/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061023.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 210


ARIZONA: Money Transfers Interception Program Faces New Conflict
AUSTRALIA: Mandurang Residents Consider Lawsuit v. Coliban Water
BASF AG: Ill. Court Orders Excess Insurers to Pay Defense Costs
BAYER AG: Reaches $18M Settlement for Kans. Antitrust Lawsuit
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: N.H. Court Certifies Class to Clients' Suit

BIO-ONE CORP: Settles Fla. Securities Suit Over INI Acquisition
CABLE & WIRELESS: Panama Court OKs 40-Second Billing Method Suit
CALIFORNIA: Nov. 27 Hearing Set for Deaf/Hearing Impaired Deal
CANADA: Certification Sought for Suit Over Breast Cancer Tests
CANADA: Government to Review Agent Orange Compensation Package

CLOROX CO: Law Firm Files Back-Dated Stock Option Grants Lawsuit
DRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Execs. Indicted in Bid-Rigging Scheme
EASTERN HOMES: June 2007 Scheduled for Md. Homeowners' Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: N.Y. Court Consolidates Copyright Infringement Suits
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Dexia, Ex-Officers Still Face Securities Suit

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Approves $7.025M Settlement
MEDIA WORLD: Sued Over Failed Video-On-Demand Services Venture
MICROSOFT CORP: "Conlin" Still in Iowa Consumer Antitrust Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Issues Antitrust Suit Settlement Notices
NEW JERSEY: Nov. 2 Hearing Set For Copy Gouging Suit Settlement

NEW JERSEY: Parents Plans Lawsuit School Over Field-Trip Money
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Response to Amended Complaint Due Oct.
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch
PHOEBE PUTNEY: Ga. Court Declines to Review Overcharging Suits
SILICON STORAGE: Nov. Hearing Set on Stock Suit Dismissal Motion

SONUS NETWORKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Litigation
STONE & WEBSTER: Oct. Hearing Set to Certify Mass. Stock Lawsuit
THORNHILL SUPERSTORES: Settles W.Va. Consumer Fraud Litigation
TENNESSEE: Maury County Retirement Suit Gets Class Certification
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Tobacco Firms Move to Stay "Lights" Ruling

UNITED STATES: Court Says CAFA Includes a "Typographical Error"
YUM BRANDS: Discovery Continues in Taco Bell ADA Suit in Calif.

* Milberg Weiss Prosecutor to Resign, Enters Private Practice

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DELL INC: Pomerantz Haudek Reminds Investors of Tex. Stock Suit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
PRESSTEK INC: Shapiro Haber Announces Securities Suit Filing


ARIZONA: Money Transfers Interception Program Faces New Conflict
A Chicago-based immigrant-rights group filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona asserting
the lives and property of innocent people are snared in an
Arizona program to intercept money transfers sent from dozens of
U.S. states, The Associated Press reports.

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and all persons who sent
money through a wire transfer service or banking institution to
be received in Arizona or, on information and belief, in Sonora,
Mexico, and had that money seized and converted by defendants
pursuant to a criteria-based warrant, where such money was
seized no more than two years before the filing of this lawsuit.

The suit contends that over the past several years, over $12
million have been seized in interstate and, more recently,
international money transfers, sent via wire, from literally
thousands who reside in the United States.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard's office oversees the
program intended to disrupt drug and human smuggling by
depriving those operations of payments intended for the

Common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
issues that may exist as to the class.  These common questions
of law and fact include, inter alia, the following:

      -- whether defendants lacked probable cause to believe
         that the monies the class members sent were the fruits
         or instrumentalities of crime, or otherwise subject to
         forfeiture under Arizona law, and thus violated the
         Fourth Amendment;

      -- whether defendants acted on the basis of overly broad
         seizure warrants and thus violated the Fourth

      -- whether defendants failed to give class members
         adequate and timely notice that their money had been
         seized and of the opportunity for a hearing to contest
         that seizure, thus violating the due process clause of
         the Fourteenth Amendment; and

      -- whether defendants' actions interfered with interstate
         and international commerce, in violation of the
         Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The suit seeks for:

      -- class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
         23(b)(2), and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) or
         23(b)(1), on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class,
         and designate the named plaintiffs as representative of
         the class and their counsel of record as class counsel;
      -- a prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to
         plaintiffs and members of plaintiff class, declaring
         that defendants' seizure of monies pursuant to
         "criteria-based warrants" to be in violation of the
         Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to and the Commerce
         Clause of the United States Constitution, and
         preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from
         seeking such warrants and seizing money on those bases;

      -- a restitution to plaintiffs and members of plaintiff
         class for the monies wrongfully seized from them by

In September, Western Union went to court separately to
challenge aspects of the program recently expanded to include
transfers sent to parts of northern Mexico as well as to
Arizona, the report said.

A Goddard spokeswoman said the office hadn't had a chance to
review the lawsuit and couldn't immediately comment.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

The recent suit is "Torres et al v. Goddard, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02482-MEA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Mark E Aspey.

Representing plaintiffs are Jean-Jacques Cabou and Timothy Joel
Eckstein both of Osborn Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ
85067-6379, Phone: 602-640-9000, Fax: 602-664-2064 or 602-664-
2069, E-mail: jcabou@omlaw.com or teckstein@omlaw.com.

AUSTRALIA: Mandurang Residents Consider Lawsuit v. Coliban Water
Several residents of Mandurang, Australia are considering a
class action against Coliban Water over receiving water service
bills for water they have not received, The Bendigo Advertiser

Residents will gather at a public meeting this week in Mandurang
Hall to consider taking action against the authority.  They say
that Coliban Water placed them on a zero channel allocation,
threatening their properties while continuing to charge them for
water services.

According to Doug Cahill, Mandurang farmer and meeting
organizer, he has consulted a Melbourne barrister about the
viability of a class action.  Mr. Cahill said that through the
planned meeting, he hopes to gauge community support for
establishing a fighting fund.

Mr. Cahill also said that Mandurang residents were paying
thousands of dollars in service fees, but no one in the area
would get water this summer.

He pointed out that in Bendigo they'd be rioting in the streets,
but because Mandurang residents are semi-rural users they
disregard them.

Community response was turning from a sense of thinking nothing
could be done to anger at the lack of planning and the arrogance
of the water authority, according to Mr. Cahill.

Mandurang resident David Stewart said most people's dams would
be dry within a month, leaving an alarming lack of firefighting
water for protecting homes and refilling tankers.  He adds that
many homes also relied on the water for toilets and washing.

Chateau Dore owner Ivan Grose said his business was under
serious threat without more water.  According to him, he hasn't
received any water since a half allocation in May and was using
up the last remnants in his dam.

BASF AG: Ill. Court Orders Excess Insurers to Pay Defense Costs
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
rejected appeals by BASF AG's excess insurers against the $159
million jury award handed down in June in favor of chemical
giant, according to Business Insurance reports.

According to Alan Martin, a Chicago-based attorney with Mayer,
Brown, Rowe & Maw L.L.P., which represented BASF, the U.S. unit
of Ludwigshafen, Germany-based BASF filed suit against Federal
Insurance Co., Great American Assurance Co., and International
Insurance Co.'s liability successor for not meeting its defense
obligations when a company purchased by a BASF subsidiary --
Boots Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- was sued for allegedly dishonest

Specifically, the drug company was accused of claiming there
were no adequate alternatives to Synthroid, a synthetic thyroid
hormone, and that studies revealing otherwise were false.

In 1996 and 1997, consumers filed numerous lawsuits that were
later consolidated into a class action, claiming that they had
overpaid for their medication and that a generic alternative was
available, according to Mr. Martin.

Legal documents revealed that BASF in 2000 settled the class
action for $98 million and subsequently sued its insurers for
damages, legal costs and interest.

On June 1, 2006 a federal jury in Chicago ruled that the
umbrella and excess insurers must pay BASF more than $159
million.  On Oct. 3, 2006, Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan denied all
motions challenging that verdict.

BASF Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: BF) -- http://www.basf.com-- is
a transnational chemical company that comprises the parent
company, BASF Aktiengesellschaft of Ludwigshafen, Germany, and
179 consolidated subsidiaries.  BASF has five separate business
segments: Chemicals, Plastics, Performance Products,
Agricultural Products & Nutrition, and Oil & Gas.  These
business segments encompass BASF's 12 operating divisions.  Its
operating segments include Agricultural Products and Fine

BAYER AG: Reaches $18M Settlement for Kans. Antitrust Lawsuit
Bayer AG settled for $18 million certain in a purported class
action that accuses it of conspiring with other manufacturers to
inflate the price of certain plastics, The Associated Press

Judge John Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas approved the settlement on Oct. 17, 2006.  It covers
the company's sales of polyester polyol-based products, between
Jan. 1, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2004.  Polyester polyol is a chemical
used in the manufacture of polyurethanes.

Under the settlement, German company is required to cooperate
with plaintiff attorneys as they continue their class action
against former co-defendants Uniroyal Chemical Co. and Chemtura
Corp., formerly known as Crompton Corp.

In approving the settlement, Judge Lungstrum also agreed to
dismiss defendants Rhein Chemie Corp. and Rhein Chemie Rheinau
GmbH, subsidiaries of Lanxess Corp., which was spun off from
Bayer in 2005.

Two years ago, federal authorities consolidated 16 cases filed
across the country against polymer manufacturers by customers
who alleged the companies had gotten together to fix the price
of urethane and urethane chemicals.

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (FRA: BAY) -- http://www.bayer.com/--
offers a range of products, including ethical pharmaceuticals,
diagnostics and other healthcare products, agricultural products
and polymers.  Bayer AG is the management holding company of the
Bayer Group, which includes approximately 280 consolidated
subsidiaries.  The business operations of the company are
organized into three groups: Bayer HealthCare, consisting of
Pharmaceuticals, Biological Products; Consumer Care; Diabetes
Care, Diagnostics, and Animal Health; Bayer CropScience
consisting of the Crop Protection segment and the Environmental
Science, BioScience segment, and Bayer MaterialScience
comprising the Materials segment and the Systems segment.

BAYVIEW CREMATORY: N.H. Court Certifies Class to Clients' Suit
The Rockingham County Superior Court in New Hampshire granted
class action status to one of several lawsuits filed against the
current and former owners of Bayview Crematory and several area
funeral homes, James A. Kimble of The Eagle-Tribune reports.

The crematorium in Seabrook, New Hampshire, is believed to be by
dozens of families as the site were their loved ones' remains
were mistreated.  About 25 plaintiffs have signed onto the

In 2005, police discovered that remains at the crematorium were
mishandled, mislabeled and mistreated.  Investigators later
discovered a body decomposing in an unrefrigerated unit,
unlabeled urns of ashes, and more than one body was being burned
at a time.

The lawsuit alleges negligence in the handling of bodies,
consumer protection violations and misrepresentation against
operators Derek Wallace and Linda Stokes, as well as Simplicity
Burial and Cremation Services Incorporated of Massachusetts.

Ms. Wallace is charged with eight felony counts of theft by
deception and one misdemeanor of abuse of a corpse in the
operation of the crematory.  He is set to appear for a pre-trial
hearing on Dec. 21, 2006 and for trial on Jan. 8, 2007 in
Rockingham County Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 4,

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for all forms of damage,
including emotional distress and presumed damages for the
alleged mishandling of bodies at the crematorium (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

The ruling marks the first approval that attorney lawyer David
Charlip has won among requests he has filed in Massachusetts,
New Hampshire and Maine courts.

For more details, contact David H. Charlip of The Charlip Law
Group, LC, 1930 Harrison St., Suit 208, Hollywood, FL 33020,
Phone: 954- 921-2131, Fax: 954-921-2191.

BIO-ONE CORP: Settles Fla. Securities Suit Over INI Acquisition
Parties in a securities fraud suit filed against Bio-One Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action,
according to an update posted by at the Web site of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

On Dec. 16, 2005 an investor sued Bio-One in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, accusing the
nutritional supplement company of issuing materially false and
misleading statements to the public.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Bio-One common
stock between Feb. 4, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that Bio-One and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Section 78j(b) and 78t of the Labor Code,
and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title 17 of the Code of
Federal Regulations promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, Bio-One filed false and misleading
financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission during the class period.

Plaintiffs claim these reports failed to disclose that Bio-One
did not have the capital, expertise, or personnel to succeed
with its business plan of acquiring multiple nutritional
supplement companies and had defaulted on a promissory note in
connection with its acquisition of Interactive Nutritional

Plaintiffs further claim that Bio-One's former chief executive,
Armand Dauplaise, used the company's bank accounts as if they
were his own and that the company failed to disclose the fact
that Mr. Dauplaise's son was acting as its de facto treasurer.

The complaint focuses on Bio-One's March 31, 2004 acquisition of
INI, for which the company pledged to pay CA$30 million, half in
cash and half through a promissory note.

Though the company pledged to begin making monthly installments
on the CA$15 million note July 1, 2004, it never made a single
payment, the complaint said.

Bio-One did not disclose its failure to make payments on the
promissory note, the complaint alleges, even though the company
signed two forbearance agreements and was notified on Dec. 13,
2004 that the note holder planned to seize INI's assets as a

The company belatedly disclosed to the SEC that it had defaulted
on the INI promissory note.  Following the February
announcement, shares of Bio-One began to significantly decline
in price.

A week later, the company announced it had fired Mr. Dauplaise.
The company, which had traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under
the symbol BICO, has since been delisted.

On Feb. 21, 2006, a motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel was filed with the court.  The motion was
referred to Magistrate Judge David Baker and on June 2, 2006,
Magistrate Judge Baker issued his Report and Recommendations and
Order recommending the appointment of lead plaintiffs and Berman
DeValerio as lead counsel.  On June 20, 2006, Judge Anne Conway
adopted Magistrate Judge Baker's Report & Recommendation.

On Aug 8, 2006 lead plaintiffs filed a notice stating the
parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action.  The parties anticipate filing a stipulation of
settlement within sixty days.

The suit is "Molema v. Bio-One Corporation, et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01859-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is Marc J. Greenspon of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Ave., Suite
900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561/835-9400, Fax:
561/835-0322, E-mail: mgreenspon@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants is Dianne O. Fischer of Kluger,
Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., The Miami Center, 17th Floor, 201
S. Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305/379-9000, E-mail:

CABLE & WIRELESS: Panama Court OKs 40-Second Billing Method Suit
A civil court in Panama has accepted a class action against the
country's largest telecommunications company Cable & Wireless
PLC (C&WP), filed by consumer rights association Uni¢n Nacional
de Consumidores (Uncurepa), on behalf of customers alleging
overcharging, the La Prensa reports.

The suit seeks damages of US$3,000 for every consumer wrongly

Originally filed in 2005, the suit was filed because C&WP has
stalled on a July 2005 pay back order from former public
services regulator Ente Regulador de los Servicios P£blicos
(ERSP) with injunctions.

According to the ERSP, from January 2003 to May 2005 C&WP was
charging US$0.15 for every 40-second pulse, when the regulator
alleges it was charging per minute.

C&WP then claimed that only 40 seconds of each minute had been
used and applied an additional charge for what it perceived as
the 20 seconds of each minute not initially charged for. The
billing error applied to local, national and international

The ERSP's statutes were changed in February 2006 when it became
the national public services authority (ASEP).

But C&WP's corporate affairs director Roberto Mendoza said the
company is in possession of a letter from ERSP confirming that
the 40-second billing method was valid.

However, Uncurepa has argued that the 40-second billing method
could only prove valid if there had been a formal ERSP
resolution, and that a letter was not enough evidence in this

Uncurepa lawyer Giovani Fletcher represents the plaintiffs.

Headquartered in London, Cable & Wireless PLC --
http://www.cw.com/new/-- provides voice, data and IP (Internet
Protocol) services to business and residential customers, as
well as services to other telecoms carriers, mobile operators
and providers of content, applications and Internet services.
Its principal operations are in the United Kingdom, continental
Europe, Asia, the Caribbean, Panama and the Middle East.

CALIFORNIA: Nov. 27 Hearing Set for Deaf/Hearing Impaired Deal
The U.S. District Court for Central District of California will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matters:

      -- "Thelma Valenzuela, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et
         al., Case No. CV-02-9092 ABC (JWJx)," and

      -- "Joseph Genova v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case
         No. CV 05-2017 ABC (JWJx)."

The fairness hearing will be held before Judge Audrey B. Collins
in the U.S. District Court, Edward R. Roybal Federal Building &
Courthouse, Courtroom 680, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles,

Any objections must be made on or before Nov. 3, 2006.

The lawsuits are alleging that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department (LASD) failed to provide effective communication to
people who are deaf or hard of hearing.  They also named as a
defendant the County of Los Angeles itself.

It was brought on behalf of people who are deaf or hard of
hearing, and who have had or may have contact with LASD or Los
Angeles County, including during investigation, arrest, booking,
incarceration or interrogation while in LASD's custody.

For more details, contact:

       (1) Disability Rights Legal Center, Attn: Valenzuela /
           Genova Settlement, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA
           90015, Web site http://researcharchives.com/t/s?13c1;

       (2) Donald W. Cook of Mann & Cook, 3435 Wilshire Blvd.,
           Ste. 2900, Los Angeles, CA 90010, Phone: 213-252-
           9444, E-mail: doncook@earthlink.net.

CANADA: Certification Sought for Suit Over Breast Cancer Tests
The Newfoundland Supreme Court is being asked by forty-one women
certify the class action arising from errors made in testing
tissue samples, according to CBC News.

The women are all breast cancer patients whose tissue samples
had to be retested due to errors that were first disclosed in
2005.  Some of the samples date as far back as 1997.

The Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority was sued for
allegedly wrongly diagnosing several women that they have breast

The suit was filed by Verna Doucette in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland on behalf of a group of women who feel they
suffered as a result of testing problems in the pathology
department (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2006).

St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie said women involved in the suit

     -- those who say they suffered mental stress after learning
        their tissue samples were being retested;

     -- those whose say their estrogen and progesterone receptor
        tests were changed from negative to positive and they
        were unnecessarily treated with chemotherapy; and

     -- those who were allegedly misdiagnosed with breast

Mr. Crosbie estimates that as many as 1,000 women may be
involved.  The suit did not specify the amount of damages being

Ms. Doucette said in its statement of claim that Eastern Health
noticed in 2005 that some patients diagnosed with breast cancer
since 1997 were not responding as expected to treatment.

On re-testing by the Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto of tissue
samples from approximately 1,000 patients of Eastern Regional,
results showed an error rate of at least 10 to 20 per cent when
testing for estrogen and progesterone receptors.

According to Mr. Crosbie, little information has been revealed
about how many women received erroneous results from hormone
receptor tests, which indicate what type of treatment is

Mr. Crosbie told CBC News that the women have not been given any
information since a year ago about the rate of reversal, or
error rate, adding "if you want to call it that."

Eastern Regional said that it does not yet know for certain what
the rate of error was in the tissue sampling.

Court proceedings on Mr. Crosbie's application begin in
November.  Another law firm is representing 24 additional women,
but is not yet part of the request to certify the class action.
However, if the court approves Mr. Crosbie's application, those
women and others that have yet to join could be covered.

The tests showed whether cancer cells respond to particular
hormones.  If the results are positive, patients are usually
treated with the hormone therapy tamoxifen.

For more information, contact Ches Crosbie, Phone: 1-888-579-
3262 or 579-4000, E-mail: ccb@chescrosbie.nf.net, Web site:

CANADA: Government to Review Agent Orange Compensation Package
Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson hopes to take a
compensation package to federal cabinet this fall for people who
claimed that they harmed by defoliant spraying at Canadian
Forces Base Gagetown, The Canadian Press reports.

According to the minister, he expects the proposed compensation
to be around $20,000 per person, but cabinet ultimately will
approve the amount.

The money could be handed out next year to people, who claim to
have suffered, because of the chemical sprays applied liberally
to the sprawling training base in southern New Brunswick from
the 1950s to the 1980s.

The spray programs included U.S. military tests of defoliants
such as Agent Orange and Agent Purple in the 1960s.  The sprays
were used along with a host of other agents to clear jungles
during the Vietnam War.

Hundreds of people who worked on the base or lived near it when
the aerial sprays were used say the spraying activities harmed
their health.

Minister Thompson though cautions that compensation will be
limited to people that can prove they are suffering from
illnesses linked to exposure to toxins in the chemical sprays.

He adds that the government will rely on research put together
by the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which has listed five
conditions linked to Agent Orange exposure, including non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, a type of leukemia and
soft tissue sarcomas.

The institute has also identified several other diseases that
may be associated with dioxin exposure, including prostate
cancer, diabetes and spina bifida in the children of veterans.

When asked about the compensation process, the minister said
that most of it would hinge on existing medical information,
which has been established by the U.S. Institute of Medicine,
where most of the research has been done on Agent Orange.  He
pointed out "that is where the consideration for compensation
will have to fall, on that body of medicine."

Some of the affected individuals though have expressed
skepticism towards the compensations package.  On such person is
John Chisholm, a Gagetown veteran who is battling prostate

Mr. Chisholm, who believes his cancer was triggered by Agent
Orange exposure, specifically said the compensation is somewhat

However, he was quick to point out that people are dying and
thus will take what they can get.  "The sooner the better.  Guys
are getting older and they're dying off faster.  We've got to
get something for them," according to Mr. Chisholm, who lives in
the Oromocto area.

In addition to the compensation process, a class action against
the federal government will be heard in Manitoba involving about
1,500 people who say the Gagetown spraying programs harmed them.

Lawyers working on the suit say they believe some of the people
involved are entitled to settlements of more than $1 million

Art Connolly of the Agent Orange Association, which is involved
in the suit, said the compensation being considered by Ottawa is
just part of a public relations exercise to get rid of the
issue.  "It's hush money," according to him.

He added that a compensation package in the neighborhood of
$20,000 to $25,000 would just about cover Greg Thompson's travel
budget for three months.

Merchant Law Group filed the suit in July 2005.  Previously, Mr.
Thompson, who is the designated plaintiff in the case,
reportedly said what they have is a lead plaintiff in every
province.  There are least 1,000 other plaintiffs across the

Mr. Thompson served in Gagetown base where U.S. military sprayed
herbicides between the mid 1950s and 1984.  In the 1960s they
tested defoliants Agent Purple and Agent Orange.  Mr. Thompson
was stationed in the base in 1966-1970 and in 1981-1987 (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2006).

Mr. Thompson has multiple sclerosis and Graves' disease, his son
has Crohn's disease and his grandson is severely autistic,
according to the report.

Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com/.

CLOROX CO: Law Firm Files Back-Dated Stock Option Grants Lawsuit
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Clorox Co.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director
stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock options).

Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and
directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the
company's internal documents (such as the company's stock option
plan), as well as state laws governing officer and director
fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and

In addition, the practice results in lower payments to
companies, results in those companies under-reporting
compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or
executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of
dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate
coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the

Headquartered in Oakland, Calif., Clorox Company (NYSE: CLX) --
http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/-- manufactures and markets
household products, domestically and internationally, and
products for institutional markets.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-
337-4983 toll-free, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com,
Website: http://www.ssbny.com.

DRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Execs. Indicted in Bid-Rigging Scheme
A federal grand jury in San Francisco returned an indictment
against two executives from Samsung Electronics Ltd. (Samsung)
and one executive from Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (Hynix
America) for their participation in a global conspiracy to fix
DRAM prices, the Department of Justice announced.

The indictment, filed in the U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, charged that Il Ung Kim, Young Bae Rha and Gary
Swanson participated with co-conspirators in the conspiracy from
on or about April 1, 2001, until on or about June 15, 2002.

At the time of the conspiracy, Mr. Kim was vice president of
marketing for the memory division at Samsung.  Mr. Rha was vice
president of sales and marketing for the memory division at
Samsung.  Both Mr. Kim and Mr. Rha are citizens and residents of

At the time of the conspiracy, Mr. Swanson was senior vice
president of memory sales and marketing for Hynix America, the
U.S.-based subsidiary of Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (Hynix), which
is headquartered in Korea.  Mr. Swanson is a resident and
citizen of the U.S.

"The Antitrust Division will vigorously pursue individuals who
engage in criminal cartel conspiracies," said Thomas O. Barnett,
assistant attorney general in charge of the Department of
Justice's Antitrust Division. "Criminal cartel enforcement is
the Division's top priority and both companies and individuals
must comply with the antitrust laws."

In June, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California certified a class action
filed against manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory. The
suit claims that several computer memory manufacturers illegally
conspired to fix the price of computer memory.

The suit was filed in 2002 by 11 technology companies against

     -- Micron Technology, Inc.,
     -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
     -- Crucial Technology, Inc.,
     -- Infineon Technologies AG,
     -- Infineon Technologies North America Corp.,
     -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
     -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
     -- Mosel Vitelic Corporation,
     -- Mosel Vitelic Corporation (USA),
     -- Nanya Technology Corporation,
     -- Nanya Technology Corporation USA,
     -- Winbond Electronics Corporation,
     -- Winbond Electronics Corporation America,
     -- Elpida Memory, Inc.,
     -- Elpida Memory (USA), Inc.,
     -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.

The defendants in the case controlled a vast majority of DRAM
production at the time of filing, an industry with revenue
estimated at $20 billion.

According to the complaint, beginning in 1999 the price for DRAM
began falling dramatically, dipping below the cost of
production.  Then, in September 2001, DRAM prices spiked and by
February 2002 reached as high as $4.50, the complaint states.
In mid-2002, media reports cited statements by DRAM manufacturer
Mosel Vitelic's Vice President Thomas Chang that the company
held price-fixing meetings with other manufacturers where they
agreed to reduce production to boost prices.

The original lawsuit claims antitrust violations under The
Sherman Act.  The cases were consolidated and moved to U.S.
District Court in San Francisco.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction to
end the price-fixing activities, and award the plaintiffs and
members of the class damages, which are trebled under antitrust

The certified class includes anyone who purchased DRAM directly
from the defendants between April 1, 1999 and June 22, 2002.

Including the indictment, four companies and 16 individuals have
been charged and fines totaling more that $731 million have
resulted from the department's ongoing antitrust investigation
into the DRAM industry.

The indictment charges that the three executives and their co-
conspirators carried out the conspiracy in a variety of ways,

     -- Attending meetings and participating in telephone
        conversations in the U.S. and elsewhere to discuss the
        prices of DRAM to be sold to certain original equipment
        manufacturers (OEMs);

     -- Agreeing during those meetings and telephone
        conversations to charge prices of DRAM at certain levels
        to be sold to certain OEMs;

     -- Exchanging information on sales of DRAM to certain OEM
        customers, for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing
        adherence to the agreed-upon prices;

     -- Agreeing during those meetings and telephone
        conversations to raise and maintain prices of DRAM to be
        sold to certain OEMs;

     -- Agreeing during those meetings and telephone discussions
        to rig the online auction, sponsored by Compaq Computer
        Corporation on Nov. 29, 2001, by not submitting a bid in
        the auction, or by submitting intentionally high prices
        on the bids in the auction;

     -- Authorizing, ordering and consenting to the
        participation of subordinate employees in the

     -- Issuing price quotations in accordance with the
        agreements reached;

     -- Accepting payment for the supply of DRAM sold at
        collusive, noncompetitive prices to certain OEM
        customers in the United States and elsewhere; and

     -- Concealing the conspiracy and conspiratorial contacts
        through various means.

Three foreign-based Samsung executives, Sun Woo Lee, Yeongho
Kang and Young Woo Lee, pleaded guilty to the DRAM price-fixing
conspiracy in March and August 2006. The Samsung employees
agreed to serve prison terms ranging from seven to eight months
and to each pay a $250,000 fine.

In September 2006, Thomas Quinn, the fourth Samsung executive
charged, agreed to plead guilty to the DRAM price-fixing
conspiracy, and charges have been filed. Under a plea agreement,
which must be approved by the court, Quinn has agreed to serve
eight months in prison and to pay a criminal fine of $250,000.

In addition, four Hynix Semiconductor Inc. executives, Dae Soo
Kim, Chae Kyun Chung, Kun Chul Suh and Choon Yub Choi, were
charged with participating in the DRAM price-fixing conspiracy
and agreed to plead guilty and serve jail terms ranging from
five to eight months and to each pay a $250,000 fine.

In December 2004, four executives of Infineon Technologies AG --
T. Rudd Corwin, Peter Schaefer, Gunter Hefner and Heinrich
Florian -- pleaded guilty to the DRAM price-fixing conspiracy.
The Infineon employees served jail terms ranging from four to
six months and each paid a $250,000 fine.

Also, in December 2003, the Department charged Alfred Censullo,
a regional sales manager for Micron Technology Inc., with
obstruction of justice. Mr. Censullo pleaded guilty and admitted
to having withheld and altered documents responsive to a grand
jury subpoena served on Micron. He was sentenced to serve six
months of home detention.

In total, four companies have been charged with price-fixing in
the DRAM investigation. Samsung pleaded guilty to the price
fixing conspiracy and was sentenced to pay a $300 million
criminal fine in November 2005.

Hynix, the world's second largest DRAM manufacturer, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to pay a $185 million criminal fine in
May 2005. Japanese manufacturer Elpida Memory pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to pay an $84 million fine in March 2006.

German manufacturer Infineon pleaded guilty and was sentenced to
pay a $160 million criminal fine in October 2004.

DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product,
providing high-speed storage and retrieval of electronic
information for a wide variety of computer, telecommunication
and consumer electronic products. DRAM is used in personal
computers, laptops, workstations, servers, printers, hard disk
drives, personal digital assistants (PDAs), modems, mobile
phones, telecommunication hubs and routers, digital cameras,
video recorders and TVs, digital set-top boxes, game consoles
and digital music players. There were approximately $7.7 billion
in DRAM sales in the United States alone in 2004.

Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herze are class counsel.

The class suit is "In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:02-cv-01486-PJH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton with referral to Judge Joseph C.

EASTERN HOMES: June 2007 Scheduled for Md. Homeowners' Lawsuit
A tentative June 2007 trial is slated for the class action in
Howard County Circuit Court in Maryland against Eastern Homes,
Inc. over faulty manufactured homes, Jessup homebuilder sued
over alleged negligence, according to The Business Gazette.

According to Bethesda attorney Lawrence J. Anderson, who
represents homeowner/lead plaintiff Lawrence Corwin, the case
could affect more than 500 homeowners throughout Maryland.

It will specifically cover manufactured homes installed by
Eastern Homes after Aug. 25, 2000 that were affected by a
ground-anchoring problem.

Eastern Homes, according to court documents, has installed homes
in numerous Maryland counties besides Howard, including
Frederick, Baltimore and Charles.  Eastern Homes isn't a
Maryland builder association member, however it is registered
with the state as a builder.

Court documents revealed that in depositions or hearings,
experts for the plaintiffs testified that the manufactured homes
they inspected had cracked blocks, loose anchor straps and other

In an August ruling, Howard Circuit Judge Lenore R. Gelfman
cited that expert testimony in ruling in favor of class
certification, boosting the plaintiffs' case.  It is tentatively
slated for trial next June.

Mr. Corwin said he doesn't feel safe in his home and doesn't
want to try to fix the problem himself while the matter is in
court.  "When there is a strong wind, I can feel it," he said.

For more details, contact Lawrence J. Anderson of Pels Anderson
& Lee, LLC, 4833 Rugby Ave., 4th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20814-3035,
Phone: (301) 986-5570, Fax: (301) 986-5571, Web site:

GOOGLE INC: N.Y. Court Consolidates Copyright Infringement Suits
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered the consolidation of two copyright infringement lawsuits
filed against Google, Inc., according to Dow Jones Newswires.

On Oct. 12, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo consolidated the two
cases one filed by book publishers and the authors.  The
consolidation streamlines the process by which lawyers for
Google, the publishers and the authors argue about evidence to
be used in both cases.

Without consolidation, each case would have undergone its own
discovery process.  Now, however, there will just be one
discovery phase to determine what's to be presented in both
cases, with publishers and authors teaming up.

The streamlining was inevitable since the authors and publishers
accuse Google of virtually the same thing, and plan to use the
same kind of evidence, according to the report.

In addition to the consolidation of the cases, Judge Sprizzo
also set a long schedule for the case.  According to his
schedule, he won't be deciding the cases until at least February
2008, perhaps even as late as May 2008.

The Authors Guild filed its lawsuit against Google on Sept. 20,
2005.  A month later a group of major book publishers led by The
McGraw-Hill Companies filed their suit against Google.

Each suit accuses Google of allowing copyrighted material to
appear in its searchable book feature, known as Google Books,
without permission.

The two lawsuits are part of a larger struggle to contain the
spread of copyrighted material on the Internet, be it the
contents of copyrighted books, music or movies.

The Author's Guild case is captioned, "The Author's Guild, et
al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-08136-JES."  It first
amended class action complaint was filed recently (Class Action
Reporter, June 21, 2006).

Besides the Guild, whose primary purpose is to advocate for and
support the copyright and contractual interests of published
writers, these published authors were also named as plaintiffs
in the case:

      -- Herbert Mitgang;
      -- Betty Miles;
      -- Daniel Hoffman;
      -- Paul Dickson; and
      -- Joseph Goulden.

According to the amended complaint, their works are contained in
certain public and university libraries and were never licensed
for commercial use.

The suit states that Google contracted with several public and
university libraries to create "digital archives" of the their
respective collections of books, including that of the
University of Michigan's Library.

It further states that as part of the consideration for creating
the "digital archives," the company's agreement entitled it to
reproduce and retain for its own commercial use a digital copy
of the libraries' archive.

The suit alleges that the company is engaging in massive
copyright infringement by creating a digital copy of works that
are not in the public domain (Works), by reproducing for its own
use a digital copy of the Works, and by distributing and
publicly displaying said Works.

The suit said the company infringed, and continues to infringe,
the electronic rights of the copyright holders of the Works.

Furthermore, the suit contends that the company knew or should
have known that the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et
seq., required it to obtain authorization from the holders of
the copyrights in these Works before creating, distributing and
reproducing digital copies of the Works for the libraries, for
its own commercial use and for the use of others.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief with respect to the company's planned unauthorized
commercial use of the works.

The company recently announced plans to reproduce the Works for
use in its Web site in order to attract visitors to the site and
generate advertising revenue, according to the complaint.

The first amended class action complaint in The Author's Guild
is available free of charge:


Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael J. Boni and J. Kate Reznick of Kohn, Swift &
         Graft, P.C., One South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA
         19107, Phone: (215) 238-1968 and (215) 238-1700, Fax:
         (215) 238-1968.

     (2) Sanford P. Dumain and Laura Helen Gundersheim of
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-
         5300, Fax: 212-868-1229 and (212) 273-4481, E-mail:
         sdumain@milbergweiss.com and

Representing the defendant is Ronald Lee Raider of Kilpatrick
Stockton, LLP, (GA), 1100 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2800, Atlanta,
GA 30309-4530, Phone: (404)-532-6909, Fax: (404)-815-6555, E-
mail: rraider@kilpatrickstockton.com.

LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Dexia, Ex-Officers Still Face Securities Suit
Dexia Bank Belgium remains a defendant in the consolidated
securities litigation filed against Lernout & Hauspie Products,
N.V. in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts.

Dexia and former top officers of Lernout & Hauspie who were
unable to participate in the settlement of the suit are
continuing with the discovery phase of the litigation.

On Aug. 11, 2000, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed a shareholder lawsuit against Lernout & Hauspie Speech
Products N.V. in the U.S. District Court for the District of

This action, which seeks damages for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, was originally brought on behalf of all
investors who purchased L&H common stock from Dec. 28, 1999
through and including Aug. 7, 2000.

In January 2001, the court appointed three shareholders as lead
plaintiffs and appointed Berman DeValerio as one of three co-
lead counsel.

On Sept. 21, 2001, lead plaintiffs filed their first
consolidated and amended complaint against certain officers and
directors of L&H, KPMG and other defendants involved in the
securities fraud at the company.

Lead plaintiffs also expanded their class Period to include all
investors who purchased L&H common stock or call options or sold
L&H put options from April 28, 1998 through and including Nov.
8, 2000.  The company was not named as a defendant in the
complaint due to its November 2000 bankruptcy filing.

During 2002, lead plaintiffs successfully defeated several
motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.  The case then
proceeded into the discovery phase of the litigation.


(1) KPMG Settlement

On Oct. 7, 2004, Berman DeValerio announced that accounting
firms KPMG Bedrijfsrevisoren of Belgium (KPMG Belgium) and KPMG
LLP of the United States (together the "KPMG Defendants") agreed
to pay a total of $115 million to settle the claims against them
stemming from the collapse of L&H.  The payment by the KPMG
defendants represents one of the largest combined recoveries
from accounting firms in a securities class action.

On Oct. 14, 2004, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of this partial settlement with the KPMG Defendants and
certifying the action "as a class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of L&H on the
NASDAQ Stock Market or who purchased L&H call options or sold
L&H put options on any United States-based options exchange
between April 28, 1999 and Nov. 9, 2000, inclusive."

On Dec. 22, 2004, Judge Saris signed an order and final judgment
approving the settlement and the Plan of Allocation and awarding
plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees.  Claims filing deadline was
set March 31, 2005.  A.B. Data, Ltd. processed the claim forms.

(2) Directors & Flanders Language Valley Fund C.V.A. Deal

After arms-length negotiations,

     (i) lead plaintiffs and Ellen Spooren, Francis
         Vanderhoydonck, RVD Securities N.V., Erwin
         Vandendriessche, Dirk Cauwelier and Marc G.H. De Pauw
         (the "Director Defendants"); and

    (ii) Fernand Cloet, Jan Coene, Hubert Detremmerie, Alex
         Vieux, Gerard van Acker and Bernard Vergnes ("Dismissed
         Director Defendants" and, collectively with the
         Director Defendants, the "Settling Director

agreed to settle the claims against the Director Defendants.

Pursuant to the terms of the Director Settlement, a Settlement
Fund in the amount of $5,270,000 has been created for the
benefit of the class.

On March 2, 2005, lead plaintiffs and defendant FLV entered into
a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the claims
asserted against FLV.  Pursuant to the terms of FLV proposed
settlement, as set forth in the FLV Stipulation, a Settlement
Fund in the amount of $250,000 has been created for the benefit
of the Class.

On July 18, 2005, Judge Patti B. Saris signed a Final Judgment
approving the Settlements and the Plan of Allocation and
awarding plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses.  Deadline to file Proof of Claim and Release form
was set for July 22, 2005.

                     Continuing Litigation

The case is continuing against L & H's former top officers,
Jozef Lernout, Pol Hauspie, Nico Wallaert and Gaston Bastiaens,
who are subject to a criminal investigation, as well.

In addition, in August 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a claim
against Dexia Bank Belgium based on the role Artesia Banking
Corp., S.A. played in the fraud at L&H. Artesia was acquired by
Dexia in 2001.

The complaint alleges that Artesia was a key participant in the
Language Development Company (LDC) fraud at L&H and that L&H
could not have perpetrated this massive accounting fraud without
Artesia's knowledge and collaboration.

As alleged, Artesia helped to set up and finance the LDCs, and
provided L&H with loans, through its principal officers, which
L&H then used to book fictitious revenue from these shell

Specifically, Artesia issued 3 separate loans in 1998 and 1999,
totaling more than $20 million, which were used to artificially
inflate L&H's revenues as part of the strategic partner aspect
of L&H's fraudulent scheme.

At its core, L&H booked as revenue the cash it obtained from
Artesia's loans, even though these loans would ultimately have
to be repaid.

In other words, L&H, with Artesia's full knowledge, was
essentially transferring cash from one pocket to another, and
booking that transfer as revenue.

Dexia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 9,
2005, the court denied that motion.  The case proceeded into the
discovery phase of the litigation.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding
additional facts uncovered during discovery.  This complaint
alleges that at the same time Dexia was involved in the fraud at
L&H, its captive subsidiary, Artesia Securities, was issuing
numerous fraudulent analyst reports touting L&H stock.

The third amended complaint further alleges that at the same
time, Artesia was also selling millions of dollars of L&H stock
to the unsuspecting public.

Dexia moved to dismiss the third amended complaint.  On June 23,
2006, the court heard arguments on Dexia's motion and on Aug. 8,
2006, Judge Saris issued a Memorandum & Order denying Dexia's

The parties are continuing with the discovery phase of the

The suit is "In re Lernout & Hauspie Products, N.V., Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 1:00cv11589," filed in U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts under Patti B. Saris with referral to
Judge Robert B. Collings.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey C. Block of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, 8th
Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194,
E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com.

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Approves $7.025M Settlement
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
approved the proposed $7,025,000 settlement in the matter,
"Primavera Investors, et al. v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ."

In connection with the settlement, Liquidmetal's directors' and
officers' liability insurers contributed $7,025,000 to a
settlement fund, from which claims of eligible class members
will be paid in accordance with a Court-approved plan of

The consolidated class action arose from a number of lawsuits
filed in 2004 under the federal securities laws against
Liquidmetal and certain of its former and current directors and

The class action settlement is part of a previously-disclosed
agreement to settle the class action and two pending derivative
actions, which were also filed in 2004 based upon the same facts
and circumstances underlying the class action, for a total of
$7.5 million: $7,025,000 for the consolidated class action, and
$475,000 for the two derivative actions.

In addition, Liquidmetal will commit to maintain or implement
various corporate governance measures in connection with the
settlement of the derivative actions. Final documentation and
approval of the settlement of the derivative actions remains

The case was filed on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between May
21, 2002 and May 13, 2004, including those who purchased shares
pursuant or traceable to the company's registration statement
and prospectus for its May 21, 2002 IPO of 5,000,000 shares at
$15.00 per share (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2006).

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

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

      -- individual defendants as control persons are liable
         under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933;

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

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

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

The suit is "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech., et al.,
Case No. 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Steven D.
Merryday with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ariel Acevedo and Christopher S. Jones both of Saxena
         White P.A., Suite 257, 2424 N. Federal Hwy, Boca Raton,
         FL 33431-7781, Phone: 561 394-3399, Fax: 561 394-3382,
         E-mail: aacevedo@saxenawhite.com or

     (2) Andrew L. Barroway of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLC, 280
         King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610/667-
         7706, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Aaron Brody and Jules Brody both of Stull, Stull &
         Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212/687-7230, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail:

     (4) Richard B. Brualdi of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29
         Broadway, Suite 1515, New York, NY 10006, Phone:

     (5) Brian M. Felgoise of th Law Offices of Brian M.
         Felgoise, 261 Old York Rd., Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA
         19046, Phone: 215/886-1900;

     (6) Jeffrey P. Fink of Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, 610 West
         Ash Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         618/525-3990, Fax: 619/525-3991, E-mail:

     (7) Robert I. Harwood and Samuel K. Rosen both of Wechsler,
         Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY
         10022, Phone: 212/935-7400;

     (8) Paul J. Geller and Jack Reise both of Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 120 E. Palmetto
         Park Rd., Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone:
         561/750-3000, Fax: 561/750-3364, E-mail:
         pgeller@lerachlaw.com or jreise@lerachlaw.com; and
         William S. Lerach and Darren J. Robbins both of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 W.
         Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-8498, Phone:
         619/231-1058; and

     (9) Charles Piven of the Law Offices of Charles J. Piven,
         P.A., World Trade Center, Suite 2525, 401 E. Pratt St.,
         Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/332-0030.

Representing defendants are Michael L. Chapman of Holland &
Knight, LLP, 100 N Tampa St - Ste 4100, PO Box 1288, Tampa, FL
33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax: 813/229-0134, E-mail:
michael.chapman@hklaw.com; and Tiffani G. Lee and Tracy A.
Nichols both of Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell Ave., Suite
3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-5441, Phone: 305/374-8500
ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com and

MEDIA WORLD: Sued Over Failed Video-On-Demand Services Venture
Australian company Media World Communications Ltd., formerly
Werrie Gold Ltd., is facing a class action filed on behalf of
people who bought shares in the company between Oct. 2000 and
Sept. 1, 2004.

Shares in the company were suspended in 2002.  In 2004, its
board appointed C Crosbie of PPB as administrator.  The
administrator commences legal proceedings against Adam Clark --
the developer and inventor of Adams Platform Technology (APT)
and a director of MWC -- and companies associated with him.  The
administrator alleges breaches of director's duties and
misleading and deceptive conduct.

In 2005, shareholders launched a $35 million class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria against Media World and its current
and former directors through law firms Goldman Partners and
Maurice Blackburn Cashman for losses suffered from their
investment in the company.

The suit was also filed against Mr. Clark's father, various
companies associated with him, various directors of Media World,
Terrain Capital and the independent international testing group
that verified the technology, The Tolly Group, for misleading
and deceptive representations.

Media World failed to achieve a promise to shareholders that it
would achieve 14 per cent penetration of Australian TV
households within five years of starting video-on-demand
services and would derive annual operating income from those
services in Australia of $145 million before launching into
international markets worth more than $127 billion.

For more details, contact Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Phone: 02
9261 1488.

MICROSOFT CORP: "Conlin" Still in Iowa Consumer Antitrust Suit
Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg declined to
disqualify Des Moines attorney Roxanne Conlin from a consumer
antitrust class actions filed against Microsoft Corp., the
Associated Press reports.

The judge ruled that Ms. Conlin's actions were not unethical.
Even if the documents were confidential, they were not

Earlier, Microsoft Corp. lawyers sought for the removal of Ms.
Conlin from the antitrust suit, claiming she was unethical when
she solicited confidential information from a former employee of
a company that had worked for Microsoft on a previous antitrust
case (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).

Microsoft has accused her of unethical conduct.

Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:

     (i) personal computer operating system software, and

    (ii) applications software, including word processing,
         spreadsheet and office-suite software.

The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed Class Members by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;

      -- denying class members free choice in software products
         and the benefits of software innovation; and

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security

Plaintiffs also allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

However, Microsoft denies the claims and maintains that it
developed and sold high quality software products at fair and
reasonable prices.

Specifically, Microsoft contends that it did not overcharge for
its software and that consumers benefited from being able to
purchase high quality software products.

Microsoft also contends that consumers benefited from being able
to purchase high quality products that were continually improved
and enhanced through Microsoft's research and development

Further, Microsoft contends that it developed products that
responded to consumer desires and that were more attractive to
consumers than the products offered by its competitors.

According Ms. Conlin, her experts have estimated that
individuals and businesses were overcharged as much as $453
million for Microsoft products in the past 12 years, since a
lack of competition has inflated the cost of the company's
products (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2006).

In Iowa, about 5.1 million licenses for Microsoft Windows have
been issued, 1.8 million for Office, 446,373 for Word and about
21,349 for Excel.

Ms. Conlin pointed out that the average consumer overcharges
ranges from $10.50 for buyers of Word to $56.99 to those who
purchased Excel.  She also pointed out that many customers might
have purchased more than one version in 12 years, thus they
could be eligible for multiples of those amounts.

Microsoft attorney David Tulchin accused Ms. Conlin of lying to
the company and the court and "soliciting and obtaining stolen
property that belonged to Microsoft."

Ms. Conlin's lawyer, Mark Tripp, said she did nothing wrong and
accused Microsoft of engaging in an "ethical witch hunt."

A trial is scheduled to begin on or after Nov. 13, 2006.

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com

The counsels representing the Class Members are:

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: (515) 283-
         1111, Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, Email:
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.

Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:

MICROSOFT CORP: Court Issues Antitrust Suit Settlement Notices
A notice program authorized by the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court began on Oct. 20, 2006 issuing notices to Wisconsin
consumers and businesses that acquired Microsoft Corp. software
from Dec. 7, 1993 through April 30, 2003, for use in the state.

The notices are the result of a proposed settlement in class
actions about whether Microsoft violated Wisconsin's antitrust
and unfair competition laws by overcharging customers for some
of its operating systems, word processing, and spreadsheet

The class actions covered in these cases are:

      -- "Spence v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 00-CV-003042,"
      -- "Capp v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 05-CV-011127," and
      -- "Bettendorf v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 05-CV-010927.

The company denies that it did anything wrong, and the
settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication
that any law was violated.  The court did not rule on the merits
of the lawsuit either.

The settlement includes consumers who, from Dec. 7, 1993 through
and including April 30, 2003, resided or were located in
Wisconsin and indirectly purchased (i.e., purchased from someone
other than Microsoft) in the U.S. a license for a Microsoft
Operating System and/or Microsoft Application for use in
Wisconsin and who did not purchase it for resale.

Microsoft Corp. will distribute up to $223,896,000 in vouchers
that eligible consumers and businesses can redeem to buy
computers, peripheral computer hardware, or computer software
made by any manufacturer.

Notices informing class members about their legal rights will be
mailed and emailed, and are scheduled to appear in newspapers
and magazines in Wisconsin, leading up to a hearing on March 30,
2007, when the court will consider whether to approve the

Those affected by this settlement can send in a claim form to
ask for benefits, or they can ask to be excluded from, or object
to, the settlement.  The deadline for objections and exclusions
is Feb. 13, 2007.

The deadline to file claims is June 30, 2007 or 30 days after
the court grants "final approval" to the settlement, whichever
comes later.

The court appointed Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C.,
Richard M. Hagstrom of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette
LLP, and Mark A. Maasch of Turner & Maasch, Inc. as "co-lead
settlement class counsel."

The court also appointed those lawyers together with John L.
Cates of Gingras, Cates & Leubke, S.C., Roxanne B. Conlin of
Roxanne Conlin & Associates, John F. Maloney of McNally, Maloney
& Peterson, S.C., Andrew T. Phillips of Stadler, Centofani &
Phillips, S.C., and James T. Remington of Remington Law Offices
to represent you and other class members as "settlement class

For more details, contact:

     (1) Microsoft-Wisconsin Settlement, PO Box 1626,
         Minneapolis, MN 55440, Phone: 1-800-598-3050, Web site:

     (2) Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., Phone: +1-
         312-621-2000; and

     (3) Jack Evans of Microsoft Corp., Phone: +1-425-706-1863.

NEW JERSEY: Nov. 2 Hearing Set For Copy Gouging Suit Settlement
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington
County will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 2, 2006 for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "Joseph Dugan, et al. v.
Camden County Clerk's Office and Burlington County Clerk's
Office, et al., Docket No. BUR-L-002906-03."

Joseph Dugan filed the suit back in 2003 on behalf of all
persons and entities that obtained copies on the "self service"
equipment located in the Camden & Burlington County Clerk's

The suit named as defendants: Camden County Clerk James Beach
and Burlington County Clerk Philip Haines.  It alleges that the
fees for self-service copies at the counties are in violation of
the state Open Public Records Act.  Sander Friedman and Donald
M. Doherty of Friedman Doherty, LLC, represented Mr. Dugan in
the case (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

Under the Open Public Records Act, public agencies can charge a
sliding scale of 75 cents per page for the first 10 pages, 50
cents per page for the next 10 pages and 25 cents each for any
additional pages (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

The settlement stipulates that defendants will contribute
$1,600,000.00 for refund of overcharges.  Defendants will also
reduce the cost of the copier and printers for copier and
printer usage in each Clerk's Office for the next five (5) years
to 5> per page.

Attorneys fees and costs will be determined by the court and
awarded from the reimbursement fund, but in no case can the
Court award more than 40% of the value of the relief obtained.
Class members will be refunded up to 100% of the amount paid in
excess of "actual cost" to the Clerk's Office.

The actual cost agreed upon for purposes of this settlement is
10> per page.  The exact percentage refunded per claim will
depend upon the number of claims received.  Named plaintiff
Joseph Dugan will receive up to $7,500, subject to court

For more details, contact Sander D. Friedman and Donald M.
Doherty of Friedman Doherty, LLC, 125 North Route 73, West
Berlin, New Jersey 08091, Phone: 856-417-6940 and 856-988-7777,
Fax: 856-988-7744, Web site: http://www.friedmandoherty.com/.

NEW JERSEY: Parents Plans Lawsuit School Over Field-Trip Money
Parents of H.B. Wilson Elementary School students formally sent
notice to the city Board of Education on Oct. 20, 2006 that they
intend to file a class action seeking nearly $600,000 in fees
paid for field trips that were already district-funded, The
Courier-Post Online reports.

Through their attorneys, the parents will accuse the board of
being negligent in overseeing now-retired Principal Michael
Hailey, who is under criminal investigation in the matter and
other alleged wrongdoing.

Filed by attorneys Kevin Mitchell and Eric Taylor, the suit will
allege that the losses stem from the "unlawful, unethical and
immoral conduct" of Mr. Hailey during his 17-year tenure at

The district has never said what it believes happened to the
field-trip money or whether it believes Mr. Hailey played a
role.  Officials have told parents that the funds never should
have been collected.

The suit contended that funds were improperly collected for
destinations including Hershey Park, New York, the Philadelphia
Zoo and Storybook Land.

NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Response to Amended Complaint Due Oct.
Defendants in a consolidated securities fraud suit against
Northfield Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois have until Oct. 26, 2006 to file a
response to a consolidated amended class action complaint.

On March 31, 2006 an investor sued Northfield Laboratories in
federal court, accusing the Company of securities law

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased Northfield Securities from Feb. 20, 2004 through and
including Feb. 21, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that Northfield and an individual defendant
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the Commerce
and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title
17 of the Code of Federal Regulations, promulgated there under.

Founded in 1985, Evanston, Ill.-based Northfield Laboratories is
a development state biotechnology company.  It primarily
develops PolyHeme, an oxygen-carrying blood substitute for the
treatment of urgent life-threatening blood loss in trauma and
resultant surgical settings.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the safety profile and history of PolyHeme.

On Feb. 22, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported in a story
that the data available to defendants from an Acute Normovolemic
Hemodilution (ANH) clinical trial using PolyHeme, but not to the
public, revealed that:

     -- 10 of 81 patients who received PolyHeme suffered a heart
        attack within seven days, and two of those died;

     -- none of the 71 patients in the ANH clinical trial who
        received real blood were found to have suffered a heart

Defendants in a press release on Feb. 22, 2006, responding to
The Wall Street Journal article, did not dispute the data
concerning the patient heart attacks and deaths from the ANH
clinical trial.

Rather, defendants admit that they did not publish the data
concerning patient heart attacks and deaths.  The market was
stunned by the disclosure of the secret, adverse data from the
long-closed ANH clinical trial and the market price of
Northfield's common stock fell with the belated disclosures.

     -- on Feb. 21, 2006, the day before the disclosure by
        The Wall Street Journal, Northfield's common stock
        closed at a price of $12.23 per share;

     -- on Feb. 22, 2006, on extraordinary volume of more
        than 4.1 million shares, Northfield's common stock
        closed at a price of $11.64 per share; and

     -- the price continued to drop as the market absorbed all
        of the news, including the announcement on Feb. 24,
        2006, by U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, chairman of
        the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, that he has begun an
        inquiry into the matter.

On May 19, 2006 competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  On June 19, 2006, Judge
George Marovich signed an Order consolidating all related cases
into one class action and appointing lead plaintiff and lead

On July 26, 2006, Judge Marovich ordered new petitions for the
appointment of lead plaintiff be filed by Aug. 16, 2006.
Motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff were filed on Aug.
16, 2006 and on Aug. 24, 2006, lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were appointed.

On Sept. 8, 2006, lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on behalf of all those who purchased
Northfield common stock and call options and sold put options
during the period from March 19, 2001 through and including
March 20, 2006.  Defendants have until Oct. 26, 2006 to file a
response to this complaint.

The suit is "Topaz Realty Corp., et al. v. Northfield
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1493," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge George M. Marovich.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

     (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:

     (5) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:

     (6) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:

     (7) 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:

     (8) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:

     (9) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:

    (10) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

    (11) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;

    (12) Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite
         1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax:
         (212) 239-4310, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com;

    (13) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:

    (14) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:

    (15) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;

    (16) The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508,
         New York, NY, 10118, Phone: 212.686.1060, Fax:
         212.202.3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and

    (17) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com.

ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc.
(NYSE:JNJ), on behalf of a 25 year-old woman, who was diagnosed
with bilateral pulmonary emboli after using the Ortho Evra birth
control patch for six months.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County (midl-8005-06), earlier this month.

According to Parker & Waichman, on August 24, 2004, the injured
victim was taken to the emergency room at St. Mary's Medical
Center in Wisconsin after experiencing lightheadedness,
shortness of breath and chest pain.

Diagnostic tests taken at the hospital revealed bilateral
pulmonary emboli.  The woman was hospitalized and received
Heparin and Coumadin anticoagulant therapy.

It is likely that the injured woman will need anticoagulant
medication for a protracted period of time, potentially for the
remainder of her life.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.

In the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time
that women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen.

Parker & Waichman, LLP continues to evaluate new Ortho Evra
injury cases, and plans to file a significant number of
additional cases against Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.
throughout the remainder of 2006.

For more information on Ortho Evra lawsuits, visit:


Representing the plaintiffs are Jason Mark, Esq. and Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. both of Parker & Waichman, LLP, 111 Great Neck,
NY 11201-5402, Phone: 516-466-6500, E-mail:
mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com or jparker@yourlawyer.com, Website:

PHOEBE PUTNEY: Ga. Court Declines to Review Overcharging Suits
The Georgia Supreme Court refused to review an appeal in
relation to class actions filed against Phoebe Putney Hospital
that accused it of overcharging uninsured patients, according to
WALB News 10.

Essentially, the court's decision brings to an end nearly two
years of class actions against Phoebe Putney, which was one of
more than 50 not for profit hospitals targeted by Mississippi
attorney Richard Scruggs in May 2004.

Specifically, the Georgia Supreme Court refused to review a
petition to move those lawsuits to state court.  Those cases had
already been dismissed in federal and state courts, so the high
court's decision ends the legal fight.

Phoebe President and CEO Joel Wernick expressed his elation over
the decision that went in their favor.  He said the attorneys
were targeting millions of dollars not for profit hospitals have
in reserves filed the lawsuits.

According to Mr. Wernick, the biggest casualty in this case was
how the hospital's reputation was stained.  He said that they
were offended by many of the insinuations that have been made by
"people who really had motives much different that the mission
of this institution."

For their part, plaintiffs' attorney Ralph Scoccimaro, who filed
the appeal, stated that he was surprised by the court's

In recounting the hospital's actions during the past two years
of legal wrangling, Mr. Wernick said that they spent millions of
dollars hiring lawyers and private detectives to fight the

Mr. Wernick reiterates that the money spent could have gone to
health programs.  Instead, according to him, it was wasted on a
frivolous lawsuit, which was a terrible waste of the community

However, Mr. Scoccimaro pointed out that their lawsuits forced
Phoebe Putney to change their collection methods.  He said that
the changes didn't come about until after the lawsuits were
filed, "so I feel some satisfaction."

For more details, contact Ralph O. Scoccimaro of Brown &
Scoccimaro, P.C., 1801 Gillionville Road, Albany, GA 31707,
Phone: (229) 432-9310 and 1-866-435-HURT, Fax: (229) 436-6302,
Web site: http://www.bspclaw.com.

SILICON STORAGE: Nov. Hearing Set on Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has scheduled a November 8 hearing on defendants' motion to
dismiss a second amended complaint in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against Silicon Storage Technology,
Inc. and certain of its directors and officers.

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.

On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated
as "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.)."

On May 3, 2005, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed as lead

     -- The "Louisiana Funds Group," which consists of:
        * the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System, and
        * the Louisiana District Attorneys' Retirement System.

Judge Hamilton also appointed as lead counsel and liason
counsel, respectively, for the class, the law firms of:

     -- Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, and
     -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on July 15, 2005.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from April 21, 2004 to Dec. 20, 2004.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 16, 2005.
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2005.  The company's reply in further support of the motion
to dismiss was filed on Dec. 19, 2005.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  On March 10, 2006, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave
to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2006.  The
company responded with a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006.

On Aug. 17, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Sept. 29, 2006, defendants
filed further briefing in support of their motion.  The court
has scheduled a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss for
Nov. 8, 2006.

The suit is "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

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

Representing the company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.

SONUS NETWORKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Litigation
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
against Sonus Networks, Inc., captioned, "In Re: Sonus Networks,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-10294," according to
an update posted by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and
certain of its current officers and directors.

On June 28, 2004, the court consolidated the claims.  On Dec. 1,
2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint asserted claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, relating to the company's restatement of
its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the first three
quarters of 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning the company's revenues, earnings and financial
condition.  Plaintiffs contended that such statements caused the
company's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  On
June 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

In August 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On
Sept. 12, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
amended complaint.  On Dec. 10, 2005, the court held a hearing
on the motions and took the matter under advisement.

On May 10, 2006, Judge Woodlock signed a Memorandum and Order
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions.
Specifically, defendants Nill's and Ahmed's motions to dismiss
the Sections 10(b) and 11 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 claims against them and the motions to dismiss the Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 claims against all of the
defendants were granted and the motions to dismiss all other
claims were denied.  On June 29, 2006, defendants filed their
answers to the 1st amended complaint.

On July 31, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion moving the court
to certify a class of all those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Sonus during the period March 28, 2002 through and
including March 26, 2004 and to certify a subclass of all those
who purchased or acquired the newly issued securities of Sonus
pursuant to the Prospectus Supplement dated Sept. 23, 2003.

Pursuant to an order of the court, class certification discovery
is to be completed by Nov. 22, 2006 and defendants are to file
their response to lead plaintiff's class certification motion by
Jan. 5, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-10294," filed in the U.S. District of
Massachusetts under Judge Douglas P. Woodlock.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market Street,
         Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105-2835, Phone: 800-
         778-1822, Fax: 415-777-5189, E-mail: info@gbcsf.com;

     (2) Norman Berman of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
         Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-542-8300, E-mail: NBerman@Bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants are:

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

    (ii) Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom, LLP, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:

STONE & WEBSTER: Oct. Hearing Set to Certify Mass. Stock Lawsuit
A motion hearing on class certification for the securities fraud
class action filed against Stone & Webster in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts is set for October 24,

Shareholders sued Stone & Webster for violating Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the company fraudulently concealed the loss of a contract
with another company and inflated revenues.

The district court dismissed the shareholders' original
complaint, and the shareholders appealed.  The shareholders were
then allowed to submit an amended complaint on remand.  The
shareholders moved to file a motion for leave to file an amended

In the proposed amended complaint, the shareholders alleged that
the company paid an undisclosed $147 million kickback to a third
party in a contract that it signed with them.  Section 10(b)
violations must be brought within one year of alleged fraud.

The court noted that the kickback allegations were new and did
not relate back to save the claim.

The district court denied the shareholders' motion to amend
their complaint, ruling that the new claim was time-barred, and
the original claims were insufficient.

A copy of the judge's ruling is available free of charge at:


At a status conference held August 16, 2006 a motion hearing on
class certification was set for October 24, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Stone & Webster, Inc v. et al., Case No.
1:00-cv-10874-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward J. Barshak of Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
         101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114,
         Phone: 617-227-3030, Fax: 617-523-4001, E-mail:

     (2) Adria Benner of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 North
         Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone:
         302-622-7000; and

     (3) Jeffrey C Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
         & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard D. Batchelder, Jr. of Ropes & Gray LLP, One
         International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-
         7515, Fax: 617-951-7050, E-mail:

     (2) Peter M. Casey of Greenberg Traurig, One International
         Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-310-6048, Fax: 617-
         310-6001, E-mail: pcasey@foleyhoag.com;

     (3) Kevin C Conroy of Foley Hoag LLP, 155 Seaport
         Boulevard, Boston, MA 02210-2600, Phone: 617-832-1164,
         Fax: 617-832-7000, E-mail: kconroy@foleyhoag.com;

     (4) Jennifer W. Corinis of Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150
         Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-8579,
         Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
         jennifer.corinis@bingham.com; and

     (5) Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom LLP, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:

THORNHILL SUPERSTORES: Settles W.Va. Consumer Fraud Litigation
Thornhill Superstores of Chapmansville settled an $11 million
class action filed in a West Virginia court, which claims that
the dealer violated its offer to sell for a dollar over invoice
by manipulating trade-in values, The West Virginia Record

Attorney Harry Bell of Charleston opted to settle for coupons
worth less than $2 million after discovering that complete
success would have pushed the auto dealer Wally Thornhill into
bankruptcy.  Mr. Bell filed the suit in 2003 on behalf of
Patricia Jarrell of Madison and others.

However, Mr. Bell now wants the dealership to pay his firm
$2,418,978 for its work on the case.  His firm stands to collect
the customary one third of the proceeds, however, according to
him, the value of the class action includes more than the $400
coupons that 4,503 customers will receive.

As a result of the suit, Mr. Bell argues that the dealership
stopped its "one dollar over invoice" promotion and pledged to
tell customers if they owe more on their trade-in vehicles than
the trade-ins are worth.

He set the value of those actions at $1,200 per customer,
raising the benefit to $1,600 per customer and then multiplied
the benefit by the number of customers and came up with a total
of $7,207,800.  Mr. Bell asked Kanawha Judge Charles King to
award his firm one third of that, plus $16,378 in costs and

However, defense attorney Johnnie Brown of Charleston opposed
the fees.  Judge King heard arguments on Oct. 10, but as of Oct.
18 he had not reached a decision.

This summer Judge King ordered Mr. Thornhill to show Mr. Bell
his personal financial statements and his company's financial
statements and sales spreadsheets.

Mr. Bell then hired expert Oliver Wood to review the numbers,
who would later calculate that Mr. Thornhill's overcharges at
$11,066,988, or $2,457.70 per customer.  Mr. Wood discovered
that Thornhill Superstores carried an alarming load of debt.

In reviewing the numbers, Mr. Wood wrote, "Based upon my review
of the financial statements produced by the defendants, there
are inadequate personal assets to fund any monetary class
settlement to class members because the defendants appear highly
leveraged in their investments."

On Aug. 16, retired Circuit Judge Andrew MacQueen brought
attorneys together for mediation, which eventually lead to an

Under that agreement, Thornhill would send out 4,503 coupons for
$400 each, transferable and good for seven years on the purchase
of Thornhill vehicles.  That same agreement provided $1,500 each
to Ms. Jarrell and plaintiffs David and Cortney Scragg of

Mr. Bell wrote in his application for fees that a coupon
settlement was the only viable alternative, reasoning that
"success at trial would likely have resulted in the bankruptcy
of defendants, loss of the General Motors franchise, and in
turn, zero recovery for the class."

According to Mr. Bell, attorneys worked since 2003, "without any
payment, without any assurance of success, and without assurance
of insurance coverage or personal assets to collect from."

Mr. Brown argued that Mr. Bell's fee calculation was
speculative, unfair, grossly exaggerated and wholly unreliable
and thus wrote to Judge King that his firm billed $92,786 for
its work on the case.

For more details, contact Harry F. Bell Jr. of Bell & Bands,
PLLC, 30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, WV 25326,
Phone: (304) 345-1700 and (800) 342-1701, Fax: (304) 345-1715,
Web site: http://www.belllaw.com.

TENNESSEE: Maury County Retirement Suit Gets Class Certification
The Maury County Circuit Court in Tennessee granted class action
status to a lawsuit involving a dispute over county employee
retirement benefits, The Columbia Daily Herald reports.

Filed by A.C. Howell, former Maury County budget director, and
Wendell Harris, a retired deputy, the suit alleges that retired
county employees who were covered under a previous plan are
entitled to three additional years of service to the county.

In 1999, the county switched from its plan with Life of Georgia
to the state's retirement fund, Tennessee Consolidated

The original plan, according to an affidavit by A.C. Howell,
required a three-year waiting period before an employee could
join the plan.

The affidavit though states that if an employee began
participating at the earliest possible date the employee
received credit for service back to the date he or she was
hired.  However, the new plan does not give employees credit for
those three years of service.

According to court documents, the class action applies to all
former employees of Maury County who were active participants in
the county's retirement plans as of Dec. 31, 1999, who retired
after that date, as well as all present and former Maury County
employees who lost credited years of service.

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Tobacco Firms Move to Stay "Lights" Ruling
Philip Morris USA and other defendants asked the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit on Oct. 3, 2006, to stay all
proceedings in the Schwab class action and to allow an immediate
appeal of the class certification ruling in the case by U.S.
District Judge Jack Weinstein.

In September, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York certified a class that
permits Americans who currently smoke, or ever did smoke "light"
cigarettes, to proceed to trial with their claims that the
tobacco companies conspired for decades to deceive the public
regarding the health risks associated with light cigarettes
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product.

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.

The judge set a trial date of Jan. 22, 2007.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;
     -- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;
     -- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;
     -- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and
     -- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco
        (Investments) Ltd.

A copy of Judge Weinstein's 540-page Memorandum & Order and the
Motion for Immediate Stay, are available free of charge at:


The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,
         North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-
         3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:

     (2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup
         Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,
         Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:
         peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of
         Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;

     (3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth
         Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-
         5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or
         Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:
         212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;

     (4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.

Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005; and William P.
Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-
337-8090, E-mail: wpb@ftllaw.com.

UNITED STATES: Court Says CAFA Includes a "Typographical Error"
A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has ruled that a key provision of the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) includes a "typographical error" in which
Congress accidentally used the word less when it meant to say
more, Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports..

Under CAFA, a defendant named in a class action filed in the
state courts may remove the suit to federal court.  It also
provides that if the federal court determines that the case
should be sent back to the state courts, the defendant may file
a discretionary appeal.

The glitch in the law, courts have discovered, is the wording of
the time limit imposed on such appeals.  CAFA states that a
federal appellate court "may accept an appeal" from a remand
order "if application is made to the court of appeals not less
than seven days after entry of the order."

Read literally, the law seems to impose not a time limit on the
appeal, but a waiting period followed by an unlimited time to

In the case, "Morgan v. Gay," the Third Circuit has joined three
other circuits in saying that Congress obviously meant the
opposite of what it said.

Judge D. Brooks Smith, a member of he panel, thus wrote,
"Because the uncontested legislative intent ... was to impose a
seven-day deadline for appeals, we conclude that the statute as
written contains a typographical error and should be read to
mean 'not more than seven days."

Joined by Judges Maryanne Trump Barry and Richard L. Nygaard,
Judge Smith, noted in the opinion that the 9th, 10th and 11th
circuits have all reached the same conclusion.

In "Pritchett v. Office Depot Inc.," the 10th Circuit said,
"Given Congress' stated intent to impose time limits on appeals
of class action remand orders and the limited availability of
appeals prior to the statute's enactment, we can think of no
plausible reason why the text of the act would instead impose a
seven-day waiting period followed by a limitless window for

According to Judge Smith, he recognized that looking to
legislative history is a controversial practice that has been
described as "looking over a crowd and picking out your
friends."  In the case of CAFA, however, Mr. Smith pointed out
"the crowd speaks with one voice."

Thus, Judge Smith concluded that as a result "this court does
not need to step into a statutory interpretation debate over the
role of legislative history and congressional intent to conclude
that [the law] needs common sense revision that accurately
reflects the uncontested intent of Congress."

The ruling clears the way for the defense to pursue an appeal of
an order by U.S. District Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. of the
District of New Jersey that remanded a class action brought by
purchasers of the skin cream Stri Vectin-SD alleging false
advertising and other claims.

Previously, Judge Garrett ruled that the federal courts lacked
jurisdiction over the case and remanded it to the New Jersey
Superior Court.

Now, however, the Third Circuit has agreed to hear an appeal of
the ruling and will issue a second decision on the merits.

YUM BRANDS: Discovery Continues in Taco Bell ADA Suit in Calif.
Discovery is ongoing in a class action "Moeller et al v. Taco
Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-05849-MJJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, a
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission said.

Originally filed on Dec. 17, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, on Aug. 4, 2003, that alleges, among other things,
that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who
use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its
approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California
accessible to the class.

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities (including parking spaces, ramps,
counters, restroom facilities and seating) do not comply with
the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (Unruh Act), and the California Disabled Persons Act

Plaintiffs have requested:

      -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing

      -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

      -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $2,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of
100,000 individuals in the class.

For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate
minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are
expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of Taco
Bell outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered

Named plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- Katherine Corbett
     -- Francie E. Moeller
     -- Edward Muegge
     -- Craig Thomas Yates

On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The district court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California

The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum
statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the district court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve Plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.

The parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief
stage of this action.  During this stage, Taco Bell filed a
motion to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule
23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages.

The district court denied the motion.  Plaintiffs filed their
own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability relating
to a subset of the California Restaurants.  The district court
denied that motion as well.

Taco Bell has denied liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Although this lawsuit is at
a relatively early stage in the proceedings, it is likely that
certain of the California Restaurants will be determined to be
not fully compliant with accessibility laws, and Taco Bell has
begun to take certain steps to make those restaurants compliant.

However, at this time, it is not possible to estimate with
reasonable certainty the potential costs to bring non-compliant
California Restaurants into compliance with applicable state and
federal disability access laws.

Nor is it possible at this time to reasonably estimate the
probability or amount of liability for monetary damages on a
class wide basis to Taco Bell.

Taco Bell, owned by Yum Brands Inc., the Louisville, Kentucky
dining conglomerate that also owns the KFC and Pizza Hut chains,
contends that it hasn't broken any laws and that access for all
customers is a priority.

The suit is "Moeller et al v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-
05849-MJJ," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jamerson C. Allen of Jackson Lewis LLP, 199 Fremont
         Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415-394-9400, Fax: 415-394-9401, E-mail:

     (2) Gregory A. Eurich and Jimmy Goh both of Holland & Hart
         LLP, 555 17th Street, Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80202,
         Phone: 303-295-8000, E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com or

     (3) Richard Hidehito Hikida, Esq. and Gregory F. Hurley
         both of Greenberg Traurig LLP, 650 Town Center Drive,
         Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, Phone: (714) 708-6500
         or 714 708-6564, Fax: (714) 708-6501, E-mail:
         hikidar@gtlaw.com or sautters@gtlaw.com;

     (4) Thomas P. Howard, 245 Century Circle, Suite 206,
         Louisville, CO 80202, Phone: 303-665-3822, Fax: 303-
         665-3821, E-mail: thoward@thomasphowardlaw.com; and

     (5) Titania Jean Mooney of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5167, Fax: 213-
         687-5600, E-mail: jmooney@skadden.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (i) Timothy P. Fox and Amy F. Robertson both of Fox &
         Robertson, P.C., 910-16th Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO
         80202, Phone: 303-595-9700, Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail:
         tfox@foxrob.com or arob@foxrob.com;

    (ii) Jocelyn Dion Larkin and Brad Seligman both of The
         Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710,
         Phone: 510-845-3473, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail:
         jlarkin@impactfund.org or bs@impactfund.org;

   (iii) Antonio M. Lawson of The Lawson Law Offices, 835
         Mandana Boulevard, Oakland, CA 94610, Phone: 510-419-
         0940, Fax: 510-419-0948, E-mail:
         tlawson@lawsonlawoffices.com; and

    (iv) Mari Mayeda, PO Box 5138, Berkeley, CA 94705, Phone:
         510-841-4970, E-mail: marimayeda@earthlink.net.

* Milberg Weiss Prosecutor to Resign, Enters Private Practice
Debra Wong Yang, the federal prosecutor overseeing the criminal
case against class action law firm, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, revealed that she would resign next month to
enter private practice, Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun

According to the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of
California, she plans to become a partner at the law firm of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

In an interview with The New York Sun, Ms. Yang said that her
transition would have no impact on the criminal racketeering
case against Milberg Weiss, or a pending decision on whether to
expand the indictment.

She maintains that nobody should read anything into her
departure with respect to the progress of the investigation,
saying, "It has nothing to do with that."

The former state court judge though revealed that she had been
considering leaving for some time and chose what seemed like a
sensible time to make her exit.

"We had a number of huge cases in the office," Ms. Yang said,
citing investigations into large companies such as Boeing Co.
and Tenet Healthcare Corp, along with the Milberg Weiss probe,
which began in 1999.

Ms. Yang was appointed U.S. Attorney in 2002, becoming the first
Asian-American woman to hold that post.  She got the job after
working for seven years as a line prosecutor in the same office
and for five years as a state court judge.

In 2002 she turned down the Bush Administration's offer to
appoint her as a federal judge and instead asked for the chief
prosecutor's post, a fact that Ms. Yang recently confirmed.

However, most recently, Ms. Yang declined a nomination to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, according to unnamed
legal sources.

Ms. Yang said that she was more intrigued by the possibility of
playing a long-term role in helping businesses right themselves
after a scandal.  "That's exactly what I've been doing, but on
the other side of it," the prosecutor observed.

Ms. Yang will co-chair Gibson Dunn's crisis management practice,
which is headed by a former solicitor general, Theodore Olson,
and a former deputy to Mayor Giuliani, Randy Mastro.  The firm
is a Republican stronghold and home to many members of a
conservative legal group, the Federalist Society.

                    Milberg Weiss Indictment

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and partners Messrs.
Bershad and Schulman were indicted in May 2006 by a federal
grand jury for allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more
than 150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200
million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20
years.  The first superseding indictments against them were for
alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money
laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false
tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and
causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture.  A copy of
the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc.

Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is
alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T.
Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary
lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit
of Mr. Lazar.  The indictment also names as co-conspirators,
paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J.
Vogel of Aventura, Florida.

In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not
guilty to the charges filed against them.  Mr. Lazar and Paul T.
Selzer also pleaded not guilty.

In May, Los Angeles, California attorney Richard R. Purtich pled
guilty to a felony tax offense in connection with his
participation in an alleged kickback scheme.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DELL INC: Pomerantz Haudek Reminds Investors of Tex. Stock Suit
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
of Dell, Inc. that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the
U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, against the
company and certain officers.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company during the period from Feb. 13, 2003
through Sept. 8, 2006.

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

Dell, headquartered in Round Rock, Texas, engages in the design,
development, manufacture, marketing, sale and support of various
computer systems and services to customers worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
reported inflated financial results by misstating the company's
accrual and reserves on the company's balance sheet.

In August 2005, the SEC began investigating the company's
revenue recognition and accounting practices, but Dell concealed
the investigation from investors.

However, unable to maintain the charade, defendants began
carving down sales and profit projections and Dell began missing
its own revenue, earnings per shares and unit sales growth
targets, causing significant declines in its stock price.

In order to support the company's stock price, defendants
continued concealing the full extent of Dell's demise and
promised a quick turnaround.

On Aug. 16, 2006, Dell announced it would be forced to recall
over 4 million laptop batteries citing a high combustion risk.
On Aug.17, 2006 the company announced its fifth consecutive
quarter of disappointing results.

Dell's profits fell 51% from the same quarter one year earlier.
Finally, on September 11, 2006 defendants disclosed that the
company would not be able to file its interim financial report
for second quarter 2007 and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of New York had served Dell with a
subpoena requesting documents concerning its accounting and
financial reporting between 2002 and 2006.

Interested parties have until Nov. 13, 2006 to seek for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: 888-476-
6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.pomlaw.com.

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Marvell Technology Group
Ltd. between Feb. 24, 2005 and Oct. 2, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant Marvell Technology
Group Ltd. and one or more of its officers and/or directors.

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

Interested parties have until Dec. 5, 2006 to seek for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

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

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

The case was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Presstek during the period from July 27, 2001 through
September 29, 2001.  Judge James Muirhead is presiding over the
case, entitled, "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., No. 06-cv-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *