CAR_Public/061031.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 31, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 216

                            Headlines

AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Consumer Lawsuit
AMEDISYS INC: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in La. for $300T
AMERIGROUP CORP: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Suit for $5M
APARTMENT OWNERS: Penn. County Files Racial Discrimination Suit
ARIZONA: Shores Residents Hire Lawyer to Sue Ventana Lakes POA

ARIZONA: Superior Court Denies Injunction Against AIMS Test
BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
BOEING CO: Faces ERISA Violations Claims on Pension Value Plan
BOEING CO: Still Faces Age Bias Suit in Kans. Over Spirit Hiring

BOEING CO: "Wood" Plaintiffs Dismiss Mich. ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Devonshire Police Officers Complain Against Seniors
CANADA: Suit Over Drivers' Meal Allowance to Go to Supreme Court
DECATHLON USA: Recalls Tents, Canopies Failing Flammability Test
DVI INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Penn. Securities Suit Settlement

GOOGLE INC: Amazon.com Denies Info Request in Infringement Suit
HP HOOD: Recalls Hood 100% Apple Juice Over Undeclared Milk
LIGHT & MOTION: Recalls Bicycle Batteries for Fire, Burn Hazards
MICROSOFT CORP: Motion to Decertify Iowa Antitrust Suit Denied
MISSOURI: Suits Accuse Firms of Overcharging for Payday Loans

NEW JERSEY: Camden Parents Sue to Recoup School Field Trip Fees
PETZL AMERICA: Recalls Climbing Equipment Due to Fall Hazard
PHARMACEUTICAL COS: Court Approves $23M Settlement in Vit. Suit
PRAXAIR INC: Ohio Welding Fumes Litigation Not Yet Certified
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Circuit Court Denies Rehearing En Banc Motion

R2C2 INC: Teacher Files Academic Theft Complaints in Illinois
RADIOSHACK CORP: Settles Ill. FLSA Violations Suit for $8.5M
SNAP-ON TOOLS: N.J. Judge OKs Settlement in Franchisees' Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO: Dismissal Motion in "Grand Theft Auto Sex" Suit Junked
USTMAN TECHNOLOGIES: Messrs. Dilillo, Timmons Denied Award

VAN DER MOOLEN: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec.
WEBLOYALTY.COM: Faces Suit on "Reservations Rewards" Memberships

* Risk Premium Fee Ruling in "Walker" to Affect Canadian Suits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LEGG MASON: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec's Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling in a case
alleging unjust enrichment by dairies for allegedly short-
changing consumers on the fat content of their milk, Beppi
Crosariol of The Globe and Mail Update reports.

The decision effectively banned the controversial practice of
"multiple-defendant" class actions, in which plaintiffs seek
damages from entire industry sectors, not just the companies
with which they have done business, the report said.

Plaintiff, Andre Bouchard, had sought $89-million in damages
against Agropur Cooperative and 11 other dairies, even though he
had purchased milk from only one of the dairies.  He alleges
that the companies sell milk with lesser fat content than what
they declare, implying that the dairies had been skimming the
fat for use in cheese production.

In 2004, Quebec's Superior Court refused to accept Mr.
Bouchard's allegations, ruling that the shortfalls were within
the calibration limits of their measuring equipment.  

The recent appeals court ruling not only upheld the trial
court's key findings, but also considered the issue on
"multiple-defendant" class actions.  In that line, the court
declared that Mr. Bouchard's case could not have been certified
as a class action against the dairies he did not buy milk from
in any event because he did not have a cause of action against
them.

According to legal experts, the decision will severely curtail
the powers of injured parties to launch sweeping lawsuits
against businesses.  It stands to be very beneficial to certain
entities especially to companies that deal in major consumer
products such as automobiles, as well as insurance, securities
and pharmaceuticals.


AMEDISYS INC: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in La. for $300T
------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. reached a $300,000 settlement in a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana.

On Aug. 23 and Oct. 4, 2001, two class actions were filed
against the company and three of its executive officers.  The
case have since been consolidated, on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's common stock between Nov. 15, 2000 and June 13,
2001.    

In May of 2003, the trial court certified the class, and the
company appealed that decision.  On Feb. 17, 2005, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the trial court's
certification order and remanded the case for further
proceedings relative to class certification.  

The parties agreed to a stay of all depositions and other
discovery, subject to certain limited exceptions, pending a
ruling on class certification.

The suits seek damages based on the decline in the company's
stock price following an announced restatement of earnings for
the fourth quarter of 2000 and first quarter of 2001, alleging
that the company's management knew or were reckless in not
knowing the facts giving rise to the restatement.

On June 28, 2006, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the class representatives in the suits.  On July
5, 2006, the court issued an order dismissing the consolidated
lawsuits.  

The entire settlement amount of $0.3 million, inclusive of all
expenses and attorneys' fees, was covered by insurance.

The suit is "Unger, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-00703-JJB-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Jody E. Anderman of LeBlanc &
Waddell, LLP, 5141 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70809-5000
Phone: 225-768-7222.  

Representing the company are James R. Swanson and Loretta G.
Mince of Correro Fishman Haygood Phelps Weiss Walmsley &
Casteix, 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor, New Orleans, LA
70170-4600 Phone: 504-586-5252, E-mail: jswanson@cfhlaw.com and
lmince@cfhlaw.com.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Suit for $5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigroup Corp. reached an agreement in principle to resolve
class action shareholder litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  

Under the terms of the agreement, a settlement fund of
$5,000,000 will be created by the company's insurance carrier to
end all claims against the company.  In addition, all claims
asserted against the individuals named in the lawsuit will be
immediately dismissed.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, execution of a
definitive agreement and the court's approval.  The company
continues to deny wrongdoing.

In 2005, five company shareholders sued the company in separate
lawsuits, contending that Amerigroup defrauded them.  The suits
were prompted by the collapse of company's stock price after the
disclosure of a third-quarter loss and actuarial difficulties
within the company.   The state's Board of Investment, which is
the overseer of the assets of public-employee pension funds, was
one of five company shareholders who filed the suit.  It gained
lead plaintiff status when the suits were consolidated in Jan.
10, 2006.

The suit also named as defendants certain company officers,
including Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey L.
McWaters.  He is accused of taking advantage of the favorable
earnings forecasts by selling shares before the company's
disclosures of internal difficulties and its loss for the July-
through-September quarter.

The suit is "Illinois State Board of Investment v. Amerigroup  
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under  
Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge F. Bradford  
Stillman.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500  
         World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446-
         8600;

     (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento,  
         PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA  
         23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000; and

     (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580  
         E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757)  
         625-6787.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman & Canoles, PC, 150 W.  
         Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone:  
         (757) 624-3000; and  

    (ii) Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
         LLP & Affiliates, Four Times Square, New York, NY  
         10036, Phone: (212) 735-2628, Fax: (917) 777-2628, E-
         mail: jkasner@skadden.com.  


APARTMENT OWNERS: Penn. County Files Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fair Housing Council of Montgomery County filed a federal
class action that accuses Plymouthtowne Ltd. Partnership,
Tornetta Properties, PTA Corp., and Carrie Stewart of racial
discrimination in the rental of housing.

The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Oct 25, 2006, states, among others,
that:

     -- tests conducted by plaintiff Fair Housing Council of
        Montgomery County demonstrate that defendants have a
        policy of discrimination based upon race by encouraging
        white applicants, discouraging African American
        applicants and providing different leasing terms to
        white and African American applicants; and

     -- the defendants have pursued a pattern and practice of
        discriminating against persons on the basis of race with
        respect to the rental of apartments.  These policies and
        practices include making housing unavailable based on
        race and provide different treatment in the terms, and
        conditions of rental of a dwelling to persons based on
        race.

The suit seeks declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief
and damages.

Specifically, the action arises under the Fair Housing Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq., the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as amended 43 P.S. Section 951
et. seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section
1981 and Section 1982.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1427

The suit is "Fair Housing Council of Montgomery County v.
Plymouthtowne Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
04776-WY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge William H. Yohn, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is Arthur Haywood of Haywood, LLC,
6800 Stenton Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19150, Phone: 215-849-7190,
Fax: 215-849-0244, E-mail: ahaywood@haywoodllc.com.


ARIZONA: Shores Residents Hire Lawyer to Sue Ventana Lakes POA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Shores, the subdivision near Beardsley Road and
106th Avenue in Peoria, have retained attorney Jonathan
Dessaules to file a class action against the Ventana Lakes
property owners' association, it emerged in a report by
Newszap.com.

Ventana Lakes is a 1,700-home association whose major crossroads
are 107th Avenue and Beardsley Road.  Ventana Lakes POA absorbed
the 159-home HOA in 1992.  Though the shorelines are part of the
homeowner's property, the original HOA maintained the steep
banks.  After the integration, maintenance of the lakefront
property along the Shores was continued by Ventana Lakes.

However, after consulting with their attorney, the POA board
sent a letter to Shores residents telling them maintenance of
the land would be turned over to them Jan. 1, 2007, and the
decision would be announced at an Oct. 18 board meeting.  But
the meeting did not address the issue.  

Mel Millsap, chairman of the Shores Committee, said they plan to
file a temporary injunction to stop any changes to current
procedure until the issue is resolved, according to the report.

The committee expects legal action or negotiations to take place
in the next month, the report said.


ARIZONA: Superior Court Denies Injunction Against AIMS Test
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields denied a
request for a preliminary injunction against a test requirement
for graduating high school students in the state, according to
azcentral.com.  The request seeks to put on hold the
implementation of Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards
while a class action is pending.  A trial date has not been set.

Advocacy groups, The William E. Morris Institute for Justice,
and the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest and
Phoenix attorney Jeremy Butler filed the suit on behalf of two
seniors who are expected to have met all graduation requirements
by May, except for passing the AIMS test.  Defendants are
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, along
with the state and the Arizona Board of Education (Class Action  
Reporter, April 21, 2006).

The suit is "Espinoza v. State of Arizona" after Perla Espinoza
of Nogales High School.  The other plaintiff is Hannah Gonzales
of Scottsdale's Coronado High School.  The lawsuit alleges that
because inadequate funding for schools students are not prepared
well for the test.  It calls the state's educational funding
system "arbitrary" and not based on educational needs.

The suit wants high school seniors, who completed their required
course work but did not pass the statewide AIMS test, to earn
their diplomas.  The AIMS tests students in reading, writing and
math.  The graduating class of 2006 is the first in the state's
history that must pass all three parts of the test to graduate.

Ellen Katz, litigation director for the Morris Institute for
Justice, is the lead attorney on the case.  The legal team also
includes Tim Hogan of the Center for Law in the Public Interest,
lead attorney in the English learner litigation, according to
the Tribune.

The William E. Morris Institute for Justice on the Net:  
http://www.azji.org/;The Arizona Center for Law in the Public    
Interest on the Net: http://www.aclpi.org/.   


BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. is defendant in four employment discrimination
cases in which class certification was or is being sought or has
been granted, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

                       Williams Litigation

In the Williams racial discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, the company prevailed in a jury trial in December
2005, but plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial dismissal of
compensation claims in November 2005.  

                       Calendar Litigation

In the Calender racial discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. Northern District of Illinois -- a spin-off
from Williams -- plaintiffs dropped their promotions claim on
June 6, 2006 and put their compensation claims on hold pending
the outcome of the Williams appeal.

                       Carpenter Litigation

In the Carpenter gender discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their overtime claim and
decertification of their class in February 2004.  

The dismissal of the overtime claim was affirmed on appeal on
Aug. 8, 2006 and the appeal of the decertification ruling was
dismissed as untimely.  

                       Anderson Litigation

In the Anderson gender discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, the company is in the process of filing additional
briefs with the court to address the impact of the Carpenter
ruling on the company's motions to decertify the class and
dismiss all class claims.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.


BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee
alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed an
identical class action asserting allegations that Boeing is
obligated to provide vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to
plaintiffs and all class members.

Plaintiffs alleged that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.

The lawsuit alleged that the collective bargaining agreements
and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime
retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class
members.

The suit is "Mayfield et al. v. Boeing Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00883," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing the plaintiffs is Deborah Godwin of Godwin, Morris,
Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC, 50 N. Front Street, Suite 800,
Memphis, TN 38173-0290, Phone: (901) 528-1702, E-mail:
dgodwin@gmlblaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Charles Edward Young, Jr. of
Kramer, Rayson, Leake, Rodgers & Morgan, LLP, 800 S. Gay Street,
Suite 2500, Knoxville, TN 37901-0629, Phone: (865) 525-5134,
Fax: (865) 522-5723, E-mail: ceyoung@kramer-rayson.com.


BOEING CO: Faces ERISA Violations Claims on Pension Value Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois over allegations it
violated Employment Retirement Income Security Act in relation
to its Pension Value Plan for Employees, the company said at its
Oct. 25, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On June 23, 2006, two employees and two former employees of
Boeing filed a purported class action against:

     -- Boeing Co.,
     -- McDonnell Douglas Corp., and
     -- the Pension Value Plan for Employees of The Boeing Co.

on behalf of themselves and similarly situated participants in
the Plan.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 23, 2006 by:

     -- Larry Wheeler of Edwardsville,
     -- David and Maral Keeton of Wildwood, Missouri, and
     -- Vincent Parisi of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri.

The plaintiffs allege that as of Jan. 1, 1999 and all times
thereafter, the Plan's benefit formula used to compute the
accrued benefit violates the accrual rules of ERISA and that
plaintiffs are entitled to a recalculation of their benefits
along with other equitable relief.  

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that their retirement benefits
are less than the accrued benefit to which they are legally
entitled, since the plan failed to properly apply accrual and
vesting rules imposed by ERISA.  The conduct mentioned is
widespread, affecting hundreds of plan participants, according
to the complaint (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2006).  

Plaintiffs also claim that the plan violates ERISA's anti-back
loading provisions by making benefits accrue very slowly over
time until the participants nears the normal retirement age so
that a participant's vested pension rights have very little
value until they complete a very long period of service.

In addition, plaintiffs argue that under ERISA a defined benefit
plan must allow a participant to accrue, i.e. earn benefits no
less that ratably over a working career so as to prevent
employers from using creative plan designs to avoid the
protection afforded by ERISA's vesting rules.

The company believes the allegations claimed by plaintiffs lack
merit and have filed a motion to dismiss all claims.  

                         Relief Sought

Furthermore, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to appropriate
equitable relief to redress the plan's violations of ERISA and
to enforce provisions, and incidental monetary relief
mechanically flowing from injunctive relief in the form of a
common fund equal to the difference between what they were paid
under the alleged unlawful method of computing their pension
benefits.

The suit is asking the court for a declaration that the pension
plan's method of computing benefits is unlawful, a judgment for
them and against the company and a permanent injunction
preventing the plan from calculating pension benefits in
violation of ERISA.

Plaintiffs are also asking for the creation of a common fund
equal to the amount of pension benefits due, pre and post
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
common fund/benefit doctrine or any other applicable laws and
any other relief the court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.

The suit is, "Wheeler et al. v. Pension Value Plan for Employees
of The Boeing Co. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00500-DRH-PMF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
under Judge David R. Herndon.

Representing the plaintiffs are Matthew H. Armstrong and Jerome
J. Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard, Phone: 314-621-6115 and 618-
632-3329, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com and
jschlichter@uselaws.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Lisa Demet Martin of Bryan Cave - St. Louis, 211 North
         Broadway, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600, St.
         Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2000, Fax: 314-259-
         2020; and

     (2) Christopher J. Rillo of Groom Law Group, Chartered,
         1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
         202-857-0620, Fax: 202-659-4503, E-mail:
         crillo@groom.com.


BOEING CO: Still Faces Age Bias Suit in Kans. Over Spirit Hiring
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas alleging age
discrimination, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On March 2, 2006, the company was served with a complaint in
Wichita, Kansas, alleging that hiring decisions made by Spirit
Aerospace near the time of the sale of the Wichita facility were
tainted by age discrimination.

The case, filed on Dec. 19, 2005, was brought as a class action
on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit.  Pursuant to an
indemnity provision in the Asset Purchase Agreement, Spirit
agreed to defend and indemnify the company.

The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas under Judge Monti L. Belot with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Uzo L. Ohaebosim and Lawrence
W. Williamson, Jr. of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301
N. Main, 1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-
5400, Fax: 316-261-5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are, James M. Armstrong and Carolyn
L. Matthews of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, 1551 N Waterfront Parkway,
Ste. 100, Wichita, KS 67206-4466, Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-
267-6371, Fax: 316-267-6345, E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com and
cmatthews@foulston.com.


BOEING CO: "Wood" Plaintiffs Dismiss Mich. ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Wood et al. v. Boeing Co.,"
have dismissed the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

On Aug. 21, 2006, four United Aerospace Workers (UAW) Local 1069
retirees and the International UAW filed a class action seeking
to represent a class of retirees formerly employed at Boeing
Rotorcraft in Philadelphia and previously represented by the
UAW.

Plaintiffs alleged that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The lawsuit alleged that the collective bargaining agreements
and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime
retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class
members.  Without prior notice, the plaintiffs dismissed this
lawsuit on Sept. 13, 2006.

The suit is "Wood et al. v. Boeing Co., Case No. 2:06-cv-13702-
LPZ-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff with
referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs is Roger J. McClow of Klimist,
McKnight, 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 117, Southfield, MI
48034-2161, Phone: 248-354-9650, E-mail: rmcclow@kmsmc.com.

Representing the defendant is Michael A. Alaimo of Miller,
Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500,
Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone: 313-963-6420, E-mail:
alaimo@millercanfield.com.


CALIFORNIA: Devonshire Police Officers Complain Against Seniors
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Los Angeles police officers in the north San Fernando
Valley has filed a class-action grievance against supervisors at
the Los Angeles Police Department's Devonshire Division, The Los
Angeles Times reports.

The Police Protective League filed the complaint on behalf of 30
officers working at the division.  The complaint claims the
officers are improperly pressured by the command staff to meet
quotas in writing traffic tickets.  Negative comments about
their ticketing performance are allegedly documented in comment
cards that are logged into the officers' personnel files and can
be considered in periodic performance evaluations.

Hank Hernandez, a lawyer for the union, confirmed that the
grievance was filed with the division.  The comment cards as
well as roll call comments made by the division to encourage
compliance allegedly violate state law.

State law prohibits the setting of quotas in issuing citations
and using the number of citations as the sole criterion for
promotion or demotion, Tim Sands, union vice president, wrote in
the current issue of the union newsletter.

The union's contract with the city also prohibits quotas,
according to the report.

Mr. Hernandez said he would take the complaints to Chief William
J. Bratton if Capt. Joseph Hiltner rejected them.


CANADA: Suit Over Drivers' Meal Allowance to Go to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summerland lawyer Tom Johnston is taking a lawsuit over truck
drivers' meal allowance to the Supreme Court of Canada,
according to Today's Trucking Online.

Mr. Johnston filed the lawsuit against the Canada Revenue Agency
at the B.C. Supreme Court in 2004.   He alleges that the
government favored its own employees over ordinary truckers, by
granting them a larger meal allowance than others.  The suit
alleges that the government paid their own employees $73.10/day,
while allowing only a maximum of $22.50/day for other workers.  
The discrepancy violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms he
said.

In 2005, Supreme Court Justice Alison Beames struck down the
claim.  A B.C. appeals court recently agreed with the decision,
encouraging Mr. Johnston to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Johnston is representing about 2,200 truckers.


DECATHLON USA: Recalls Tents, Canopies Failing Flammability Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Decathlon USA, of Wilmington, Massachusetts, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
22,000 units of 2006 Quechua Brand tents and canopies.

The company said the tents may fail to meet the industry's flame
resistant standard, posing a fire hazard.  No injuries were
reported.

The recall affects all 2006 model Quechua branded tents (2-
Seconds, 2-Seconds Air, 3-Seconds Air, T2, T3 Air, T4 Air,
T6.2XL Air, T2 Ultralight Tents, T0 and T0+ canopies) sold in
orange, red, blue, camouflage, or beige with SKU numbers 350808,
65196, 86813 146552, 146548, 100986, 351219, 370833, 531980,
531989, 65024, 90366, 90428, 567008, 567009, 567036, 567032,
370973, 22611, 566985, and 566992 are included in this recall.  

The SKU number can be found on the self-carry jacket.  Quechua
is printed on the exterior of the tent or canopy and on some of
the carrying bags.

The recalled 2006 model Quechua branded tents and canopies were
manufactured in China and are being sold at Decathlon USA retail
stores in Massachusetts or through online sales at
http://www.decathlontent.comfrom January 2006 through September  
2006 for between $15 and $150.

Pictures of the recalled 2006 model Quechua branded tents and
canopies:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07007a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07007b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07007c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled tents and call
Decathlon USA for information on returning these recalled tents
for a refund plus an extra $10.  Consumers that purchased tents
through the Web site and toll-free number are being sent direct
notices from Decathlon.

For additional information, contact Decathlon USA at (888) 446-
5147 anytime or visit http://www.decathlon-usa.com


DVI INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Penn. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  
will hold a hearing on Nov. 9, 2006 at 10 a.m. regarding partial  
settlements of the class action, "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336."

The class consists of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9
7/8% Senior Notes), between Aug. 10, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2003,  
both dates inclusive.  

Excluded from the settlement class are defendants; any entity in
which a defendant has a controlling interest or is a part or
subsidiary of, or is controlled by a defendant; the officers,
directors, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns of any of the defendants; plaintiffs  
named in the "WM High Yield Fund, et al. v. O'Hanlon, et al.,
No. 04-CV-3423," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of the Honorable  
Legrome D. Davis.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Jan. 3, 2007.   
Claims were due Sept. 1, 2006.  

In 2003, the company was named defendant in a lawsuit filed in  
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.  
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated  
thereunder.

The suit alleged the company issued a series of material  
misrepresentations to the market between Nov. 7, 2001 and June  
27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's  
publicly traded securities.  

The complaint alleged that these statements were materially  
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and  
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:  

      -- that the company had failed to timely write down the  
         value of certain assets which had become impaired;  
  
      -- that the company's accounting and financial reporting  
         policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-
         recurring) transactions were inadequate;  

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and  
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial  
         condition of the company; and  

      -- that as a result, the values of the company's assets,  
         net income and earnings per share were materially  
         overstated at all relevant times.  

The class period ended June 27, 2003.  On that date, DVI shocked  
the investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities  
and Exchange Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003  
quarterly report because an ndependent auditor had not reviewed
it.  

The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider  
the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net  
income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per  
share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net  
income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically  
reduced.  

Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share  
for the nine months ended March 31, 2003 was reduced by $0.10,  
or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30, 2002  
was reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%, reduced the company's  
net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003.

Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling  
from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on  
June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very  
high trading volume.

                       Settlement Terms

Under the settlement, defendants shall pay $1.175 million to be  
paid into an interest-bearing attorney escrow account under the  
control of counsel for lead plaintiffs pursuant to the following  
schedule and instructions:

     -- 10% of the Settlement Amount upon execution of the MOU  
        (previously received by Lead Counsel);

     -- 10% of the Settlement Amount upon execution of the  
        Stipulation of Settlement;

     -- 25% of the Settlement Amount forty-five (45) days after  
        execution of the Stipulation of Settlement;

     -- 25% of the Settlement Amount sixty-five (65) days after  
        execution of the Stipulation of Settlement;

     -- $352,500.00 (30% of the Settlement Amount) one hundred  
        and twenty (120) days after execution of the Stipulation  
        of Settlement;

     -- all interest earned in the Escrow Account shall accrue  
        solely for the benefit of Lead Plaintiffs and the Class,  
        unless the Final Order and Judgment does not become  
        final or defendants elect to exercise its option  
        pursuant to paragraph 28 hereof, in which case, Lead  
        Plaintiffs shall promptly return the entire Settlement  
        Amount and any and all interest accrued thereon to  
        defendants, less Notice and Administrative Expenses and  
        any Taxes upon the Settlement Fund; and

     -- Except for Notice and Administrative Expenses as  
        reasonably required and costs incurred in connection  
        with the taxation of the Settlement Fund, no monies  
        shall be released from the Escrow Account to, or for the  
        benefit of, Lead Plaintiffs or the Class for  
        distribution to the Class unless and until the Final  
        Order and Judgment becomes Final.

A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order and is available free
of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1145

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
2:03-CV-5336," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Antonia M. Apps of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and  
         Evans, PLLC, 1615 M. Street, North West, Suite 400,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-326-7900;

     (2) Thomas V. Ayala of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701  
         Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-963-
         5719, E-mail: tayala@morganlewis.com; and

     (3) Gregory Ballard of Cadwalader wickersham & Taft LLP,  
         One World, Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone:  
         212-504-6701, E-mail: gregory.ballard@cwt.com.

Representing the plaintiffs is M. Reas Bowman of Krislov &  
Associates Ltd, 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1350, Chicago, IL 60606,  
Phone: 312-506-0500.


GOOGLE INC: Amazon.com Denies Info Request in Infringement Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Online retailer Amazon.com Inc. refused to provide details about
its book search feature to help rival Google Inc. fight a class
action over copyright infringement, reports say.

Google asked for the information via a subpoena served on Oct.
6.  Amazon.com calls the request as "overly broad and unduly
burdensome" and said it would expose Amazon's trade secrets.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered the consolidation of two copyright infringement lawsuits
filed against Google this month (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23,
2006).

On Oct. 12, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo consolidated the two
cases one filed by book publishers and the authors.  Judge
Sprizzo also set a long schedule for the case.  According to his
schedule, he won't be deciding the cases until at least February
2008, perhaps even as late as May 2008.

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

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

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

Besides the Guild, published authors named as plaintiffs in the
case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first amended class action complaint in The Author's Guild:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?bc5

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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


HP HOOD: Recalls Hood 100% Apple Juice Over Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
HP Hood LLC of Chelsea, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is recalling plastic half
gallon and pint containers of Hood 100% Apple Juice, because it
may contain undeclared milk.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

The product was distributed to retail locations, distributors
and institutions throughout New England (Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Connecticut).

The product is packaged in plastic pint and half-gallon
containers and has a code date of NOV 14/06 and a plant code of
2508.

No related illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of milk on the label.

Consumers who have purchased Hood 100% Apple Juice in plastic
pints or half gallons with a sell by date of NOV 14/06 and a
plant code of 2508 are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a refund.  Consumers with questions may contact HP
Hood at 1-800-242-2423.


LIGHT & MOTION: Recalls Bicycle Batteries for Fire, Burn Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Light & Motion, of Monterey, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,700 units of ARC lithium ion bicycle light batteries, which
were manufactured by GP Batteries International Ltd., of
Singapore and imported by Gold Peak Industries (North America),
Inc. of San Diego, California.

The company said the battery can overheat, posing a fire or burn
hazard to users. No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled batteries are found in Light & Motion 2004 ARC Li-
Ion HID lighting systems.  The lights are black with "ARC" and
"LIGHT & MOTION" written in yellow letters.  The recall includes
only batteries with a manufacturer date code of 1003 or 1103.  
The date code is stamped on the bottom of the battery and "LIGHT
& MOTION" is printed on the side of the battery.

These recalled ARC lithium ion bicycle light batteries were
manufactured in China and are being sold at authorized bicycle
dealers nationwide from November 2003 through October 2004 for
about $500.

Pictures of the recalled ARC lithium ion bicycle light
batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07008a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07008b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the lights immediately and
return the battery to Light & Motion for a free replacement.

For more information, call Light & Motion collect at (831) 645-
1538 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or log
on to http://www.bikelights.com/Support/liion.htm


MICROSOFT CORP: Motion to Decertify Iowa Antitrust Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg in Polk County denied
Microsoft Corp.'s motion to decertify a consumer antitrust class
action that alleges it violated the state's competition laws,
the Globe Online reports.

The judge, who heard arguments on the motion on Oct. 11, found
that no significant changes have been made in the case to
warrant dismissal of the class.

He concluded that decertifying the class would require him to
determine the merits of the case before hearing the evidence and
testimony in court.

"This court can discern no change in circumstances which
prohibits this class action from proceeding forward to trial,"
he said. "Therefore, for the reasons stated, the court finds
that the motion to decertify the class action is denied."

Microsoft sought to decertify the class, claiming that
plaintiffs' attorneys cannot show that all class members were
injured by alleged anticompetitive conduct and that amended
court documents make new allegations that are not applicable to
the class action.

Earlier, Judge Rosenberg declined to disqualify Des Moines
attorney Roxanne Conlin from the consumer antitrust class
actions ruling that Ms. Conlin's actions were not unethical
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).  Even if the documents
were confidential, they were not prejudicial.

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

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

     (i) personal computer operating system software, and

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

The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed Class Members by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;

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

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security
         breaches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The counsels representing the Class Members are:

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

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

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


MISSOURI: Suits Accuse Firms of Overcharging for Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Payday Loan and Advance Loans II faces two purported
class actions in St. Louis court over allegations that it
illegally charges high interest on payday loans, The Courthouse
News reports.

Named plaintiff Lavern Robinson says the lenders violated
Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act by:

      -- renewing her loan more than six times at 200 percent
         interest;

      -- charging accumulated interest and fees of more than 75
         percent of the original loan; and

      -- never evaluating her ability to repay the loan - all of
         which are specifically prohibited by the law.

Representing Ms. Robinson in the case Erich Vieth of Simon
Passanante, P.C.

For more details, contact Erich Vieth of Simon Passanante, P.C.,
701 Market Street, Ste. 1450, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Phone:
314-241-2929, Fax 314-241-2029, E-mail: evieth@spstl-law.com,
Web site: http://www.spstl-law.com.


NEW JERSEY: Camden Parents Sue to Recoup School Field Trip Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of parents representing hundreds of children who have
attended H.B. Wilson Elementary School in Camden filed suit in
Camden County Superior Court on Oct. 25, attorneys for the
parents, Kevin Mitchell and Eric Taylor of the law firm, Taylor
& Mitchell in Camden, announced.

The parents seek the return of field trip fees charged over
numerous years that were, allegedly, illegally collected by
administrators at their children's school.  Claiming up to 17
years of this practice, the parents leading the class action,
some of whom have had two, three or four children at any given
time in the school, claim they are owed upwards of $583,000,
plus interest.

The complaint states, "All individual members of the class were
compelled, directed and ordered to make payments of vast and
considerable sums of money to defendant City of Camden Board of
Education as a condition of their children's involvement and
participation in the educational programs and opportunities
afforded by defendant City of Camden Board of Education."

Earlier this year, in a note from the District, parents of H.B.
Wilson Elementary school, which houses K through 4th grade, were
told that they do not, and never did, need to pay for yearly
field trips for their children, and that the fees were already
provided in the school's budget.

Under New Jersey law, it is a violation to charge parents whose
children are eligible for free lunch vouchers additional fees
for school events.  When carried out by a person wielding an
authority granted by the state, the act constitutes a violation
of the parents' civil rights.  

It is believed that as many as 2,000 parents are owed refunds
that could average $85 for each child in grades K-3, and $153 in
grade 4, for each year, over a period of 17 years.  On Oct. 20,
the parents sent a formal notice to the Camden Board of
Education informing its members of their intent to file a class
action over the illegal collection of those fees and the
attendant violations of New Jersey State law.  The suit contends
that parents paid for field trips to locations such as New York
City, the Philadelphia Zoo, Hershey Park, Storybook Farm, and
Clementon Amusement Park, among others.

The suit says former Principal Michael Hailey acted "unlawfully,
unethically and immorally" in soliciting those funds while he
was principal of H.B. Wilson, a position he held for 17 years
before retiring in June 2005.  The retired Mr. Hailey is
currently under investigation, along with Principal Juanita
Worthy of sister school U.S. Wiggins, for the alleged use of
illegal expense vouchers to purchase personal items such as I-
pods and flat-screen televisions.  Attorneys will hire an expert
to determine the true losses, which they currently estimate at
around $583,000 excluding interest.

The parent plaintiffs state that no one in the District has
informed them about what happened to the money.  They also are
unaware how the practice went undetected for such a long period
of time.

"This sort of corruption is common in Camden.  And no one ever
does anything about it.  It's time for us, as parents, to hold
these people accountable," said parent plaintiff Antoinette
Bean.

There are 14 parents, including Ms. Bean, listed on the
complaint.  The parents are supported by Excellent Education for
Everyone.

For more information: Kevin Mitchell, Phone: 856-546-7400 or
Eric Taylor, Phone: 512-332-1511.


PETZL AMERICA: Recalls Climbing Equipment Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Petzl America, of Clearfield, Utah, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,000
units of Carabiners used for climbing.

The company said these carabiners have a green button that acts
as a safety mechanism to prevent unlocking.  The recalled
carabiners can unlock unexpectedly without pressing the green
button, posing a fall hazard.  No injuries were reported.

The recall involves the M34 BL Am'D Ball-Lock and M36 BL William
Ball Lock carabiners with metal locking sleeves.  Carabiners
with batch number between 06076 and 06178 are included in the
recall.  The batch number is engraved on the spine of the
carabiner.  The recall does not include Ball Lock carabiners
having a plastic locking sleeve.

These recalled carabiners were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at Petzl dealers nationwide from March 2006 through
July 2006 for about $13 for the Am'D model and about $17 for the
William model.

Pictures of the recalled carabiners:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07010a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07010b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled carabiners
immediately, and contact Petzl America to have their carabiners
inspected and to receive a free replacement, if necessary.

For more information, consumers can contact Petzl America at
(877) 807-3805 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday, or log on to http://www.petzl.com.


PHARMACEUTICAL COS: Court Approves $23M Settlement in Vit. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Court in Melbourne, Australia approved the $23 million
(AU$30.5 million) settlement reached in a class action filed on
behalf of about a dozen Australian businesses claiming several
international companies colluded to operate as a cartel by
illegally fixing vitamin prices, the Australian Associated Press
reports.

Plaintiffs' counsel Maurice Blackburn Cashman said the Federal
Court had approved the settlement, reached in July, as well as
the reimbursement payments and out-of-pocket expenses for
applicants who prepared evidence for the case.

According to the firm, three applicants and four other victims
will receive $418,000 in related expenses.

Spokeswoman Brooke Dellavedova said the settlement was
vindication for the many businesses that lost market share or
paid inflated prices.  She said it was the first time
reimbursement payments had been agreed to by an Australian
court.

In 2003, Melbourne-based law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman
commenced the class action against the Australian, Asian and
European divisions of international conglomerates such as Roche
AG, Aventis SA and BASF AG, contending these firms and others
colluded to illegally fix vitamin prices in the 1990s (Class
Action Reporter, July 21, 2003).

The companies allegedly colluded to fix prices across the world
market for vitamins A, C, E, B2, B5 and beta-carotene in
everything from drinks and foodstuffs to pharmaceutical
products, cosmetics and animal feed.

The Australian class action was initiated after a worldwide
conspiracy to raise and fix prices of vitamins was uncovered,
with companies receiving record penalties (Class Action
Reporter, July 18, 2006).


PRAXAIR INC: Ohio Welding Fumes Litigation Not Yet Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc. reports at its Oct. 25 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30 that none of the class actions, alleging personal
injury caused by manganese contained in welding fumes, that were
filed against the company have been certified.

The company was named as a co-defendant with many other firms in
2,008 lawsuits as of a Sept. 30 count.  Among such matters are
claims brought by welders alleging that exposure to manganese
contained in welding fumes caused neurological injury.

The company has never manufactured welding consumables.  A
predecessor of the company manufactured such products prior to
1985.

There were a total of 6,284 individual claimants in these cases.
The federal cases are being transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances,
punitive damages.  Eight of the cases are proposed class actions
seeking medical monitoring on behalf of welders.  None of the
class actions have been certified.

The consolidated suit is, "In re: Welding Rod Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL Docket No. 1535," filed
in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
under Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Russell T. Abney of Watts Law Firm, 14th Floor, 555
         North Caranchaua, Corpus Christi, TX 78478, Phone: 713-
         621-7944, Fax: 713-621-9638, E-mail: russ@abney.us; and

     (2) Roy F. Amedee, Jr. of Roy F. Amedee Attorney at Law,
         425 W. Airline Hwy., Suite B, LaPlace, LA 70068, Phone:
         985-651-6101, Fax: 985-651-6104.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Richard E. Sarver of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman
         Sarver, 1800 LL & E Tower, 909 Poydras Street, New
         Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-598-9700, Fax: 504-598-
         9701, E-mail: rsarver@barrassousdin.com.

    (ii) David C. Landever of Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, Ste.
         1600, 101 Prospect Avenue, W, Cleveland, OH 44115,
         Phone: 216-781-1111, Fax: 216-781-6747, E-mail:
         dlandever@wisemanlaw.com; and

   (iii) Jessica D. Miller of O'Melveny & Myers, 555 13th
         Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-383-5157,
         Fax: 202-383-5414, E-mail: jmiller@omm.com.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Circuit Court Denies Rehearing En Banc Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc in relation to its
decision to affirm the dismissal of a securities class action
against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

Originally, the company and several of its executive officers
were named as defendants in a putative securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma in early 2001.  

The suit is seeking unspecified damages on the basis of
allegations that the company issued false and misleading
financial information, primarily related to the method it used
to account for commission advance receivables from sales
associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.  

Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals.  

In August 2002, the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from
the case, leaving two-individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs
on behalf of the putative class.  As of Dec. 31, 2003, the
briefing in the appeal had been completed.  

On Jan. 14, 2004, oral argument was held in the appeal.  On July
14, 2006, the 10th Circuit Court entered an Order and Judgment
affirming the trial court's dismissal with prejudice.

On Sept. 6, 2006, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc.

The suit is "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities, et al. v., Case No.
5:01-cv-00182," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Stuart W. Emmons and William B.
Federman of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson Ave., Suite
2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-
239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com and wfederman@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Brooke S Murphy of Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, 20 N. Broadway
         Ave., Suite 1800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-
         235-7735, Fax: 405-272-5278, E-mail:
         murphyb@crowedunlevy.com;

     (2) Margaret M. Snyder of Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells,
         LLP, Steuart Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San
         Francisco, CA 94105-1420, Phone: 415-778-4700, Fax:
         415-778-4701; and

     (3) Robert P. Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe-San
         Francisco, 405 Howard St., The Orrick Building, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5934, Fax: 415-773-
         5759, E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com.


R2C2 INC: Teacher Files Academic Theft Complaints in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm McDermott, Will & Emery filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against term-paper operator R2C2 Inc. and its owner Rusty
Carroll to correct alleged abuses in the term-paper mill
industry, The National Law Journal reports.

According to McDermott's Evan Parke, who is handling the case,
the class action, coupled with claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, offers the chance for
triple damages and greater injunctive relief.

The named plaintiffs are Chad Weidner, who is currently a
lecturer in English at Roosevelt Academy in the Netherlands, and
his wife, Karolien Walravens.

The couple claim R2C2 fraudulently posted a term paper they
wrote in 1998 while Mr. Weidner attended an exchange program at
a German university.  The paper had been posted on the German
university's Web site for more than six years.

The couple discovered R2C2's use of it during a periodic Web
search to determine if other academics were citing their work.

"This type of issue where you have rampant unauthorized use of
someone else's information is widespread on the Internet, and
it's just now beginning to be dealt with," Mr. Parke, said.

"We have the potential to represent thousands of class members,
including universities and professors."

The suit is "Weidner et al. v. Carroll et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00782-WDS-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois under Judge William D. Stiehl,
with referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier.

Representing the defendants is Jeffery W. Green of Legal
Solutions, Generally Admitted, P.O. Box 1383, Carbondale, IL
62901, Phone: 618-684-5900, Fax: 618-684-5900, E-mail:
green@mylegalsolutions.net.

Representing plaintiffs are Evan A. Parke of McDermott, Will et
al. - DC, 600 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005,
Phone: 202-756-8397, Fax: 202-756-8087, E-mail: eparke@mwe.com;
and Douglas S. Teasdale of Teasdale, Murphy et al., Generally
Admitted, 1001 Washington Avenue, Suite 360, St. Louis, MO
63101, Phone: 314-725-5353, Fax: 314-621-1906, E-mail:
doug@tmolaw.com.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Settles Ill. FLSA Violations Suit for $8.5M
------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. reached an $8.5 million settlement in a
purported class action alleging violations of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.  

The company was named as a defendant in a class action alleging
that it misclassified certain RadioShack store managers as
exempt from overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act or similar state laws.

The lawsuit is "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp.,"
which was filed on Oct. 31, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  

Alphonse L. Perez and Douglas G. Phillips brought the lawsuit
against the company on behalf of themselves and all other past
and present employees of RadioShack who were designated, paid,
or employed as "Y" Store Managers in the U.S. within the past
three years, and who have not already had their claims for
overtime previously adjudicated.

The suit alleges a claim under FLSA.  This lawsuit alleges that
RadioShack has and continues to have a policy of requiring their
employees in the "Y" Store Manager position to work in excess of
40 hours per week without paying them overtime compensation as
required by federal wage and hour laws.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
including the interest thereon, statutory penalties, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated current and former "Y" Store Managers.

The company has reached a tentative settlement agreement with
counsel for the plaintiffs and four other wage-hour lawsuits
pending against the company.  

The global settlement would result in a payment by the company
of approximately $8.8 million, in the aggregate, to resolve all
five of the pending lawsuits.

Of this amount, a charge of $8.5 million was recognized during
the quarter ended June 30, 2006, with the balance recognized
during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.  The respective courts
will need to approve the tentative settlement.

The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C
7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy J. Touhy, Esq., Daniel K. Touhy, Esq., James B.
         Zouras, Esq., and Ryan F. Stephan, Esq., of Touhy &
         Touhy, LTD., 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210,
         Chicago, Illinois 60601,Phone: (877) 372-2209, Fax:
         (312) 456-3838, E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com Web site:
         http://www.radioshackclassaction.com,and  

     (2) Peter M. Callahan, Esq., Robert W. Thompson, Esq. and
         Lee A. Sherman, Esq. of Callahan, McCune & Willis, 111
         Fashion Lane, Tustin, California, 92780, Phone: (714)
         730-5700, Fax: (714) 730-1642, E-mail:
         classaction@cmwlaw.net.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Edward W. Bergmann, Esq., Justin M. Crawford, Esq.,
         Brian J. Hipp, Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe
         Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, Phone:
         (312) 346-8000, Fax: (312) 269-8869; and

    (ii) Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq., Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., and
         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq., of McKenna, Long & Aldridge,
         LLP, 750 B Street, Suite 3300, San Diego, California,
         92101, Phone: (619) 595-5400, Fax: (619) 595-5450, E-
         mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com.


SNAP-ON TOOLS: N.J. Judge OKs Settlement in Franchisees' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey approved a settlement valued at more than
$125 million between Snap-on Tools Co. and former and current
franchisees, the Asbury Park Press reports.

The judge approved the settlement, which affects 3,200 current
Snap-on dealers and 2,900 former Snap-on dealers and ended three
years of litigation.

The settlement includes about $38 million that will be split
among former and current dealers as well as for attorneys' fees,
the company said earlier this week in a news release announcing
its third-quarter earnings.

In May, the Kenosha, Wisconsin-based tool-maker agreed to pay
$38 million to resolve pending lawsuits by some of its former
franchisees, the Reuters reports (Class Action Reporter, May 18,
2006).  The franchisees had been seeking to resolve their claims
via a class-action arbitration.

The amount of the payment may change depending on the actual
number of claimants, and the application of various payment
formulas in the agreement, the company said in a regulatory
filing.  It did not admit wrongdoing.

According to court documents, the former dealers alleged that
because of deceptive business practices on the part of Snap-on,
their franchises were caused to fail.

Franchisees are required to make minimum weekly purchases of
product from Snap-on Tools, but those products could only be
sold to a limited number of customers, according to the judge's
decision.

As named plaintiffs, Middletown resident Richard Fortuna and
Brick resident Paul Vladyka, will each receive no more than
$50,000, according to court papers.

The remainder of the settlement includes the forgiveness of debt
of former franchisees, which totals about $61.6 million.

Snap-on also agreed to make changes to its franchise
distribution model and business practices, such as reducing the
required investment for initial inventory and improved initial
training for new franchisees.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Snap-On Credit, LLC
     -- Snap-On Inc., and
     -- Snap-On Tools Co., LLC

The suit is "Desantis et al. v. Snap-On Tools Co., Case No.
2:06-cv-02231-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, with
referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the defendants are Gage Andretta and Daniel D.
Barnes both of Wolff & Samson, PC, One Boland Drive, West
Orange, NJ 07052, Phone: (973) 325-1500, E-mail:
gandretta@wolffsamson.com or dbarnes@wolffsamson.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward Bruce Deutsch, Donna Dubeth Gardiner and Ronald
         J. Riccio all of McElroy, Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter,
         LLP, 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, PO Box 2075, Morristown,
         NJ 07962-2075, Phone: (973) 993-8100, E-mail:
         edeutsch@mdmc-law.com or dgardiner@mdmc-law.com or
         rriccio@mdmc-law.com; and

     (2) Justin M. Klein and Gerald Allen Marks both of Marks &
         Klein, LLP, 63 Riverside Avenue, Red Bank, NJ 07701,
         Phone: (732) 747-7100, E-mail: justin@marksklein.com or
         jerry@marksklein.com.


TAKE-TWO: Dismissal Motion in "Grand Theft Auto Sex" Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied a request from Take-Two
Interactive Software Inc. to immediately dismiss some claims in
the suit "In Re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation
v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
06734-SWK-MHD."

The judge denied the motion but said she would reconsider if
class-action status were granted in the case as the court will
have the benefit of a well-defined class and a more fully
developed treatment of potential choice of law questions.

In 2005, video game company Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
faced investigations from the Federal Trade Commission and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over the controversial
"hot coffee" sex scene found in the video game "Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas" (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).

Sen. Hillary Clinton and other lawmakers, raised complaints
after hearing that players of GTA: San Andreas can unlock a
secret "sex scene" using a so-called "hot coffee mod," an
unauthorized third party modification that alters the retail
version of the game.  

The controversy caused the Entertainment Software Rating Board
(ESRB) to change the rating of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on
all platforms from "Mature 17+" (M) to "Adults Only 18+."  It
was an embarrassing and highly public retraction for the body,
which has recently been under fire from a number of vocal
politicians, gamesindustry.biz then reported.  

In light of this, the ESRB plans to introduce tougher standards
for its ratings, which will demand more detail from publishers
so that all content shipped on the disc, regardless of how
accessible it is, can be considered in creating the rating for a
game.

The ESRB also initiated a probe of the company and Rockstar
Games, which has ceased manufacturing of the current version of
the title and will begin working on a version of the game with
enhanced security to prevent the "hot coffee" modifications.  

As a result of the re-rating of the game, the company also
lowered guidance for the third fiscal quarter ending July 31,
2005 to $160 to $170 million in net sales and a net loss per
share of $(0.40) to $(0.45) to provide reserves for the value of
the title's current North American retail inventory.

Accordingly, guidance for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 2005
is also being lowered to $1.26 to $1.31 billion in net sales and
$1.05 to $1.12 in diluted earnings per share.  

The scenes depicted in the "hot coffee" modification are not
playable in the retail version of the game unless the user
downloads and/or installs unauthorized software that alters the
content of the original retail version of the title,
representing a violation of Take-Two and Rockstar's end user
license agreement (EULA) and intellectual property rights.

The company then explored its legal options as it related to
companies that profited from creating and distributing tools for
altering the content of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.  

Rockstar Games also agreed to make available a downloadable
software patch to render Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for PC
impervious to the "hot coffee" modification.

The suit is "In Re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-06734-SWK-MHD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram,
with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: 212-
         867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
         ljacobs@pipeline.com;

     (2) David Jonathan Meiselman of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman,
         Carton & Eberz P.C.(WPl), 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, White
         Plains, NY 10605, Phone: (914)-517-5000, Fax: (914)-
         517-5055, E-mail: meiselman@mdpcelaw.com; and

     (3) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com.


USTMAN TECHNOLOGIES: Messrs. Dilillo, Timmons Denied Award
----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
Los Angeles entered judgment in favor of defendants in the
second amended complaint filed by plaintiffs in a suit against
Ustman Technologies Inc.

After, a March 20 trial, the court finds that plaintiffs Joseph
Dilillo and David L. Timmons, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are to receive nothing from any of
the defendants:

     -- Ustman Technologies, Inc.;           
     -- Barry S. Rosenstein;
     -- Marc A. Weisman;
     -- Dan R. Cook;
     -- David Shapiro;
     -- Michael Lerner;             
     -- Sagaponack Partners, L.P.;
     -- Sagaponack International Partners, L.P.;
     -- Sagaponack International Holdings, L.L.C.;      
     -- RSP Capital, L.L.C.;
     -- Danaher Corp.;
     -- Veeder-Root Co.; and
     -- DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.

The court also finds that the members of the class consists of
all persons who owned shares of Ustman Technologies, Inc. common
stock on or about June 6, 2000, excluding defendants, and any
persons, firms, trusts, corporations, or other entities related
to or affiliated with any of the defendants and their successors
in interest.

For purposes of providing notice to the class, notice will be
provided to the persons and entities listed on the U.S. Stock
Transfer Corp. shareholder list for Ustman Technologies, Inc.
dated as of April 10, 2000 (Shareholder list).

Notice of Entry of Judgment is to be given to the class, as:

     * Defendants will mail Notice of Entry of Judgment via
       first-class postage to the class at the addresses listed
       in the Shareholder List no later than twenty (20) days
       after receipt of the Notice of Entry of Judgment; and

     * Defendants shall arrange for a copy of this Judgment to
       be disseminated via placement over the Internet on the PR
       Newswire or comparable manner no later than twenty (20)
       days after receipt of Notice of Entry of Judgment.

Notice of Entry of Judgment is deemed to be served upon the
entire class effective five calendar days after completion of
the preceding items.

The suit, Case No. BC 231418, is before Honorable David L.
Minning.

For more information, contact David E. Rosen of Murphy Rosen &
Cohen LLP, Phone: +1-310-899-3300.


VAN DER MOOLEN: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold on Dec. 6, 2006 at 12:00 p.m. a hearing to consider a
proposed $8 million settlement of the class action, "In Re: NYSE
Specialists Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS."

The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Van der Moolen Holding N.V. American
depository receipts from Oct. 18, 2001 to Oct. 15, 2003,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in the courtroom of the Honorable Robert W.
Sweet.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Nov. 20, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Feb. 20, 2007.

                         Case Background

The complaint in this case was filed on Sept. 14, 2004 on behalf
of a putative class of persons who held ADRs between Oct. 18,  
2001 and Oct. 15, 2003.  

It alleged that during that time period, the price of ADRs were
artificially inflated because the company failed to disclose
certain alleged illegal trading activity that was the subject of
a regulatory settlement between the company and the New York
Stock Exchange and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
in March 2004.

The co-lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Sept. 16, 2004.  On Nov. 16, 2004, Van der Moolen Holding N.V.,
VDM Specialists and the other New York Stock Exchange specialist
firms moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court heard oral arguments, but has not
ruled on the motion to modify the stay.  Plaintiffs' opposition
to the motion was filed on Jan. 26, 2005, and the defendants'
reply was filed on March 8, 2005.  The court heard oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss on April 13, 2005.  

On July 2006, Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, a 75% owned
subsidiary of Van der Moolen Holding N.V., agreed to settle for
$8 million the securities class action (Class Action Reporter,
July 26, 2006).

Under VDM's insurance policies, its insurers will pay 60 percent
of the settlement.  The settlement will be recognized in the
company's second quarter financial statements.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Van Der Moolen Specialists USA, L.L.C.,
     -- Van Der MoolenHolding, N.V.,
     -- Bank of Amereica Corp.,
     -- Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.,
     -- Bear Wagner Specialists, L.L.C.,
     -- Fleet Specialist, Inc.,
     -- Fleetboston Financial Corp.,
     -- Golden Sachs,
     -- George M.L. LaBranche IV,
     -- LaBranche & Co., Inc.,
     -- LaBranche & Co., L.L.C.,
     -- Michael Labranche,
     -- New York Stock Exchange, Inc.,
     -- Performance Specialist Group, L.L.C.,
     -- Quick & Reilly, Inc.,
     -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, L.L.C.,
     -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P.,
     -- Susquehanna International Group,
     -- Susquehanna Specialists, Inc., and
     -- The Goldman Sachs Group Inc

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case  
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis  
         Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax:  
         (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com;

     (2) Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, L.L.P. (NYC),  
         1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:  
         (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222;

     (3) Richard A. Cirillo of King & Spalding LLP (DC), 1730  
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4706,  
         Phone: 212-556-2337, Fax: 212-556-2222, E-mail:  
         RCirillo@KSLAW.com; and

     (3) Andrew C. Curley of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-
         Cohen, L.L.P., 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,  
         Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,  
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 655West Broadway, Suite  
         1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-7423, Fax:  
         631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500  
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-
         1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: LSHLLP@LSHLLP.COM;

     (3) Stephen D. Oestreich of Entwistle & Cappucci, L.L.P.,  
         299 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10171, Phone: (212) 894-
         7200; and

     (4) Curtis V. Trinko of Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko,  
         L.L.P., 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY  
         10036, Phone: (212) 490-9550.


WEBLOYALTY.COM: Faces Suit on "Reservations Rewards" Memberships
----------------------------------------------------------------
Webloyalty.com and its online retailer partner, 123inkjets.com,
face a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that they unlawfully
obtained consumers' financial information and used this
information to charge for a membership known as "Reservations
Rewards" through deceptive "pop-up" advertising.

Reservation Rewards is a membership program that, according to
the lawsuit, provides discounts on dining and tourist
attractions, along with "travel protection" such as roadside
assistance, hotel overbooking and baggage insurance.

The complaint alleges that the way Webloyalty.com and its
partners enroll consumers in Reservation Rewards violates
California consumer protection laws and federal privacy and
electronic funds transfer laws.

The lawsuit alleges that prior to completion of an online retail
transaction with a Webloyalty retail partner, a pop-up
advertisement appears on the consumer's computer screen,
offering a $10.00 next purchase discount or coupon reward.  The
complaint states that if a consumer clicks on it, however, their
confidential financial information is secretly transmitted from
the online retailer to Webloyalty.

The complaint further alleges that Webloyalty, in turn, uses
this confidential information to enroll consumers in a
Reservation Rewards membership for which it collects monthly
charges after the expiration of an alleged 30-day "free trial"
basis.  The enrollment is on a "negative option" basis,
according to the complaint, meaning consumers are charged each
month until they discover it and manage to cancel.

The complaint alleges that as a result of Webloyalty's conduct,
thousands of consumers unknowingly enroll in, and pay for,
Reservations Rewards memberships.  In addition, the lawsuit
alleges, their confidential financial information is compromised
by Webloyalty.com and its retail partners.

The suit was filed by law firms Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP,
Green Welling LLP and McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby LLP on
behalf of consumers nationwide.

According to Mark J. Tamblyn, a partner in Wexler Toriseva
Wallace's Sacramento office, "thousands of consumers have fallen
prey to this invasion of privacy and deceptive conduct.  
Complaints about Webloyalty's practices are rampant.  Our firm
is dedicated to both putting a stop to this conduct and
returning the membership fees to consumers."

The suit is "Alcides Melo v. Webloyalty.com Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-06329-DSF-JC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Dale S. Fischer, with
referral to Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.

Representing plaintiffs are Mark R. Miller and Kenneth A Wexler
both of Wexler Toriseva Wallace, One North LaSalle Street, Suite
2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-346-2222; and Mark J.
Tamblyn of Wexler Toriseva Wallace, 1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95815, Phone: 916-568-1100, E-mail:
mjt@wtwlaw.us.

Representing defendants is Nathan L. Walker of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, 1117 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94304, Phone: 650-858-6000.


* Risk Premium Fee Ruling in "Walker" to Affect Canadian Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against winning plaintiffs in
the "Walker v. Ritchie" case on the aspect of risk premium,
according the Globe and Mail.

Contrary to common practice in Ontario, the Supreme Court ruled
that plaintiffs who won the suit pay the losing defendants for
the so-called risk premiums that are normally awarded when
lawyers who worked on contingency-fee arrangement won the case.

The suit involves a 1997 accident in Sarnia, Ontario that left
van driver, Stephanie Walker, crippled after an accident
involving a tractor trailer.  In 2003, a judge awarded Ms.
Walker more than $5-million in damages plus about $500,000 in
legal expenses.  In addition, the judge also awarded Ms.
Walker's lawyer, Carl Fleck, a cost bonus of $192,600 from the
defendant for pursuing the suit without remuneration.

Such premiums, while rare, are within a judge's discretion in
Canada, according to the report.  The aim is to promote access
to justice by compensating enterprising lawyers who pursue
worthy cases for victims who otherwise can't afford legal
representation.

But the judge in the Walker case ruled that part of the premium
on top of Ms. Walker's legal bill must be taken from the
defendant's insurer, Zurich Insurance Co., and not out of the
plaintiff's award.

Zurich Insurance appealed before the Ontario Court of Appeal and
lost.  Later, it hired litigator Earl Cherniak, a partner at
Lerners LLP, to challenge the specific issue of the risk
premium.

On Oct. 13, the Supreme court noted in a 13-page decision that
the prospect of being forced to pay a risk premium "would
incline defendants with meritorious defenses to settle,"
encouraging frivolous suits on the expectation that a defendant
will be more likely settle rather than risk going to trial.

The ruling affects all lawsuits involving contingency-fee
arrangements and has broad implications not just for personal
injury and medical malpractice lawsuits but also for shareholder
class actions, according to the report.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LEGG MASON: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Legg Mason Inc. from
June 24, 2005 through July 24, 2006.

The complaint charges Legg Mason and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

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

      -- that integration problems with Citigroup's worldwide
         asset management business (CAM) assets plagued Legg
         Mason;
  
      -- specifically, Legg Mason was unsuccessful with the CAM
         integration because Citigroup's corporate
         infrastructures were not compatible with Legg Mason's
         corporate infrastructures;

      -- that Legg Mason's acquisition of the CAM assets was
         unsuccessful because of the aforementioned integration
         problems;

      -- that former Citigroup customers had withdrawn billions
         of dollars of assets from Legg Mason funds, which had a
         material effect on Legg Mason's financial prospects and
         its ability to produce profits;

      -- that the lack of success of the Legg Mason Value Trust
         caused further pressure on the company's margins; and
      
      -- as a result of the above, Legg Mason's post-acquisition
         financial prospects were lacking in any reasonable
         basis when made.

On May 10, 2006, Legg Mason revealed that the fourth quarter
earnings rose less than analysts estimated because expenses
tripled after the purchase of Citigroup, Inc.'s money management
unit.

Net income in the quarter ended March 31 increased 28 percent to
$150.1 million, or $1.03 a share, which was below analysts'
estimates as much as $1.25.  

Following this disclosure, shares of Legg Mason fell $8.46 per
share, or 7.26 percent to close at $108.06 per share.

Then, on July 25, 2006, Legg Mason revealed that its earnings in
the first quarter continued to fall short of analysts' estimates
following the acquisition.

Revenues declined 1.3% and assets under management fell by 6.5
billion dollars due to customer redemption.  In addition, Legg
Mason announced that its costs tripled from the year-earlier
period.

Following this disclosure, shares of Legg Mason fell $8.01 per
share or 8.49 percent to close at $86.32 per share.

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


                            *********


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  * * *