CAR_Public/061026.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 213

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Insurer Refuses to Shoulder Costs in Suit
ALLIED MUTUAL: Policyholders to Get $100M From Iowa Settlement
AXIS CAPITAL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
BARTER FRAUD: Victims of Merchants Exchange Fraud Hires Lawyer
CALIFORNIA: "Williams" Settlement Boon For San Joaquin Schools

CANADA: Quebec Private School Faces Suit Over Abuse Allegations
CANADA: Workers Reimburse Montreal Passengers for Illegal Strike
DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court to Hear Motions in Securities Suit
ENRON CORP: Tex. Judge Overturns Conviction of Kenneth Lay
FIRST UNION: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Ask Jeeves Suit Settlement

GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Faces New FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
MCLEODUSA INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
MOTOROLA INC: Faces Ark. Litigation Over Bluetooth Headsets
NEW YORK: Appeals Court Remands Suit by Disabled Preschool Kids
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motley Rice Announces Injury Claims Settlement

NORTH CAROLINA: Class to Receive $480T in Bankruptcy Settlement
OHIO: Plaintiff in Lawsuit Against Lethal Injection Executed
SEARS ROEBUCK: Dec. 8 Hearing Set for $215M Stock Suit Agreement
SILICON LABORATORIES: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court OK
STATE FARM: Settles Credit Score Litigation in Hawaii For $1.2M

TITLE INSURERS: Sued Over Employment of Out-of-State Agents
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Court Grants Temporary Stay in Lights Ruling
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Directors Dismissed in Mass. Stock Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Litigation Over Brokerage Fees in Canada
UNITED STATES: Cedar Fire Victims File Negligence Suit in Calif.

UNITED STATES: Web Site Revamp Mulled as Target Case Proceeds
VISA U.S.A.: Publishes "Interchange Fees" List For Credit Cards
WORLDCOM INC: Defrauded Investors to Get Initial $150M Payout
ZURICH AMERICAN: IIABA Files Reply Brief in Settlement Issue

* Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein to Open Lieff Global Jan. 1


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PRESSTEK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Insurer Refuses to Shoulder Costs in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.'s insurers stated that its
litigation defense costs would not be covered under a liability
insurance policy stemming from several class actions over
alleged false and misleading statements that affected the
company's stock price, according to one of the company's
insurer, Kevin Kemper of BizJournals reports.

Warren, New Jersey-based Federal Insurance Co. is refusing to
cover defense costs related to the 2005 lawsuits, which were
consolidated into one.  The now consolidated case could put the
company on the hook for tens of millions of dollars based on the
average settlement of shareholder class action lawsuits.

The consolidated lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class
of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A
Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16,
2005 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 13, 2006).

Initially several suits were launched, the first being, "Robert
Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.," which was filed on
Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as defendants the company's
officers.  

In September and October 2005, five other purported class
actions were subsequently filed against the company and other
defendants in the same court.  

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On Mar. 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2006 and
the responses of defendants are due on Oct. 13, 2006.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. Vase No.
2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp.

Representing the plaintiffs is Keith W. Schneider of Maguire &
Schneider, 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200, Columbus, OH
43215, Phone: 614-224-1222, Fax: 614-224-1236, E-mail:
kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com.

Representing the defendants are:
  
     (1) Philip Albert Brown of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
         52 East Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone:
         614-464-6400, Fax: 614-464-6400, E-mail:
         pabrown@vssp.com;

     (2) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter,
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215-4294,
         Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail:
         rsugarman@keglerbrown.com; and  

     (3) Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr. of McNamara and McNamara,
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-228-6131, E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us.


ALLIED MUTUAL: Policyholders to Get $100M From Iowa Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donna Paulsen of the Polk County District Court approved
final orders earlier this month that resolved Iowa's largest-
ever settlement of a class action that was filed against Allied
Mutual Insurance, The Des Moines Register reports.

Some 70,000 policyholders will get a cut of the $100 million
payout thanks in part to the final orders.

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Allied policyholders who were
disgruntled over its merger with Ohio-based Nationwide
Insurance.  They claimed that Allied had transferred many of the
assets from the portion of the business.

The suit had claimed that the policyholder-owned company
improperly transferred many of the assets from the portion of
the business that was owned by policyholders to a sister entity
that was owned by stockholders, the publicly held Allied Group
of Des Moines.  Both Allied companies were sold to Columbus,
Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in 1998 for $1.57
billion (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).  

Policyholders of Allied Mutual received $110 million from
Nationwide at the time of the sale.  They sued though to collect
more in a case that went through five judges and saw seven
appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court.  

After all the legal wrangling, both sides finally agreed in July
2005 to a settlement that would have Nationwide pay a minimum of
$100 million and a maximum of $135 million more to Allied Mutual
customers who owned policies as of February 18, 1993.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs then had to try to contact as many as
300,000 eligible policyholders who would share in the
settlement.  

Touted as the on of Iowa's largest-ever settlement of a class
action, which was approved last October, its payout fund of $100
million to $135 million has still drawn scant attention from
potential recipients as of the Jan. 10, 2006 deadline.  In fact,
the process took so that several thousand claims trickled in
after the deadline.

Individuals, who owned policies as of February 18, 1993, are
eligible for the settlement.  But, so far, only 65,000 out of
the estimated 300,000 have stepped forward.  Payouts depend on
how long policyholders had coverage and how much they paid for
it.  If all 300,000 make claims, the average cash payout will be
around $300 to $400 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

Tom Waterman, a Davenport attorney who helped in the case
against Allied and Nationwide, said that claims will be honored
if they arrived by Aug. 31.  He said there would be 70,155
claims honored, and that payments will range from perhaps $1,000
to as much as $40,000 for commercial policyholders.  

"It should roughly be equal to the amount of premium they paid
for the three years from 1990 to 1993," according to Mr.
Waterman.  By late November, Mr. Waterman said checks should be
sent to eligible policyholders.

For more details, contact Thomas D. Waterman of Lane & Waterman,
LLP, 220 North Main Street, Suite 600, Davenport, Iowa 52801,
(Scott Co.), Phone: 563-324-3246, Fax: 563-324-1616, E-mail:
twaterman@l-wlaw.com, Web site: http://www.l-wlaw.com.


AXIS CAPITAL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated
securities class action against AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. and
three of its senior officers, John R. Charman, Michael A. Butt
and Andrew Cook, the Courthouse News Service reports.

Also named defendants in the suit are underwriters Morgan
Stanley & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets, and a "substantial
indirect shareholder of Axis," Marsh & McClennan Co.

Defendants sought summary judgment and Judge Holwell granted it
without prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to
state a claim.

"While the Court is uncertain that plaintiffs can readily cure
the deficiencies in their Complaint, plaintiffs are granted
leave to attempt to do so," the judge said in his ruling.  The
judge gave them 30 days to refile.

Earlier, two suits initially filed against the company relate to
dealings being investigated by the Attorney General of the state
of New York and other state regulators (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 29, 2006).

The suits are:

     -- "James Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael A.  
        Butt and John R. Charman" (filed on Oct. 28, 2004); and  

     -- "Robert Schimpf v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael  
        A. Butt, Andrew Cook and John R. Charman," (filed on  
        Nov. 5, 2004).

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
publicly traded securities during the period between Aug. 6,
2003 and Oct. 14, 2004.  The complaints charge AXIS and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The complaints further allege that during the class period,
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's results and operations.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the class period, are
allegedly:  

     (1) that the company was paying illegal and concealed  
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal  
         "contingent commission agreements;"  

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and  
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants  
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,  
         subjecting the company to enormous fines and penalties  
         totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions  
         of dollars; and  

     (3) that as a result, the company's prior reported revenue  
         and income was grossly overstated.  

On April 13, 2005, these lawsuits were consolidated as, "In re  
AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation."   

The suit alleges securities violations in connection with the
failure to disclose payments made pursuant to contingent
commission arrangements and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.   

On May 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated
complaint and added as defendants the managing underwriters and
one of the selling shareholders in the company's secondary
offering completed in March 2004.   

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

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13f5

The suit is "In re AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,  
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Benjamin E. Rosenberg of Swidler
Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10174, Phone: (212) 891-9231, Fax: (212) 891-9519, E-mail:
benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com.


BARTER FRAUD: Victims of Merchants Exchange Fraud Hires Lawyer
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than a hundred recent victims of barter exchange fraud is
being organized into Victims of Barter Fraud, a volunteer
organization dedicated to warning other business owners,
alerting state and federal authorities, and seeking refunds of
moneys swindled.

Mark Johnson, the acting chairman stated: "The first order of
business is to locate any and all other victims of the MBE gang
and other similar scams and that is the purpose of this release.  
Anyone who was tricked into buying a worthless barter exchange
franchise or license, or was cheated out of merchandise, or had
phony barter exchanges steal their credit and banking
information is urged to contact us immediately at 778-235-4343."

The 115 merchants being organized have chipped in $1,000 each to
hire a private investigator and a Boston lawyer specializing in
class action. "We are determined to find the people who scammed
us out of almost $5 million dollars and will not give up until
we know their real names and they are arrested or return our
money" added Roberto Diaz, of Miami, who is helping to organize
the victims.

David Glaser, Peter Horvath, and Rick Ceballos are three victims
who are especially angry after learning all three paid $75,000
each to purchase the very same "exclusive MBE territory" of Las
Vegas.  "We want our money back," said Mr. Glaser.

Paul Gibson of San Francisco, who is also helping the victims,
further explained "All but four of us were swindled by the same
bogus barter network only known as "MBE" which we now know is a
mobile operation moving back and forth between Morristown N.J.,
Mt. Pocono, and Manhattan, N.Y. Although we met with the same 3
or 4 MBE sales people, they gave all us different names and 800
phone numbers".

"Yeah, the guy I met said his name was "Steve Bowles" but he
told other business owners the very same week that his name was
"Chris Mitchell" and "Scott Brecker" and another MBE rep went by
names of "Kyle Lang" "Seth Lang" and "Phillip Stone".  We can't
trace these guys past the 800 numbers but we see that they are
now advertising and operating in Hawaii, Los Angeles, and Las
Vegas, and their franchises in Buffalo, Vancouver, Houston, Fort
Myers, Orlando, and Indianapolis have all shut down while their
beautiful http://www.barterforbetterbusiness.comWeb site is no  
longer operational.  Hopefully, this private investigator can
catch up with them soon before they flee the country with our
money" added Mr. Johnson.

In the interim, the group is investing another $10,000 from
their kitty to send out another 25,000 "anti-fraud chain
letters" and 50 million of the same by e-mail..."

"Hopefully we can alert every merchant in America within the
next 30 days so they are not caught off-guard like we were"
explained Johnson who worries that "Once everyone is warned
about MBE, they could just easily change their name and keep
scamming merchants so it's important that business owners know
what to watch out for". So far the victims have sent out 50,000
of the chain letters and vow to prosecute and sue the parties
once their real identities are determined.

Contact person: Mark Johnson, Acting Chairman of Victim of
Barter Fraud, E-mail: MarkQJohnson@hotmail.com, Phone: 778-235-
4343.


CALIFORNIA: "Williams" Settlement Boon For San Joaquin Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class action, "Eliezer Williams v. State
of California," which accuses California of not looking out for
all its schools equally came as a godsend for schools in San
Joaquin County, The Record reports.

In Delta Island Elementary School for instance, the settlement
resulted in new bathrooms, new septic tank and new filtration
system to pipe in safe drinking water.  

According to Denise Sanchez, who teaches fifth grade at the
school, it means a lot to them that someone's looking out for
the school.

Originally filed in 2000 and better known as the Williams case,
the suit alleged that the state wasn't providing enough
resources to the state's neediest students.  

Court papers told tales of vermin-ridden classrooms, students
without textbooks and classes without qualified teachers.  
Students most likely to be affected were poor, nonwhite or
English language learners.

In 2004, the state settled, agreeing to pay out hundreds of
millions of dollars to repair buildings and buy textbooks for
struggling schools.

Schools in San Joaquin County have reaped millions of dollars
for textbooks and are just beginning to tap into $800 million
available to schools across the state to make emergency fixes to
old facilities.

More than 2,100 schools of the state's lowest-performing schools
were included in the settlement of the class action, according
to the California Department of Education.

In districts across San Joaquin County, more than 60 schools
qualified for the settlement.  Delta Island School is one of
three schools in the Tracy Unified school district.

Denise Wakefield, district facilities director, said that the
$500,000 cost of Delta Island School improvement is to be
reimbursed by the state once the construction is finished.

Other districts have similar projects in the works and have
applied for reimbursement from the state.  For its part, Manteca
Unified School District has made at least $70,000 worth of
repairs to its affected schools, including replacing an old wall
at Lincoln Elementary School in Manteca.  Lodi Unified has
applied for $40,000 worth of repair funds, according to the
state Office of Public School Construction.

Rhonda Cicolani, director of school equity for the San Joaquin
County Office of Education, said that more districts would be
applying for money when they complete their projects.  

And it will be easier come January, when legislation goes into
effect that allows affected schools to get money before they
start repair projects.

The settlement also calls for more oversight of affected
schools, and the county office fills that role.  Gary Dei Rossi,
assistant superintendent of education for the county office
explains that once a year a team of retired principals visits
each school to inspect the safety of facilities and count
textbooks.

The Williams settlement included a one-time payment of $98 per
student in certain schools for textbooks, which translated to
$3.5 million for schools in the county, the California
Department of Education revealed.

Stockton Unified School District used money from that fund to
adopt new textbooks and buy replacement books at its Williams
schools, according to Robert Sahli, administrator of
instructional technology.

Brooks Allen, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern
California, which was involved in the original case said that
though its taken longer than hoped for schools to start using
money to make repairs, the settlement is accomplishing what it
was meant to accomplish.

And not only students from schools will benefit from the
settlement, Mr. Allen adds.  "The goal of Williams from the very
beginning was to make sure that students are guaranteed the most
basic education necessities.  The standards, themselves ...
those apply to all schools," he said.


CANADA: Quebec Private School Faces Suit Over Abuse Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop's College in Quebec's Eastern Townships faces a purported
CAD$58-million ($51,599,316.56) class action that alleges a
teacher at the private school sexually assaulted students nearly
half a century ago, CBC News reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of a former student, now residing
in Vancouver.  The student alleges that he was repeatedly
fondled and spanked by an Anglican minister who was a teacher at
Bishop's College School in Lennoxville in the 1960s.

The unnamed class action petitioner said he was a 16-year-old
student in 1962 when the alleged abuse started.  He believes the
same suspect around the same period of time harassed other
students.

According to David Stenason, the chairman of the college's board
of directors, the teacher, who was with the school from 1953 to
1962, was also the school chaplain and the choir director.  He
apparently died in a train crash in England in 1967.

Commenting on the allegations of multiple victims, Mr. Stenason
said he wasn't clear how many students are involved actually in
the lawsuit.  However, he pointed out that that it was not
important at this point.

The college is now reviewing the files on the teacher and
students named in the class action to see how much information
they can gather.


CANADA: Workers Reimburse Montreal Passengers for Illegal Strike
----------------------------------------------------------------
As part of an agreement that settled a class action brought
against maintenance workers with Montreal's Transit Authority,
regular passes will cost $2 less in November, while reduced rate
passes for seniors and students will be reduced by $1, according
to CBC News.

The compensation is a part of a settlement of a class action
that was launched by a group of passengers launched in the fall
of 2003.  The suit was triggered by the massive delays across
the city caused by an illegal strike by the maintenance workers.

Under an out-of-court settlement, the union representing the
authority's maintenance workers, which is affiliated with the
Confederation des syndicats nationaux, agreed to pay CAD$925,000
($822,992.26).

Most of that money will help offset the one-time reduction on
passes, while the rest of the settlement money will help pay
attorneys and court costs.


DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court to Hear Motions in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hear on Dec. 14, 2006 both parties' motions in the
consolidated securities class action against Doral Financial
Corp., according to its Oct. 23, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

The company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported
class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005
over allegations of federal securities laws violations.

Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  

These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000
and as late as May 26, 2005.  

They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities
fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period, failing to disclose material
information concerning the valuation of the company's IOs, and
misleading investors as to Doral's vulnerability to interest
rate increases.  

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred
the two actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that
court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions previously filed there before Judge Richard Owen.  

On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West  
Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging securities fraud during the period
between March 15, 2000 and Oct. 25, 2005, based on allegations
similar to those noted above, as well as based on the reversal
of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in
Doral Financial's control environment as described in the
company's amended annual report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.  

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages including interest, costs and expenses, and
injunctive relief.   

On Sept. 15, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint based on contentions that, as a matter of law, the
allegations of the amended complaint fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

Pursuant to the scheduling order currently in effect, the lead
plaintiff has until Oct. 30, 2006, to oppose the motions,
defendants have until Dec. 4, 2006, to file reply memoranda in
support of their motions, and the court is scheduled to hear the
motions on Dec. 14, 2006.


ENRON CORP: Tex. Judge Overturns Conviction of Kenneth Lay
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas vacated the conviction of former Enron Corp.
chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and dismissed the indictment that
was filed against him in 2004, reports say.

Judge Lake cited in his ruling a decision in the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals that makes a defendant's death before his or
her appeals have been exhausted grounds for voiding a conviction
and dismissing an indictment.

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease in July more than a
month after he and another former Enron chief executive, Jeffrey
Skilling, were found guilty of hiding financial troubles at
Enron.

Mr. Lay's lawyers are expected to file a motion to release the
$5 million bond posted after the jury found him guilty.  The
bonds are secured by the mortgages of homes owned by three of
his children.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the ruling thwarts the
government's attempt through a criminal proceeding to seize
assets from Mr. Lay's estate, but it doesn't preclude the
government from doing the same through a civil action.

Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling are defendants in a class action
brought by Enron shareholders and employees.

                        Case Background

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP filed a consolidated class action against Enron Corp. in the
U.S. District Court in Houston.  The suit seeks relief for
purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt securities
between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and
directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations
of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants
engaged in massive insider trading while making false and
misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.  

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.   
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.    

Representing the defendants are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and   
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:   
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and   
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,   
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


FIRST UNION: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Ask Jeeves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing Nov. 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "Nicholas LaGrasta and
Demenico LaGrasta, et al. v. Wachovia Capital Markets, as
successor to First Union Securities, Inc., Case No. 2:01-cv-
00251-JES-DNF."  

The hearing will be held before Judge John E. Steele in
Courtroom A of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Fort Myers Division, U.S. Courthouse and Federal
Bldg., 2110 First Street, Ft. Myers, Florida 33901.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Feb. 7,
2007.  The settlement provides for a payment of between $0.05
and $2.00 per share for purchases of Ask Jeeves stock between
Nov. 18, 1999 and May 16, 2000.  

The case covers all purchasers of the common stock of Ask
Jeeves, Inc. between Nov. 18, 1999 and May 16, 2000.  According
to a Press Release dated June 14, 2002, the second amended
complaint asserts a cause of action for violations of Sections
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.

The second amended complaint alleges that defendant First Union
Securities, Inc. omitted from the reports and recommendations
issued by its analysts on Ask Jeeves information regarding
conflicts of interest caused by First Union Securities'
inconsistent roles as an investment banker competing for Ask
Jeeves' business and as a investment advisor and retail
securities broker rendering allegedly unbiased advice and
opinions on Ask Jeeves for the use and benefit of investors.

As alleged in the second amended complaint, this conflict
resulted in the issuance of false and misleading analyst
reports, which resulted in a fraud on the market and on Class
members.

For more details, contact Dana Elizabeth Foster and Thomas R.
Grady of Ackerman, Link & Sartory, P.A., 222 Lakeview Ave.,
Suite 1250, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561/838-4100, Fax:
561-838-5305, E-mail: dfoster@alslaw.com and trgrady@alslaw.com.


GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Faces New FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gristede's Operating Corp., which owns Gristede's supermarkets,
faces allegations by former employees that the grocery store
chain violated civil rights laws by segregating women into
lower-paying jobs and failing to promote them to management
positions.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Vanessa Hill and Margaret
Anderson, both of the Bronx.  Both women worked as part-time
cashiers at Gristede's in Manhattan. Ms. Hill worked for
Gristede's from February 1999 to January 2004, and Ms. Anderson
worked there from November 2004 to December 2004.

They allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law.

According to the Complaint, Gristede's steers female job
applicants into cashier and bookkeeper positions, while steering
male applicants into clerk positions.

It further alleges that Gristede's offers the clerks more
opportunities for extra hours, full-time work, and promotion to
management than it offers to cashiers and bookkeepers.

The law firm of Outten & Golden LLP will seek to have the case
certified as a class action that includes current and former
female employees of Gristede's.

Attorney Piper Hoffman, of Outten & Golden, said, "We allege
that the discrimination has been company-wide and pervasive. We
believe the evidence will show that Gristede's intentionally
segregates women into positions that pay less and keeps them out
of management." Hoffman estimates that the lawsuit could include
more than 3,000 women.

The suit is "Hill v. Gristede's Operating Corp.," Case No. 06 CV
10197 LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Plaintiffs are represented by Piper Hoffman of Outten & Golden
LLP, 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10016, Phone:
(212) 245-1000 or (877) 468-8836, E-mail: ph@outtengolden.com,
Web Site: http://www.outtengolden.com.


MCLEODUSA INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 29, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. for the
proposed $30 million settlement in the matter, "In Re McLeodUSA
Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. C02-0001-MWB."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa courthouse in Sioux City, Iowa.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Nov. 15, 2006.  Deadline for submission of claim form is
on Jan. 16, 2007.

The settlement covers:

      -- all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
         McLeodUSA common stock during the period from and
         including January 3, 2001 through and including Dec. 3,
         2001, and were damaged thereby; and

      -- all persons who acquired McLeodUSA common stock
         pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
         issued in connection with McLeodUSA's June 1, 2001
         stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc., and
         were damaged thereby.

                          Case Background

At the beginning of the class period, McLeodUSA was an ambitious
competitive local exchange carrier, which competed with
traditional phone companies by leasing lines, switches and
capacity.  

According to McLeodUSA, it provided "selected telecommunications
services to customers nationwide."  In addition, McLeodUSA
planned to establish a national voice and data network and had
begun its national expansion through the acquisition of
Splitrock Services, Inc., CapRock Communications Corp., and
Intelispan, Inc., when this lawsuit was commenced.

The lawsuit asserted that defendants intentionally or recklessly
misled investors regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and
financial condition.

Specifically, the lawsuit asserted that the defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements and
omissions including, among other things:

      -- that McLeodUSA failed to timely and properly recognize
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in
         connection with certain acquisitions;

      -- that McLeodUSA did not have the funds necessary to
         complete its national network and would soon have to
         abandon its plans;

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to service its substantial
         debt and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to
         avoid bankruptcy; and

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to successfully integrate the
         Splitrock and CapRock acquisitions.

The lawsuit further alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
caused the price of McLeodUSA securities to be artificially
inflated, causing damage to the class members when McLeodUSA
began to disclose its true financial condition.  

The lawsuit seeks money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws. The defendants deny
Lead Plaintiffs' allegations.

On and after Jan. 11, 2002, thirteen class action complaints
were filed against McLeodUSA and/or certain of McLeodUSA's
present or former officers and directors - Clark E. McLeod,
Stephen C. Gray, J. Lyle Patrick and Chris A. Davis, on behalf
of a class of public investors who either:

      -- purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock
         (between Jan. 3, 2001 and Dec. 3, 2001 inclusive); or
       
      -- acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the
         Registration and Prospectus issued in connection with
         McLeodUSA's stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan,
         Inc. By order dated April 16, 2002, the court
         consolidated all thirteen cases, selected lead
         plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of
         counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on June 17, 2002.  McLeodUSA was not named as a
defendant in the Complaint due to its filing for bankruptcy in
January 2002.  

As stated above, the complaint alleged that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial
condition including, among other things, McLeodUSA's plan to
build a national network, the purported successful integration
of Splitrock Services, Inc. and CapRock Communications Corp.,
McLeodUSA's financial forecasts and results, whether McLeodUSA's
financial statements had been prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and whether or
not McLeodUSA expected to file for bankruptcy.

The complaint also alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
artificially inflated the value of McLeodUSA securities,
injuring McLeodUSA shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock at inflated prices during the class
period when the true state of affairs became known.

On Aug. 30, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum on Nov. 4,
2002, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on Nov. 22,
2002.  

The court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants'
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2003.  Both Parties submitted
responses to the report, and on March 31, 2004 the court
accepted the findings of the report and denied defendants'
motion in full.  On May 3, 2004, defendants filed their answers
to the complaint.

Thereafter, in the spring of 2004, lead plaintiffs initiated
merits discovery.  This discovery was extremely complicated and
contentious, involving many motions to compel and numerous
hearings before the court.  

The lead plaintiffs conducted extensive written discovery,
serving multiple sets of formal document requests and
interrogatories, and many subpoenas on third-parties.

As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, Lead
Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 2.4 million pages of
documents produced by McLeodUSA, the Defendants and third
parties.  The parties also deposed ten witnesses in locations
throughout the U.S.

As discovery was ongoing, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, and the Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to loss causation, based
on the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v.
Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005).  Each of these motions was fully
briefed by the parties.

In the interim, on Oct. 28, 2005, McLeodUSA filed its second
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, and the Action was stayed pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision.

The court lifted the stay on March 16, 2006 pursuant to a motion
filed with the court.  Lead plaintiffs filed a new motion for
class certification, and defendants filed a new motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  These motions were fully briefed and
pending at the time the parties reached the tentative agreement
to resolve the action.

The Parties first discussed the possibility of settling the
Action in June 2002.  However, it was obvious at that time that
they were too far apart to reach agreement, and it was not until
Nov. 17, 2003 that the Parties again met to discuss a
resolution.

Thereafter, the parties participated in three formal mediation
sessions - on July 28, 2004 and Sept. 22, 2005 with the
assistance of the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.) and on
May 3, 2006 with the assistance of the Honorable Herbert
Stettin.  It was shortly after this third mediation session that
the parties reached the basic terms of the settlement.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;

     (2) David Kessler, Esq., and Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone (610) 667-7706, E-mail:
         info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., and Joseph D. Cohen, Esq., Weiss
         & Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY
         10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Web site:
         http://www.infony@weisslurie;and  

     (4) McLeodUSA Securities Litigation Exclusions c/o
         Analytics, Inc., Claims AdministratorP.O. Box 2006
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006, Phone: 1-888-212-3057, Web
         site: http://www.mcleodusasecuritieslitigation.com/.


MOTOROLA INC: Faces Ark. Litigation Over Bluetooth Headsets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney James McHugh, of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, against Motorola Inc.,
over allegations that it has put the hearing of consumers at
risk by selling headsets that could cause hearing losses, the
Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of Little Rock legal assistant Hayley
Frye, alleges the Bluetooth technology used on the headsets is
defective in design and the company doesn't adequately warn
users they could suffer a hearing loss.

The suit claims that because the Bluetooth headsets are fastened
around just one ear, ambient noise absorbed by the other ear
forces users to turn up the headsets volume to dangerously high
decibel levels, to hear through them.

Bluetooth radio technology permits wireless communication
between two devices, such as a cellular phone and a headset, the
report said.

Motorola spokeswoman, Juli Burda, said the company does not
comment on pending litigation.

The case is the fourth one alleging similar claims that was
filed in October against the company.  

Martin Alpert, a California resident, filed one of those suits,
which seeks class-action status, on Oct. 16, 2006.  Representing
Mr. Alpert in the case is the Chicago law firm Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2006).  

That case is "Alpert v. Motorola, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
05586," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The second case against Motorola was filed in Cook County
Circuit Court in Illinois.  The named plaintiff in the suit is
Aleksandra Spevacek, a Cook County resident (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

The third case is "Edwards v. Motorola, Inc., Case No. 8:06-cv-
01909-SDM-MSS," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25,
2006).

The suit is "Frye v. Motorola Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-01533-JMM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas under Judge James M. Moody.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James B. McHugh of McHugh Fuller Law Group PLLC, 97
         Elias Whiddon Road, Hattiesburg, MS 39402, Phone: 601-
         261-2220, E-mail: jim@mchughfuller.com;

     (2) Stephen M. Garcia and Sarina M. Hinson both of The
         Garcia Law Firm, One World Trade Center, Suite 1950,
         Long Beach, CA 90831, Phone: 800-281-8515; and

     (3) Melissa Harnett of Wasserman Comden & Casselman LLC,
         Post Office Box 7033, Tarzana, CA 91357-7033, Phone:
         818-705-6800.


NEW YORK: Appeals Court Remands Suit by Disabled Preschool Kids
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York denying plaintiffs' motion in "D.D. v. New York City Board
of Education," for a preliminary injunction, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

The district court had denied plaintiffs motion for a
preliminary injunction requiring New York City and the State of
New York to provide immediately to all members of the plaintiff
class all services required by their Individualized Education
Programs that have been put in place under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.

Three New York City preschool children with disabilities filed a
class action alleging, inter alia, that the New York City
Department of Education and the New York State Education
Department violated their rights under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. Section 1400-
1482.

In particular, plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to
provide them immediately with the educational services mandated
by their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) under the
IDEA.  Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction ordering
defendants to implement all services required by the IEPs
immediately.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York denied the motion.  

The district court based its denial of the preliminary
injunction in principal part on its determination that former
section 1416(a), which required participating states to "comply
substantially" with the provisions of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.A.
section 1416(a) (West 2000), amended by 20 U.S.C.A. section 1416
(West Supp. 2005)," raised some question as to whether
defendants can be held to an absolute standard of timely
providing services to 100 percent of preschool children with
IEPs."

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that in evaluating whether they were
entitled to a preliminary injunction, the district court
incorrectly used a "substantial compliance" standard to assess
the Defendants' obligation to meet plaintiffs' rights.  

They contend the IDEA confers upon them and all disabled
children the right to a "free appropriate public education," and
the Act's requirement to "comply substantially" with its
provisions applies only to the states' entitlement to continue
receiving federal funds.

The appeals court judges said they agree that the IDEA provides
plaintiffs the right to a free appropriate public education.  
They also agree that the district court erred in using the
"substantial compliance" standard to determine whether
plaintiffs could prove that right was being denied.  

They disagree, however, with plaintiffs' assertion that their
right to a free appropriate public education entitles them to
receive the required educational services immediately upon
development of their IEPs or within a specific time thereafter.  

Instead, the judges hold that the right to a free appropriate
public education entitles plaintiffs to their IEP-mandated
services "as soon as possible" after the IEPs have been
developed.  

Because the district court applied the wrong legal standard, the
judges vacate that portion of the district court's order denying
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and remand it
for reconsideration under the proper legal standard.

The named plaintiffs are three disabled New York City preschool
students whose IEPs have been determined.  After named
plaintiffs received their IEPs, the DOE placed them on a list
referred to as the "PN" list, a waiting list for students who
have received IEPs, but for whom educational services cannot be
found immediately.

On June 16, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint on behalf of "all present and future New York
City preschool children with IEPs who have not or will not
receive all of the services recommended in their IEPs."

On March 30, 2004, the district court issued a Memorandum and
Order granting class certification, but denying the preliminary
injunction.

The suit is "D.D. v. New York City Board of Education et al.,
No. CV-03-2489, 2004 WL 633222 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2004)," under
Judge David G. Trager with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Martin John Bowe, The City of New York Law Department,
         100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212)
         788-0878, Fax: (212) 788-0940, E-mail:
         mbowe@law.nyc.gov; and

     (2) Jane R. Goldberg, Corporation Counsel of the City of
         N.Y., 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, Phone:
         212-442-3229, Fax: 212-788-0877, E-mail:
         jgoldber@law.nyc.gov.

Representing the plaintiffs are Eric Jason Hecker and Matthew D.
Brinckerhoff at Emery Celli Brinckeroff & Abady LLP, 75
Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-
763-5000, Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail: ehecker@ecbalaw.com or
mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motley Rice Announces Injury Claims Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice, LLC, announced that an agreement-in-principal by
way of a proposed class action settlement has been reached with
Norfolk Southern Corp. (NSC) that would provide compensation for
personal injury claims associated with the railroad's January 6,
2005 derailment and chemical spill in Graniteville, S.C.

Joe Rice, the Motley Rice member who led the negotiations,
stated, "We are proud that we were able to make this settlement
happen.  The residents of Graniteville have had their life
disrupted and are entitled to compensation now and to not have
to wait while their cases work their way through the judicial
system."

The proposed settlement will provide varying levels of
compensation to people who were injured and who received medical
treatment, or were hospitalized as a result of the derailment
and subsequent release of chlorine.

The agreement is for claims that were not part of the prior
class action settlement approved last year covering property
damage, evacuation expenses and losses, and minor personal
injuries.

The parties expect to file the motion papers for preliminary
approval by the Court in November.

In addition to Motley Rice, the proposed class is represented
by:

     (1) Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman LLC, PO Box
         879, Charleston, SC 29402, Phone: 1-888-293-6883; E-
         mail: inquiry@rpwb.com;

     (2) Gergel Nickles & Solomon PA, 1519 Richland Street, P.O.
         Box 1866, Columbia, South Carolina 29202-1866, Phone:
         803-779-8080, Fax: 803-256-1816;

     (3) Pierce Herns Sloan & McLeod LLC, The Blake House, 321
         East Bay Street, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: (843)
         722-7733, Fax: (843) 722-7732;
  
     (4) Strom Law Firm LLC, 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A,
         Columbia, SC 29204, Phone: 888-490-2847 (toll free) or
         803-252-4800, Fax: 803-252-4801; and

     (5) Baylen T. Moore, Attorney at Law LLC, 1338 Pickens St.,
         Columbia, SC 29201, Phone:  (803) 765-1577.   

For more information on the Graniteville, South Carolina class
action, or transportation litigation contact Motley Rice, PO Box
1792, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone: 1-800-967-0768, E-mail:
webmaster@motleyrice.com.


NORTH CAROLINA: Class to Receive $480T in Bankruptcy Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. Rich Leonard, chief bankruptcy judge for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, approved a bankruptcy settlement plan for the
South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority that calls for
taxpayers or plaintiffs in a class action to receive almost
$500,000, according to a report by Laura Lewis of The Brunswick
Beacon.

Under the plan, an estimated $1.1 million in SBWSA's remaining
assets will be divided among taxpayers, creditors and
administrative costs, as:

     -- taxpayers or plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit will
        receive about $480,000 to be divvied in two payment
        periods starting in mid-November;

     -- 10 creditors and claimants will split $370,000; and

     -- $250,000 will be allotted for legal and administrative
        expenses.

SBWSA was launched in 1993 to develop a regional sewage
treatment system involving Brunswick County and the incorporated
towns of Calabash and Sunset Beach.  Afterwards, a local
environmental group took legal action against SBWSA's discharge
permits in 1995, forcing SBWSA to implement stormwater
management program as well.  

It filed for chapter 9 protection on Nov. 19, 2004 (Bankr. E.D.
N.C. Case No. 04-09053-8).  

In the same year, SBWSA's former customers filed a class action
claiming the stormwater fees they paid between 1994 and 2003
were misused by the authority.  It sought damages on claims of
negligence, breach of fiduciary trust, unfair and deceptive
trade practice and negligent misrepresentation against the
former utility.

Judge Leonard awarded class settlements in the class in May.  In
his order, he wrote that while SBWSA did not use the money on
illegal activities, it, however, failed to apply them to
statutorily authorized purposes.


OHIO: Plaintiff in Lawsuit Against Lethal Injection Executed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Lundgren, who was recently permitted to join a class
action filed by other inmates who claim Ohio's use of lethal
injection violates their constitutional rights, was executed by
lethal injection on Oct. 24, News-Herald.com reports.

Judge Gregory Frost of U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio stayed on Oct. 17 the execution of Mr.
Lundgren, initially delaying the Oct. 24 execution.

Mr. Lundgren, 56, was convicted of fatally shooting the Dennis
Avery family of Madison in 1989, was allowed to join a class
action filed by five other death row inmates challenging Ohio's
lethal injection as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Frost said in his ruling that evidence has emerged that
questions whether inmates are harmed if the injected drug does
not stop their breathing within one minute, according to The
Plain Dealer.

"It appears that potential flaws identified in Ohio's lethal
injection . . . give rise to the unacceptable risk of violating"
their rights," Frost wrote in the 14-page opinion, the report
said.

After the ruling, the Ohio Attorney General's Office asked the
6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to allow the
execution to go forward.  Late on Oct. 23, a three-judge panel
lifted the stay of execution.  Mr. Lundgren's attorneys then
filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, but was refused a
hearing.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Dec. 8 Hearing Set for $215M Stock Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 8, 2006 for the proposed
$215,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Sears, Roebuck and
Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 C 07527."

Any objections to the settlement must be made by Nov. 20, 2006.  
Deadline for submission of claim form is on Jan. 5, 2007.

The suit covers all purchasers of the securities of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. between Oct. 24, 2001 and Oct. 17, 2002.

The consolidated amended class action complaint for violations
of federal securities laws dated June 16, 2003 filed in the
action generally alleges, among other things, that Defendants
issued materially false and misleading press releases and other
statements regarding Sears' financial condition during the class
period - Oct. 24, 2001 through and including Oct. 17, 2002 - in
a scheme to artificially inflate the value of Sears securities.

The allegations of the complaint focus on Sears' credit card
operations, which (until Sears sold its credit card operations
in 2003) managed one of the largest credit card businesses in
the U.S., and which had issued billions of dollars' worth of
credit to holders of Sears' traditional private label store
credit card and to holders of Sears' more recently introduced
general purpose credit card.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the class
period, the defendants concealed material adverse information
concerning the financial condition, performance and prospects of
Sears' credit card operations, and that defendants issued a
series of falsely positive statements in which, inter alia, they
allegedly:

      -- misrepresented the performance and quality of Sears'
         credit card operations and concealed the deteriorating
         condition of those operations;

      -- misled the investing public into believing that the
         delinquency and charge-off rates of Sears' credit card
         products were comparable to, or better than, those of
         other leading credit card issuers; and

      -- failed to disclose that Sears' reserves for bad credit
         card debt were materially inadequate.

The complaint alleges that these alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions caused Sears' public statements
issued during the Class Period to be materially false and
misleading, in violation of the federal securities laws.

The complaint further alleges that Lead Plaintiff and other
class members purchased Sears securities during the class period
at prices artificially inflated as a result of the Defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
regarding Sears, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.

The defendants deny all allegations of misconduct contained in
the complaint, and deny having engaged in any wrongdoing
whatsoever.  

The defendants maintain that the allegedly false and misleading
statements were truthful and not misleading, and that all
material facts were disclosed.  In addition, the defendants have
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.

On July 16, 2003, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
By Order dated Oct. 23, 2003, the court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss.  This ruling assumed the truth of the
allegations of the complaint and did not make factual findings.

Since November 2003, when the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss, the parties have engaged in extensive
discovery proceedings relating to the claims asserted in the
complaint.

During this period, Sears produced to the lead plaintiff and its
counsel over 4.5 million pages of documents and 1.45 gigabytes
of electronic data files, which included voluminous internal
Sears emails and data relating to Sears' credit card operations.

In addition, plaintiffs' counsel obtained and reviewed
approximately 50,000 additional pages of documents that it
subpoenaed from over a dozen third parties (including Sears
outside auditors) relating to Sears' credit card operations.

Plaintiffs' counsel also took numerous depositions of current or
former officers, directors and/or employees of Sears, including
the most senior executives in Sears' credit card business during
the class period.  

Plaintiff's counsel also consulted extensively, over a more than
two-year period, with experts in the credit card industry
concerning the evidence developed in the course of pre-trial
discovery.

Throughout the litigation, Sears and the other defendants have
vigorously disputed plaintiffs' allegations that Sears or the
individual defendants made any public statements that
misrepresented the financial condition or performance of Sears'
credit card operations.

In addition, defendants assert that all of their public
statements were truthful and made in good faith, and deny that
any such statements were made with knowing or reckless disregard
for the truth (as is required to establish liability), and deny
that any member of the class was harmed by them or their actions
in any way.

In the spring of 2006, lead plaintiff (the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of
Investment) and plaintiffs' counsel reached an agreement in
principle with defendants and defendants' counsel on the terms
of the settlement discussed in this notice, subject to court
approval.

The settlement in principle was reached only after lengthy
mediation proceedings supervised by a retired federal district
court judge.

The court in this action did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs
or in favor of defendants.  Instead, both sides agreed to a
settlement.  

That way, both sides avoid the inherent risks and significant
additional costs of a trial and any appeals, and Class Members
who suffered losses on their transactions in Sears securities
during the class period will get compensation.

The lead plaintiff and its counsel believe, after weighing the
risks and opportunities of further litigation against the
benefits of the proposed $215 million settlement (which, in
addition, requires defendants to pay for all reasonable costs
and expenses of class notice and settlement administration),
that the proposed settlement represents a significant recovery
for the class and is the best interests of all class members.

For more details, contact In re Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6228, Merrick, New York 11566-
9000, Phone: (800) 364-0216, Web site:
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/.


SILICON LABORATORIES: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Silicon Laboratories, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 23,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Dec. 6, 2001, a class action complaint for violations of U.S.
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the company, four
officers individually and the three investment banking firms who
served as representatives of the underwriters in connection with
the company's initial public offering of common stock.

A consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus for the company's initial public
offering did not disclose that:

      -- the underwriters solicited and received additional,
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors; and

      -- the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the
         offering in exchange for a commitment from the
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  A court order dated Oct.
9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the four officers of the
company who had been named individually.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the company.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  

Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Silicon
Laboratories case.  The underwriter defendants have appealed the
class certification decision and the Second Circuit has accepted
the appeal.  

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300-issuer defendants.  

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.  

The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the company may have against its
underwriters.  

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.   

The company anticipates that its potential financial obligation
to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement
and related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.   Those modifications have been
made.  

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, but has not issued a
ruling yet.  There is no assurance that the court will grant
final approval to the settlement.

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


STATE FARM: Settles Credit Score Litigation in Hawaii For $1.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Insurance reached a tentative $1.2 million settlement
in a class action over credit scores that lawyers contend were
improperly used to set rates for Hawaii customers, The Pacific
Business News reports.

According to plaintiffs' attorneys, the lawsuit resulted in
premium refunds being paid to 1,396 of the total of 1,681 people
who are part of the case.

Jim Bickerton, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, added that
though the remaining 285 others with claims totaling $174,494
were not found they might still claim their checks from State
Farm.

Commenting on the settlement, Mr. Bickerton said that he and his
clients were "extremely pleased" that the case resulted in a
full refund to State Farm policy members whose credit reports
were misused.

The lawsuit had alleged that State Farm improperly used credit
scores to set insurance rates, which violates Hawaii law. Jeff
Crabtree, who also represented class members, pointed out
"Hawaii law is absolutely clear -- an insurance company cannot
set rates for auto insurance using credit scores."

For more details, contact James J. Bickerton of Bickerton
Saunders Dang & Sullivan, Topa Financial Center, Fort Street
Tower, 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone:
(808) 599-3811, Fax: (808) 533-2467


TITLE INSURERS: Sued Over Employment of Out-of-State Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney John Q. Gale filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut against ten title
insurance companies over alleged unlawful use of out-of-state
closing service vendors that don't qualify under state law as
"title agents" to provide services traditionally performed by
attorneys and grandfathered-in title agents, the Courthouse News
Service Reports.

Named defendants are:

     -- Chicago Title Insurance,
     -- Commonwealth Land Title Insurance,
     -- Fidelity National Title Insurance,
     -- First American Title Insurance,
     -- Lawyers Title Insurance,
     -- Old Republic National Title Insurance,
     -- Stewart Title Guaranty,
     -- Ticor Title Insurance,
     -- Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida, and
     -- Transnation Title Insurance.

The proposed class action accuses the title insurers of
splitting insurance premiums with the closing service vendors,
which in turn provide title examinations, title opinions,
document preparation, notary and document-filing services.

"Defendants have engaged in this behavior, specifically
prohibited by statute, because it enables them to capitalize on
valuable referral relationships and thereby capture more
revenue," the complaint states.

Mr. Gale claims the title insurers' actions have "resulted in
closing Connecticut lawyers out of the title insurance practice
area and in creating a new world of unlicensed, illegal title
agents engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,
systematically depriving consumers of the protections accorded
them by statute."

The complaint also accuses the insurers of diverting business
from Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Co. (CATIC), which is
a bar-related title insurance underwriter. This title agency is
owned and controlled by attorneys and operates primarily through
lawyers who issue title policies.

Connecticut requires title insurance as a prerequisite to
financing, with state-licensed attorneys as agents. But during
the recent home price boom, "as refinancings have become a more
common phenomenon, a greater number of the lenders and mortgage
brokers providing or offering financing are located outside of
the State of Connecticut.

These out-of-state lenders and brokers have turned to closing
service vendors to provide a single source for closing real
estate transactions, including refinancings.

These closing service vendors, in turn, have supplanted
Connecticut attorneys and the grandfathered-in title agents
(people who held a valid title insurance license on June 12,
1984) at closing," the suit states.

The closing service vendors are writing title insurance
illegally, as they are not qualified for it in Connecticut, and
the defendant companies are splitting fees with them, also
illegally, as a lure, the suit states.

Common questions of law and fact common to members in the class
predominate over any questions affecting individual members
include:

      -- whether defendants, by failing to use plaintiff and the
         class members as title agents as defined by Connecticut
         General Statutes Section 38a-402(13), and engaging in
         acts violating Connecticut Statutes Sections 38a-407
         and 28a-414, engaged in unfair competition and or
         deceptive practices; and

      -- whether the elements of the claim for torious
         interference with business expectancies are satisfied
         in this case.

The suit seeks an injunction and punitive damages.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13f6

The suit is "Gale v. Chicago Title Ins Co et al., Case No. 3:06-
cv-01619-CFD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ingrid L. Moll, William H. Narwold
and Collin O'Connor Udell all of Motley Rice, One Corporate
Ctr., 17th Fl., 20 Church St., Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-
882-1678 or 860-882-1676 or 860-218-2720, Fax: 860-882-1682, E-
mail: imoll@motleyrice.com or bnarwold@motleyrice.com or
cudell@motleyrice.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Court Grants Temporary Stay in Lights Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay
in all proceedings in the Schwab class action until the three-
judge panel reviews the issues involved on Dec. 5, the English
Business News reports.

Earlier, 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 (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 23, 2006).

Morgan Stanley analyst, David Adelman, said that panel will then
decide whether to grant a longer-term stay of the case while it
considers a lower court's decision to certify the case, named
after lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab, as a class action.

At the moment, it is still unclear whether the court will take
up the matter of the class certification decision, the report
said.

A copy of the court order was not readily available.

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:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1252
            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13bc

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:
         mabelasic@jonesday.com;

     (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;
         and

     (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.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Directors Dismissed in Mass. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed the complaint against the director defendant in the
consolidated securities fraud class action against Transkaryotic
Therapies Inc.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class actions against:

     -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005;
        and

     -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.   

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.

On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint
lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all
related cases.  

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9,
2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class
action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,
Securities Litigation."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:

     -- TKT;  

     -- Dr. Selden;  

     -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;  

     -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,
        III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board
        of directors;  

     -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members
        of TKT's board of directors; and  

     -- SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank
        Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and
        Leerink Swann.

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed October 31,
2003.  On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding
the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.

Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss.  
Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on
July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  Both parties have
provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.   

On June 5, 2006 the Judge dismissed the complaint against the
Director Defendants, according to information posted at the Web
site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.
Zobel.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lauren Antonino of Chitwood & Harley, 2900 Promenade
         II, 1230 Peachtree Suite NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone:
         404-873-3900; and

     (2) Paul J. Geller of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL
         33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael G. Bongiorno of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
         and Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02115,
         Phone: 617-526-6145, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com; and

    (ii) Michael K. Fee of Ropes & Gray, LLP, One International
         Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-7000, Fax: 617-
         951-7050, E-mail: MFEE@ropesgray.com.   


UNITED PARCEL: Faces Litigation Over Brokerage Fees in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia lawyer Jim Poyner, on behalf of Robert
Macfarlane, filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against
United Parcel Service over alleged hidden brokerage fees, The
Canadian Press reports.

The lawsuit accuses UPS of misleading and deceptive practices by
failing to get the consumer's consent, not telling the consumer
about the fee and not allowing the consumer to arrange their own
customs clearance.

The suit claims the UPS brokerage fee is "so harsh and adverse
as to constitute an unconscionable practice."

Mr. Macfarlane does not only want his own money back, but the
suit seeks remuneration for everyone who paid the fee.

The suit asks for punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages.

Mr. Poyner expects hundreds of thousands of people have been in
the same situation across the country and there are plans to
file a similar lawsuit in Ontario.

He added that the other major goal of such a lawsuit is what the
court calls "behavior modification."

In one of 10 remedies requested in Mr. Macfarlane's statement of
claim, it asks for a permanent injunction stopping UPS from
continuing to charge the fee, the report said.

The suit stemmed from Mr. Macfarlane's purchase of an amplified
telephone device from Arizona over the Internet last year.  He
knew he would have to pay shipping and handling fees and
government levies, but he was also ordered to pay a $38.40
brokerage fee charged by UPS.

According to Mr. Poyner, it's a surcharge that nobody agrees to,
nobody knows anything about until the delivery person is at the
door.

Christina Falcone, a spokeswoman for UPS defended the brokerage
fees the company charges saying the fees add up to the service
provided.

"We're paying Canada Customs duties and taxes and other
preparation fees before we collect any fee from the customer,"
she claimed.

Ms. Falcone added that it is the shippers' job to inform
customers about the brokerage fee.

Plaintiffs' attorney is James M. Poyner of Poyner Baxter &
Blaxland, Lonsdale Quay Plaza, Suite 408, 145 Chadwick Court,
North Vancouver, BC V7M 3K1, Canada, Phone:  (604) 988-6321.


UNITED STATES: Cedar Fire Victims File Negligence Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several victims of the 2003 Cedar Fire in California are suing
the U.S. government for negligence in controlling the fire once
it began and for allowing it to enter into plaintiffs'
properties.

The plaintiffs are:

     -- Richard and Susan Cary,
     -- Patricia Geerts,
     -- Sharon Henry,
     -- James Herzog,
     -- Diane Knueffer,
     -- Patricia Martin,
     -- Robert S. Martin,
     -- Janet Marie Priatt,
     -- Dona Schneider,
     -- Douglas Schwaebe,
     -- Carl and Katherine Schweikert,
     -- David Southcott, and
     -- Mary Carol Wilder

They are suing on behalf of themselves and a class of persons
who owned property located in and around the County of San Diego
whose real and/or personal property was damaged and/or destroyed
as a result of the Cedar Fire on Oct. 25, 2003.

The Cleveland National Forest consists of 460,000 acres of
varying terrain and is the southernmost National Forest in the
state of California.  

On Oct. 25, 2003, a West Covina man, Sergio Martinez, set a
signal fire Oct. 25, 2003, after getting lost while hunting deer
for the first time in a remote area of the national forest.  

The fire spread and over the course of five days, it became what
has been determined to be the largest fire in California
history.  

The Cedar Fire burned more than 273,000 acres, 2,232 residences,
22 commercial structures, 566 outbuildings and took the lives of
14 civilians and one firefighter.

The plaintiffs are asking $236,890,648.00 in compensation for
destruction and/or damage to property, plus interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The suit, CV2342, was filed in United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

A copy of the complaint is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13fa

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Pamela J. Gelman at Grotefeld & Denenberg, LLP, 1999
         Avenue of the Stars, Suit 1100, Los Angeles, California
         90067, Phone: (310) 356 4683, Fax: (3100 772-0631; and

     (2) Maura Walsh Ochoa, Shoba Dandillaya, Todd C. Harshman
         at Grotefeld & Deneneberg, LLP, 100 Spear St. Suite
         310, San Francisco, California 94 105, Phone: (415)
         344-9670, Fax: (415) 989-2802.


UNITED STATES: Web Site Revamp Mulled as Target Case Proceeds
-------------------------------------------------------------  
Some online retailers are rethinking their Web sites in light of
a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California that says they must be more accessible to
the blind, according to Fox News.

The decision came in the purported class action, "National
Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target Corp.," which charges
that Target's website -- http://www.target.com-- is  
inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,
and the California Disabled Persons Act (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 12, 2006).

The company asked the court to dismiss the action by arguing
that no law requires it to make its Web site accessible.  But,
the court denied the motion to dismiss and held that the federal
and state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as
Target.com.

The suit, which sought class action status, was filed on behalf
of all blind Americans who are being denied access to
target.com.  The named plaintiffs are the National Federation of
the Blind (NFB), the NFB of California, and Bruce Sexton, Jr., a
blind University of California-Berkeley student.

The NFB originally filed the lawsuit in Alameda County Superior
Court, claiming that the giant retail chain discriminates since
its Web site is inaccessible to blind customers (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Marilyn
Hall Patel.  

NFB president Dr. Marc Maurer acknowledged the ruling as "a
great victory for blind people throughout the country."  He says
that his group is very pleased "that the court recognized that
the blind are entitled to equal access to retail websites."

Dr. Maurer revealed that they tried to convince the company that
it should do the right thing and make its website accessible
through negotiations, but the company took the position that it
does not have to take the rights of the blind into account.  

He also adds that with the ruling other companies are put on
notice that the blind cannot be treated like second-class
citizens on the Internet or in any other sphere.

In his suit, Mr. Sexton argued that Target.com lacks proper
"alt" tags, which provide brief text descriptions of images and
other Web page components.  Without the alt tags, computerized
screen readers can't properly describe the contents of a Web
page to a visually impaired user (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6,
2006).

The suit charges that Web sites' tags are sometimes misleading
or incorrect.  It also charges that sometimes it missing
entirely.

The retail giant had sought to have the case thrown out on the
grounds that its site didn't constitute a "place" and, as such,
was not covered by disability-access laws.

However, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel disagreed and in a Sept. 9
opinion that allowed the case to proceed said, "to limit the ADA
to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the
premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain
language of that statute."

Despite the ruling, which applies only to businesses with both
online and brick-and-mortar outlets, Judge Patel rejected a
request for a preliminary injunction that would have required
Target to update its site immediately.  

The judge reasoned that more time was needed to weigh the
retailer's claim that its site was already accessible to the
average blind person.

The lawsuit against the company is expected to be heard in the
coming months.

The suit is "National Federation of the Blind et al. v. Target
Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-01802-MHP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mazen Mohammed Basrawi and Laurence W. Paradis both of
         the Disability Rights Advocates, 2001 Center Street,
         Third Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704, Phone: 510-665-8644,
         Fax: 510-665-8511, E-mail: mbasrawi@dralegal.org or
         larryp@dralegal.org;

     (2) Daniel F Goldstein of Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP, 120
         E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700, Baltimore, MD 21202,
         Phone: 410/962-1030, Fax: 410/385-0869, E-mail:
         dfg@browngold.com; and

     (3) Joshua Konecky and Todd M. Schnieder both of Schneider
         & Wallace, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San
         Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/421-7100, Fax: 415/421-
         7105, E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael James Bostrom and David Frank McDowell both of
         Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite
         3500, Los Angeles, CA 90013, Phone: 213.892.5200, Fax:
         213.892.5454, E-mail: mbostrom@mofo.com or
         dmcdowell@mofo.com; and

    (ii) Robert A. Naeve of Morrison & Foerster LLP, 19900
         MacArthur Boulevard, 12th Floor, Irvine, CA 92612-2445,
         Phone: 949/251-7541, Fax: 949/251-7441, E-mail:
         rnaeve@mofo.com.


VISA U.S.A.: Publishes "Interchange Fees" List For Credit Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa U.S.A., Inc., published a list of "interchange fees" it
charges merchants to process their credit and debit cards when
customers make transactions with plastic, Martin H. Bosworth of
ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

The fees are often called a "hidden tax on consumers," as they
can drive up the price of goods and services without consumers'
knowledge.

It's these interchange fees that have led a coalition of
merchants and retailers to file lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard, and their partner banks, over what the merchants
call collusive price-fixing.

The interchange fee list, whose publication was considered by
observers as an unusual step on Visa's part, is available as a
PDF report.  It is an array of "performance thresholds" and
"reimbursement fees" that seems to require a degree in calculus
to understand.

The basic gist is that different cards and different purchases
end up costing merchants different fees to process, ranging from
1 to 2 percent of the transaction plus change.

Factoring in the billions of credit and debit transactions that
go on in the world daily, 1 percent of a purchase can add up to
millions in revenue for banks and card companies. In addition,
it can wipe out the retailer's profit from a transaction.

To make a profit, merchants will often raise prices on their
goods and services, even for those who pay exclusively with
cash.

Though the Merchant Payments Coalition (MPC) hailed the move, it
pointed out that it wasn't enough to simply reveal the fees.  
The group, which representing retail and restaurant chains,
pointed out that more transparency was needed in the business.

According to MPC chairman Mallory Duncan, the report shows a
bewildering array of rates for different cards, merchants and
types of transactions, which emphasizes the opacity of
interchange.

Mr. Duncan also noted the recent Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report on the poor disclosure of credit card fees
to consumers, saying it was "no surprise" that merchant fees
would be similarly hard to understand.

Visa had originally claimed it would not publish its interchange
fee rates, but after chief rival MasterCard agreed to do so in
an attempt to appease the merchants suing the company, the
company decided to go public with their own list.

Visa recently announced its own initial public stock offering,
after eyeing the success of MasterCard's debut on the market.
The MasterCard IPO is chiefly designed to build a "war chest" of
funds to pay for litigation and settlements in the merchant
lawsuits, thereby shifting the risk to investors rather than the
member banks that formerly owned MasterCard.

Mitch Goldstone, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action
merchant cases, said on his blog (http://www.waytoohigh.com)
that Visa and MasterCard should post the exact interchange fee
of each transaction on the customer's receipt.

Without an honest and straightforward posting, the hidden tax
will continue to feed Visa and MasterCards' member banks with
thirty billion dollars each year, Mr. Goldstone explained.

In 2005, U.S. retailers and various trade groups filed several
lawsuits that accuse credit card associations and issuing banks
of colluding to set artificially high interchange fees, the fees
the merchants pay to credit card banks.  It was the latest in a
series of legal attacks on Visa and others by merchants who
object to rising fees (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

Eventually, those suits were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption,
"In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO."

In the case, plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial
businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim
that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

Visa's "Interchange Fees" list is available free of charge at:

            http://researcharchives.com/t/s?13f7

California-based Visa U.S.A. -- http://usa.visa.com/-- is the  
U.S. arm of credit and debit card firm Visa International, which
has recently announced plans to merge with Visa U.S.A. and Visa
Canada to form Visa, Inc.  Some 14,000 U.S. financial
institution members comprise Visa U.S.A. and more than 300
million Visa-brand check, commercial, credit, prepaid, and smart
cards are carried by U.S. consumers.  Its consumer credit card
options range from the Visa Classic to the Visa Infinite and
include literally thousands of co-branded and affinity cards.  


WORLDCOM INC: Defrauded Investors to Get Initial $150M Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of individual investors who were victimized in the
massive WorldCom financial fraud will soon receive up to $150
million from a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fund set
up to help compensate investors for their losses, the SEC
announces.  

"The distribution," according to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox,
"will begin immediately."

The SEC's ability to return penalty money directly to fraud
victims is a new authority granted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.  

Under Section 308 of the Act, the entire $750 million penalty
that the SEC obtained from WorldCom was paid into a "Fair Fund"
when the reorganized company emerged from bankruptcy protection
in April 2004.  All of that money is earmarked for return to
injured investors.  

On Oct. 19, the U.S. District Court overseeing the SEC
litigation against WorldCom cleared the way for the first
installment of distributions, now that a sufficient number of
claims have been processed.

"This most recent success of the Fair Funds process will play an
important role in encouraging investors to continue to place
trust in America's capital markets," said Chairman Cox.  "It
shows that even when things go terribly wrong, there is a safety
net for injured investors.  Fair Funds are particularly useful
when, as here, the investors who have lost money can be
identified, and their financial losses can be calculated.  And
while tracking down WorldCom's investors in 110 countries isn't
easy, the ultimate result will be that three quarters of a
billion dollars will be returned to its rightful owners."

During the period covered by the fraud, WorldCom had 34
different publicly traded securities, and over 32 billion shares
of its common stock were traded.  Investors in 110 countries
made nearly 450,000 claims to the Fair Fund -- in 10 languages -
- related to approximately 9.4 million transactions in those
securities.  

The initial $150 million distribution approved by the court
covers claims processed to date, including most of those filed
by individual investors.  Subsequent distributions will be made
as the remaining claims are processed.

"I am delighted that individual investors will soon begin
receiving their checks," said Peter H. Bresnan, Deputy Director
of Enforcement.  "I would like to thank the Court, as well as
the Distribution Agent, former SEC Chairman Richard Breeden, for
the tremendous work that he and his team have done in
implementing the distribution and assisting victims of
WorldCom's massive fraud."

The Commission sued WorldCom on June 26, 2002, the day after the
company disclosed it had made massive misstatements on its
financial statements for the preceding five fiscal quarters.  

In July 2003, the District Court entered a final judgment
ordering WorldCom to pay a civil penalty.  Pursuant to the
Commission's request, this penalty was placed in a Fair Fund for
the benefit of WorldCom's investor victims.

The "Fair Funds for Investors" provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 made it possible for all fines obtained in SEC
enforcement actions to be distributed to investor victims.  By
law prior to 2002, all civil penalties obtained by the SEC in
securities enforcement actions were deposited in the general
fund of the U.S. Treasury.

Questions regarding the WorldCom Fair Funds distribution may be
directed to the Distribution Agent at the WorldCom Victim Trust,
P.O. Box 6970, Syracuse, NY 13217, via telephone at (866) 894-
8871 or on the web at http://www.worldcomvictimtrust.com/  

A consolidated, certified class action is being prosecuted on
behalf of a court-certified class of all individuals or entities
who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of
WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through and including June
25, 2002, and who were injured thereby.   The "WorldCom, Inc.,
Securities Litigation 02-Civ. 3288" --
http://www.worldcomlitigation.com-- is pending in the Southern  
District of New York before District Court Judge Denise L. Cote.


ZURICH AMERICAN: IIABA Files Reply Brief in Settlement Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently filed reply brief, the Independent Insurance
Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. (IIABA) is refuting the
opposition filed to its amicus brief concerning Zurich American
Insurance Co.'s proposed class action settlement over its broker
compensation practices, The Business Insurance reports.

Last month, the Alexandria, Virginia-based IIABA filed an amicus
brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
opposing certain aspects of the company's multistate settlement
reached in March.  

Specifically, the IIABA stated concerns about the mandatory
disclosure statement contained in the settlement.  According to
the IIABA, that disclosure statement will inhibit communication
with customers and increase customer confusion regarding
incentive compensation.

The IIABA said it believes that the company, not the agents and
brokers, should have the responsibility for providing
policyholders with any required compensation disclosure form.

Class plaintiffs and 10 attorneys general opposed IIABA's brief,
citing that it was filed prematurely and should have been
reserved for the final fairness hearings.

However, in a press statement announcing the brief's filing, the
association said that it was not party to the settlement
negotiations with Schaumburg, Illinois-based Zurich and
therefore had no opportunity to raise concerns over the
mandatory disclosure form contained in the multistate
settlement.

According to IIABA President Alex Soto, their amicus brief
"provides the court with important information about the
negative consequences consumers and insurance brokers and agents
will experience if the court approves the portion of the
proposed Zurich settlement requiring brokers and agents to
provide their customers with Zurich's mandatory disclosure
form."

Generally, Mr. Soto explained in a previous press statement,
"IIABA supports transparency in insurance transactions, but is
opposed to the portion of the settlement that would require
independent insurance agents and brokers to implement for Zurich
its obligation under the settlement to provide to insureds a
form describing the company's practices in compensating agents
and brokers," (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006)

A similar brief was filed last month in opposition to the
National Assn. of Professional Insurance Agents' similar amicus
brief opposing certain aspects of Zurich's proposed settlement.

In a reply brief filed with the Court on Oct. 6, 2006, PIA
National answered the objections of ten state Attorneys General
who are formally opposing PIA's effort to get the court to
consider its brief of amicus curiae that the association filed
on Sept. 15, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006).

PIA is asking for a delay on preliminary approval of the class
settlement until "flaws" in the mandatory disclosure statement
are corrected.

The PIA also objects to the curtailing of certain contingent
commission payments contained in Zurich's and other proposed
settlements, which the association said would create "disparate
impact on PIA members' livelihoods."

                      Settlement Agreement  
  
In March, Zurich Financial Services Group (Zurich) announced
that Zurich American Insurance Co. and its subsidiaries (ZAIC)
reached settlements with nine state attorneys general and one
insurance commissioner relating to their industry-wide
investigations into broker compensation and insurance placement
practices (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006).   
  
The agreements call for total payments of $171.7 million and
require the implementation of new disclosure and compliance
regimes.  ZAIC did not admit to any violation of U.S. federal or
state laws as part of the settlements.
  
The Multi-State Agreement increases the $100 million settlement
fund amount set forth in the memorandum of understanding (MOU)
to a total of $151.7 million, and requires ZAIC to pay $20
million for state fees and costs.
  
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Broker
Activities Task Force (NAIC Task Force) assisted in developing a
regulatory settlement agreement with ZAIC that the insurance
commissioner from Florida has now executed.  

The NAIC Task Force supported this settlement as a sound
regulatory framework, and had urged all state insurance
regulators to consider joining it.
  
Some of these settlements are dependent on court approvals, as
well as various other conditions.    
  
The nine state attorneys general who have executed settlement
agreements with ZAIC as part of the Multi-State Agreement are
those from California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.
  
The Multi-State Agreement will work in conjunction with a
proposed settlement between ZAIC and plaintiffs in a nationwide
class action against commercial insurers and brokers that is
pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of New
Jersey.  

In October 2005, ZAIC and lead plaintiffs in the class action
entered into the MOU that sets out the principal terms of
settlement of that action.    
  
A copy of the Regulatory Settlement Agreement is available at:  
  
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?127d


* Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein to Open Lieff Global Jan. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP will open on Jan. 1,
2007, Lieff Global, LLP, a firm that will represent survivors
and families of victims who died in domestic and international
aviation and maritime accidents, as well as foreign citizens in
other types of actions.  Lieff Cabraser and Lieff Global will
jointly litigate such actions.  Robert L. Lieff, founder of
Lieff Cabraser, will direct Lieff Global and will become Of
Counsel to Lieff Cabraser.  He will remain located in Lieff
Cabraser's San Francisco offices, and the firm name will remain
unchanged.

"I take great pride in having founded Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein thirty-four years ago and overseen its growth into one
of the premier plaintiffs law firms in the United States,"
stated Mr. Lieff.  "Throughout my legal career I have advanced
the rights of plaintiffs, both in America and abroad, and worked
to create a global network of lawyers committed to this
principle.  Lieff Global will allow me to concentrate on
promoting access to justice on a worldwide scale."

"Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is excited to participate in
the creation of Lieff Global," commented Steven E. Fineman,
managing partner of Lieff Cabraser.  "Lieff Cabraser's strength
as one of the largest and most accomplished law firms in the
United States combined with Lieff Global's international
expertise and international network of lawyers will enable the
firms to jointly litigate against the largest and most powerful
corporations in the world in aviation cases and actions for non-
U.S. citizens."

"Robert Lieff has been my mentor for my entire professional
career," stated Lieff Cabraser partner, Elizabeth J. Cabraser.  
"For more than three decades our firm has been committed to
redressing corporate misconduct, achieving justice for
investors, consumers and employees, promoting safer products and
aviation safety, and protecting our environment and the human
rights of citizens worldwide.  That has been the hallmark of
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and will remain so."

According to Mr. Lieff, Lieff Global will include, in addition
to himself, two present Lieff Cabraser associates Lexi Hazam and
David Fiol.  Nigel Taylor who is presently "Of Counsel" to Lieff
Cabraser will become "Of Counsel" to Lieff Global.  "No other
Lieff Cabraser partners will be leaving to join Lieff Global.  I
do, however, intend to hire additional attorneys as needed,"
stated Mr. Lieff.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Beverly Hills and
Nashville.  Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse
practice that is unique among law firms that represent only
plaintiffs.  The firm's cases typically involve dangerous or
defective products, securities and investment fraud, consumer
fraud and false advertising, employment discrimination and
unlawful employment practices, aviation disasters, environmental
damage and toxic exposures, antitrust and ERISA violations and
the abuse of human and civil rights.  

For the last four years, The National Law Journal has selected
Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the
nation.  

Source/Contact: Robert L. Lieff at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94577, Phone: (415) 956-1000; and Steven E. Fineman, Managing
Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 780 Third
Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 355-9500.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


PRESSTEK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Oct. 10, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire against Presstek, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from July 27, 2006 through Sept. 29, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Dec. 18,
2006for appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.  

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *