as a class action.  Upon news of the
certification, St. Jude Medical appealed the decision to the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last year, the 8th Circuit decertified the case and then moved
the case back to the District Court to rule again on the issue.
After many months of extensive briefing by the Parties, Judge
Tunheim issued an order on Oct. 13, 2006, certifying a class --
and finding that individuals throughout the U.S. can assert
claims under Minnesota's consumer fraud statute to obtain
redress.

According to David Cialkowski, an attorney at Zimmerman Reed,
representing the nationwide class, "the Order is based on
existing law in Minnesota; nothing has been broadened by this
decision.  What the Order makes clear is that if deceptive
activities emanate from within Minnesota, then a defendant like
St. Jude Medical can be held accountable to individuals
throughout the country under Minnesota statutes."

The suit is "In Re: St Jude Medical Inc, et al v., et al., Case
No. 0:01-md-01396-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim, with
referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing defendant are:

     (1) Steven E. Angstreich and Carolyn Lindheim both of Levy
         Angstreich Finney Baldante Rubenstein & Coren, 10
         Melrose Ave Ste 100, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003, Phone: 856-
         795-0303, Fax: 18567957447, E-mail:
         sangstreich@levyangstreich.com or  
         clindheim@levyangstreich.com;

     (2) James T. Capretz of Capretz & Associates, 5000 Birch St
         Ste 2500, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-724-3000,
         Fax: 949-757-2635, E-mail: jcapretz@capretz.com;

     (3) Joe D. Jacobson of Green Jacobson & Butsch, PC, 7733
         Forsyth Blvd Ste 700, St Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-
         862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail:
         jacobson@stlouislaw.com;

     (4) Steven M. Kohn of Reed Smith - Oakland, 1999 Harrison
         St Ste 2400, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510-763-2000,
         Fax: 510-273-8832, E-mail: skohn@reedsmith.com; and

     (5) Patrick Murphy of The Murphy Law Office, 844 E Sahara
         Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89104, Phone: 702-259-4600, Fax:
         17022594748.

Representing the plaintiffs are J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. and David M.
Cialkowski both of Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P., 651 Nicollet Mall
Suite 501, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Hennepin Co.), Phone:
612-341-0400, Toll Free: 800-755-0098, Fax: 612-341-0844.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIBCO Software, Inc. and several of its officers remain as
defendants in three purported securities class actions pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 4, 2006.

The suits are:

      -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006;

      -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and

      -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-    
         cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005.

Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1,
2005.

The complaints generally allege that the company made false or
misleading statements concerning its operating results, its
business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  It charges the company
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court dismissed the litigation with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs have the right to appeal, according to
the company's Oct. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 3, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Lance Siegall, et al. v.
Tibco Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

     (5) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com.


VENDOME APARTMENT: Calif. Court Approves Deal in Tenants Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles County Superior Court approved a settlement of a
class action filed on behalf of a group of tenants who resided
at the Vendome Apartment building located at 975 North Vendome
Street in Los Angeles, according to plaintiffs' attorneys Daniel
J. Bramzon and Albert Robles of BASTA, a Los Angeles based
public benefit corporation specializing in tenants' rights.

The settlement provides for the payment of relocation expenses
and the reimbursement of the security deposits and rent credits
to qualified tenants.

Daniel J. Bramzon and Albert Robles, co-counsel for plaintiffs,
were pleased with the settlement and declared in a joint
statement, "This is an excellent result for our clients (the
tenants) in a case that has some difficult and novel legal
issues."

Doug Mastroianni of Peter L. Weinberger & Associates, a
Professional Corporation, counsel for one of the defendants in
the case agreed, "This is a 'win-win.'  BASTA worked with us to
come up with a creative and just settlement that benefits
everyone and avoids further protracted litigation."

The lawsuit was filed after a December 2005 fire rendered the
building uninhabitable and forced the tenants to relocate.

For further information about the settlement, contact BASTA at
(213) 736-5050, or defense counsel Doug Mastroianni at (310)
231-6452.

BASTA, Inc. is a California public benefit corporation
specializing in tenants' rights headquartered in Los Angeles and
with a satellite office in Lancaster. The organization has three
legal divisions: eviction defense, limited jurisdiction
lawsuits, and complex litigation/class action.


WAL-MART STORES: Penn. Court Enters $78M Verdict in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia jury awarded $78,468,415 in compensation to a
class of approximately 186,000 Pennsylvania hourly employees at
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. outlets throughout the state.

The 12 members of the Philadelphia jury had earlier found on
liability in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims that the
employees had not been paid for time spent working off-the-clock
or for missed 15-minute rest breaks.

The jury also found that Wal-Mart did not have a good-faith
contest or dispute when it failed to compensate the class
members for the off-the-clock work and the missed rest breaks.
Following the determination of liability, the jury then
considered the question of damages.

Still remaining for consideration by the trial court, the
Honorable Mark I. Bernstein, is the plaintiffs' motion for
additional, liquidated damages which, under the Pennsylvania
wage law, are valued at the greater of $500, or 25% of the total
amount of wages due, for each employee.  A decision on the
motion is not expected for at least twenty days.

Judge Bernstein certified a class on Jan. 16 after seeing
routine skipping of breaks and non-payment of extra work in Wal-
Mart's computer records (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).
That time, the suit is estimated to could cover nearly 150,000
current and former employees.  The class is now being pursued on
behalf of 186,000 workers.

The employees are represented by attorney Michael Donovan, of
Donovan Searles, 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-732-6067, Fax:
215-732-8060.

Representing Wal-Mart is Brian P. Flaherty of Wolf, Block,
Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2097 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone:
215-977-2000, Telecopier: 215-977-2334.


ZALE CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud, ERISA Suits in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corp. is a defendant in six purported class actions
arising, in general, from the matters that the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission has investigated on.

On April 10, 2006, the company announced that the SEC had
initiated a non-public investigation into various accounting and
other matters related to the company's business, including
accounting for Extended Service Agreements, leases and accrued
payroll.  

Subpoenas issued in connection with the investigation requested
materials relating to these accounting matters as well as to
executive compensation and severance, earnings guidance, stock
trading, and the timing of certain vendor payments.

The lawsuits are:

      -- "Levy v. Zale Corp., No. 1:06-CV-05464," filed July 19,
         2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

      -- "Agoos v. Zale Corp., No. 1:06-CV-5877," filed Aug. 3,
         2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

      -- "Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Zale
         Corp., No. 3:06-CV-1470," filed Aug. 15, 2006, U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Texas;

      -- "Chester v. Zale Corp., No. 1:06-CV-06387," filed Aug.
         23, 2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District
         of New York,

      -- "Salvato v. Zale Corp., No. 3-06 CV 1124-D," filed June
         26, 2006, U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of Texas, and

      -- "Connell v. Zale Corp., No. 06 CV 5995," filed Aug. 7,
         2006, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York.

Mary L. Forte, Mark R. Lenz, and Sue E. Gove are named as
defendants in all six lawsuits.  Cynthia T. Gordon is also named
as a defendant in the Levy, Agoos, and Chester lawsuits.  

Richard C. Marcus, J. Glen Adams, Mary E. Burton, John B. Lowe,
Jr., Thomas C. Shull, David M. Szymanski, and the Zale Plan
Committee also are named as defendants in the Salvato and
Connell lawsuits.

In the Levy, Agoos, Pipefitters and Chester lawsuits the
plaintiffs allege various violations of securities laws based
upon the company's public disclosures.

In the Salvato and Connell lawsuits the plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 based upon the investment by the Zale Corp. Savings
and Investment Plan in company stock.

Plaintiffs in all six lawsuits request unspecified compensatory
damages and costs and, in the Salvato and Connell lawsuits,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  All six lawsuits are in
preliminary stages.

On Sept. 21, 2006, the staff of the SEC notified the company
that the investigation of Zale Corp. had been terminated with no
enforcement action being recommended, according to the company's
Oct. 13, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006.

Texas-based Zale Corp. (NYSE: ZLC) -- http://www.zalecorp.com--  
is a diversified specialty retailer of fine jewelry in North
America.  At July 31, 2005, it operated 1,464 specialty retail
jewelry stores, 812 kiosks and 69 carts located mainly in
shopping malls throughout the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico.  

The company operates in three business segments: Fine Jewelry,
Kiosk Jewelry and All Other.  The Fine Jewelry segment operates
under six brands, Zales Jewelers, Zales the Diamond Store
Outlet, Gordon's Jewelers Bailey Banks & Biddle Fine Jewelers,
Peoples Jewellers and Mappins Jewellers.  The Kiosk Jewelry
segment reaches the opening price point fine jewelry customer
primarily through mall-based kiosks primarily under the name
Piercing Pagoda in the U.S., and carts under the name Peoples II
in Canada.  In the All Other segment, the company, through Zale
Indemnity Co., Zale Life Insurance Co. and Jewel Re-Insurance
Ltd., provides insurance and reinsurance facilities for various
types of insurance coverage.


* Group Actions Against U.K. Companies Increase, Survey Shows
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four in five U.K. businesses (78%) say they faced court action
over the past 12 months according to a report published by
international law firm Fulbright & Jaworski.  This figure is up
from 66% on last year, and the percentage of U.K. respondents
who faced more than 50 court actions in the past year also
tripled, from just 5% in 2005 to 15% in 2006.

Findings from the 2006 Litigation Trends Survey, which
interviewed 422 companies worldwide reveal that corporates are
operating in an increasingly litigious environment and expect
this situation to continue for the foreseeable future.  One in
five U.K. businesses (17%) expects to see an increase in legal
disputes over the next year, and across the globe the overall
percentage of companies who say they had no court actions filed
against them in the past year fell to just 11%, compared with
25% in 2005.

The report reveals that U.K. corporates are spending more time
and money on dealing with regulatory enforcement issues.  Almost
three out of five (58%) per cent of U.K. respondents stated they
had faced a regulatory proceeding over the past 12 months,
compared with 51% of U.S. respondents.  Regulatory issues were
also cited by 40% of U.K. companies as a primary litigation
concern, compared with 21% in the U.S.  This may be explained by
the fact 44% of the U.K. respondents claim to have faced at
least one regulatory proceeding where $20 million or more was at
stake.

Lista Cannon, head of European disputes at Fulbright & Jaworski,
commented: "Despite the general consensus that the U.K. is not
thought to be as tightly regulated as the U.S., U.K. businesses
are experiencing more exposure to regulatory matters and indeed
many have faced a regulatory proceeding over the past year.  All
companies, regardless of their size, have to face up to the
challenge of working in a complex regulatory environment, and
must ensure they are prepared to address current regulatory
issues and anticipate future regulatory changes."

Litigation is an expensive business, and this year's survey
indicates that corporates continue to show a great deal of
concern over the prices they are charged by their law firms,
with one in five citing "high cost" over "lack of competence" as
the one issue that would make them consider changing outside
counsel.  This disquiet is unsurprising in light of the $10.8
million that is incurred in litigation fees each year by the
average large corporate surveyed.  This figure (which excludes
case settlement or judgment payments) represents a 25% increase
on last year's $8 million.

          Engineering, Construction Sector Hit Hardest

By industry, survey respondents in the engineering and
construction sector have the highest litigation costs with a $39
million average spend on litigation -- 59% higher than the
average U.S. company spends on all its legal work each year.  
The insurance industry is a close second, averaging $36 million
for litigation, which reflects its average industry case load of
1,700 matters.  Manufacturing and energy sector are next with
litigation costs of $14.3 million and $13.5 million
respectively.  The sectors taking the smallest economic hit from
disputes are nonprofit organizations ($265,000) and the
traditionally passive trade associations ($253,000).

In terms of other litigation matters that most concern all
respondents regardless of location, 48% cite labor and
employment disputes (up from 26% last year), which are followed
by contract disputes (40%).  Personal injury cases, which made
their first showing in the top three in the 2005 report as most
frequently pending case types, have dropped out of the top tier
in this year's report.

          Class Actions Against U.K. Companies Increase

More companies are facing class or group actions, according to
the survey.  Although not yet at the level of the U.S., the U.K.
respondents report an increased exposure to class actions with
one in four U.K. companies having class actions pending against
it in the U.S. -- a significant increase from the 6% who
reported class/group actions last year.

The ability to handle difficult e-discovery matters remains a
source of concern for most organizations surveyed.  Over a third
(35%) of U.K. respondents feel "not at all" or "poorly" prepared
for e-discovery issues.  This percentage is higher than the 23%
of U.S. respondents who fall into this category.  Even the
largest corporates demonstrate a surprising lack of confidence
in their preparedness with just 19% feeling well-prepared.  No
one feels completely prepared.

Graham Simkin, partner at Fulbright & Jaworski, commented:
"Companies face increasing problems in establishing e-filing,
electronic record and retention policies.  In a litigation or
dispute scenario if the e-filing policy is not well-established
and complied with, disclosure in a dispute will be very
expensive and potentially a high risk for the company."

The use of litigation hold policies (these evoke the immediate
suspension of any scheduled destruction of records in the event
of anticipated legislation) has increased significantly amongst
U.K. companies from 62% in the 2005 survey to 86% in 2006.  This
significant increase is most likely explained by the fact that
regulatory issues are becoming a primary concern for U.K.
businesses.

The survey also reveals an overall increase in the number of
businesses who plan to adopt or revise their litigation hold
policy in the coming year.  Unsurprisingly, the largest increase
by industry is the U.S. banking/financial services sector (21%
in 2005, 57% in 2006), reflecting the ongoing effects of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other regulatory requirements.

The use of multi-step dispute resolution processes that involve
direct negotiations between senior executives, mediation and
then litigation or arbitration, have increased over the last 12
months.  This is particularly true of certain industries, such
as the retail/wholesale sector, which saw a dramatic increase
from 62% in 2005 to 87% this year.

Graham Simkin added: "Multistep dispute resolution processes are
now well-established and companies are quickly learning that a
new skill set is required within companies and in their external
legal advisers in order to secure the best use of such
processes, particularly when a dispute is multi-jurisdictional.  
The use of mediation in the early stages of a dispute is
increasingly common."

On the whole, respondents see little cost difference between
international arbitration and litigation with half or more in
the U.S. and U.K. saying the two approaches cost about the same.  
However, of those who believe there is a difference in costs,
the U.K. group of participants are more likely to believe that
arbitration "costs more" than litigation (30%), versus the 20%
that believe it "costs less" (20%).  The overall consensus is
that international arbitration is faster than litigation.

                        About the Report

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LOUDEYE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 4, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shuman & Berens, LLP, encourages persons who
purchased the common stock of Loudeye Corp. between May 19, 2003
and Nov. 9, 2005 to contact Jeffrey A. Berens of Shuman &
Berens, LLP, at 1-800-711-6483, or jeff@shumanberens.com, or
their counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests
as potential class members in the shareholder class action
recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning the company's operations.

Interested parties have until Dec. 4, 2006 to move for lead
plaintiff status in the case.  

For more details, contact Jeffrey A. Berens of Shuman & Berens,
LLP, Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: jeff@shumanberens.com, Web
site: http://www.shumanberens.com.  


TVIA INC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set for Dec. 5, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shuman & Berens, LLP, encourages persons who
purchased the common stock of TVIA, Inc. between Aug. 8, 2006
and Sept. 27, 2006 to contact Jeffrey A. Berens of Shuman &
Berens, LLP, at 1-800-711-6483 or jeff@shumanberens.com or their
counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests as
potential class members in the shareholder class action recently
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, providing false and
misleading revenue guidance.

Interested parties have until Dec. 4, 2006 to move for lead
plaintiff status in the case.  

For more details, contact Jeffrey A. Berens of Shuman & Berens,
LLP, Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: jeff@shumanberens.com, Web
site: http://www.shumanberens.com.  


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *