CAR_Public/061101.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 217


ADELPHIA COMM: Nov. Hearing Set for $460M Stock Suit Settlement
ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Attorney Drops Appeal on Rate Increase Suit
ATLANTIC AUTOMOTIVE: Workers Claim Prejudice Against Disabled
BERKELEY PREMIUM: $4.7M Settlement in Suit Over Enzyte Proposed
CALIFORNIA: Orange County Slumlord Case Receives Class Status

CANADA: Former Students Claim Sexual Abuse at Bishop's College
DUX INTERIORS: Recalls Mattress Covers Due to Fire Hazard
EIS INT'L: $3.8M Conn. Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 20
FARMERS INSURANCE: Appeals Court Overturns Overtime Judgment
FLORIDA FARM: Homeowners Favored in Suit Over Wind, Flood Damage

GREAT-WEST LIFE: Retirees Get Favorable Ruling in Pension Suit
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Suit by Casket Buyers
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls UVs Over Defective Steering Knuckles
KENTUCKY FRIED: Faces Suit in D.C. Court Over Use of Trans Fats
MORTON & VELSICOL: $875M Suit Filed Over Tenn. Chemical Exposure

NEW YORK: Community Groups Mull Legal Options After NYU Study
NITTY GRITTY: Appeals Court Junks Price Fixing Suit Against Bars
PREMCOR INC: Goldenberg Reveals Individual Claims Representation
RAYTHEON CO: Reaches $5.5M Settlement in Mass. ERISA Breach Suit
ROLLING STONES: Fan Plans Litigation Over Cancelled N.J. Concert

SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Norton Anti-Virus Renewals
TELSTRA CORP: Investors' Suit Reassigned to Judge Roger Gyles
UNITED KINGDOM: Pensioners in South Africa Bring Suit to ECHR
VESTIN REALTY: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Vestin Fund II Merger

WELLS FARGO: Court Allows Mutual Fund Kickback Suit to Proceed
WESTWOOD ONE: Faces Lawsuit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
WINDOW BLINDS CASES: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss Ill. Suit
ZURICH AMERICAN: Continues to Settle Antitrust Violations Suits

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XETHANOL CORP: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.


ADELPHIA COMM: Nov. Hearing Set for $460M Stock Suit Settlement
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 10, 2006 at 2:15 p.m. for
the proposed $460,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re
Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) or MDL-1529."

The court will hold a fairness hearing in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 15D, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on March 10, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired securities issued by Adelphia Communications
Corp. or its subsidiaries between Aug. 16, 1999, and June 10,
2002.  It consists of two separate settlements:

       -- a $210,000,000 Deloitte & Touche Settlement; and

       -- a $250,000,000 Banks Settlement.

The banks included in this settlement are:

      -- ABN AMRO Inc.,
      -- ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
      -- Banc of America Securities, LLC,
      -- Bank of America, N.A. (successor by merger to Fleet
         National Bank),
      -- Bank of Montreal,
      -- Barclays Capital, Inc.,
      -- Barclays Bank, PLC,
      -- BNY Capital Markets, Inc.,
      -- The Bank of New York Co., Inc.,
      -- The Bank of New York,
      -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,
      -- CIBC, Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a SSB
      -- Citibank, N.A.,
      -- Citicorp U.S.A., Inc.,
      -- Calyon Securities (USA) Inc. (f/k/a Credit Lyonnais
         Securities (USA) Inc.),
      -- Calyon New York Branch (successor by operation of law
         to Credit Lyonnais, New York Branch),
      -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a Credit
         Suisse First Boston LLC),
      -- Credit Suisse, New York Branch (f/k/a Credit Suisse
         First Boston, New York Branch),
      -- Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (f/k/a Deutsche Bank
         Alex. Brown Inc.),
      -- Deutsche Bank AG,
      -- Fleet Securities Inc.,
      -- Harris Nesbitt Corp. (f/k/a BMO Nesbitt Burns Corp.),
      -- JPMorgan Securities, Inc.,
      -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
      -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
      -- PNC Capital Markets, Inc.,
      -- PNC Bank Corp.,
      -- PNC Bank, National Association,
      -- Scotia Capital (USA), Inc.,
      -- The Bank of Nova Scotia,
      -- SG Cowen Securities Corp.,
      -- Societe Generale,
      -- SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc. (f/k/a SunTrust
         Equitable Securities),
      -- SunTrust Bank,
      -- TD Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a TD Securities (USA)
      -- Toronto Dominion (Texas) LLC (f/k/a Toronto Dominion
         (Texas) Inc.),
      -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a Wachovia
         Securities, Inc.), and
      -- Wachovia Bank, National Association.

Beginning in April 2002, more than 30 individual and class
actions were filed by purchasers of Adelphia debt and equity
securities against Adelphia, its officers and directors, its
outside counsel, Adelphia's auditors Deloitte & Touche, and/or
various of Adelphia's underwriters and lenders, the Banks.

Most of those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were assigned to Judge
Herbert Hutton.  Among the cases filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania were approximately thirty class actions
asserting claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and/or
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition to the class actions, public pension funds and/or
fund managers seeking to recoup losses on behalf of their funds
commenced several individual actions.  

On April 30, 2002, Judge Hutton entered an order consolidating
the then pending actions filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under the caption, "In re Adelphia Communications
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02 CV 1781," and
providing for the consolidation of all later-filed actions.

On or about June 25, 2002, Adelphia and its subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The Chapter 11 cases were as signed to
the Hon. Robert E. Gerber and are being jointly administered in
the case styled, "In re Adelphia Communications Corp., et al.,
Case No. 02-41729 (REG)."  

Thereafter, by Order dated July 23, 2003, the class actions as
well as certain individual actions against the same defendants
were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to the Southern District of New York and are
currently pending before Judge McKenna as, "In re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities & Derivative Litigation, 03 MD
1529 (LMM)."

On Dec. 5, 2003, Eminence Capital, LLC, Argent Classic
Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P., Argent Classic Convertible
Arbitrage Fund (Bermuda) L.P., Argent Lowlev Convertible
Arbitrage Fund Ltd., UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global Equity
Arbitrage Master Ltd. and UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global
Convertible Portfolio were appointed as lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated class actions and

     * Abbey Gardy, LLP, (n/k/a Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
       Paradis, LLP) and Kirby McInerney & Squire

were appointed as co-lead counsel in accordance with the federal
securities laws.

On Dec. 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed the complaint, which
alleges claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k, 77l(a)(2) and
77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. Section
77jjj, 77mmm, 77ooo and 77www et seq. and state law against
various defendants including Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.

After filing the complaint, on March 8, 2004, the Settling
Defendants, along with other defendants, moved to dismiss the
complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on several of the issues
raised by the defendants' motions, but has partially granted and
partially denied some of the motions.

On or about June 30, 2005, at the suggestion of Judge McKenna,
various parties to the class action agreed to participate in
mediation to resolve the pending litigation.  The various
parties selected the Judge Daniel Weinstein, a retired judge, to
serve as the mediator.  

Pursuant to the court's directives, lead plaintiffs' counsel and
counsel for Deloitte & Touche and the Banks entered into
extensive negotiations under the supervision of Judge Weinstein.

As a result of such discussions and their involvement in the
extensive negotiation process, lead plaintiffs agreed to the
settlements with Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Adelphia Claims c/o Valley Forge Administrative
         Services, One Aldwyn Center, P.O. Box 220, Villanova,
         PA 19085-0220, Phone: 877-965-3300, E-mail:, Web site:;

     (2) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 1-888-529-4787;

     (3) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Phone: 1-800-

ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Attorney Drops Appeal on Rate Increase Suit
Brian Meadors, the attorney who filed a class action against
Arkansas Oklahoma Gas that was dismissed in April by the
Sebastian County Circuit Court, withdrew an appeal for the case,
John Lyon of The Springdale Morning News reports.

The suit, filed in January on behalf of several Fort Smith
residents and businesses, alleged AOG imposed a rate increase
sooner than was allowed by an order of the Public Service
Commission.  It seeks a refund of the rate increases to

Mr. Meadors filed a motion this week with the state Court of
Appeals to dismiss his appeal with prejudice.  That motion
effectively eliminates any further action.

Plaintiffs in the suit were Charlotte Scott, Sean Layman, Ozark
Warehouses, Oaklawn Packaging, Terry Johnson, Theodore Skokos
and "all others similarly situated."  Mr. Skokos withdrew from
the suit last week, saying he was having second thoughts.

Back in April, Judge James Marschewski of the Sebastian County
Circuit Court dismissed the suit, ruling that the Public Service
Commission and not the courts, has jurisdiction over rate

Meanwhile, Mike Callan, senior vice president and general
counsel for AOG, said that after Mr. Meadors' withdrawal of the
appeal, the utility has also withdrawn a motion seeking attorney
fees.  The issue on the fess had not been decided when Mr.
Meadors withdrew the appeal.

For more details, contact Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson &
Barry, PLLC, 315 North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith,
AR 72902-0848, Phone: (479) 782-8813 and 479-782-7911, Fax: 479-
785-0254, E-mail:, Web Site:

ATLANTIC AUTOMOTIVE: Workers Claim Prejudice Against Disabled
Atlantic Automotive Components and Visteon Corp. are facing a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
Court of Michigan claiming the auto parts makers used their
annual layoff periods to fire workers with disabilities or who
had a close relative with a disability, the Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs are:

     -- Aaron Rolling
     -- Ann Gardner
     -- Areatha Murphy
     -- Brenda Harmon
     -- Darrian Ford, Sr.
     -- David Weir
     -- Deborah Graham
     -- Kim Isom
     -- Lavada Hollins
     -- Lillian D. Clayton
     -- Margaret Garey
     -- Mariedth Greathouse
     -- Pearly Harris
     -- Rodney Alexander
     -- Sarah Smith
     -- Tineno Ferguson
     -- Willie Hoyle

The suit claims the defendants employ more than 300 people
making interior plastic parts for automobiles at their Crystal
and Ox Creek plants, and traditionally shut down the plants
during July and December-January each year.

The 17 plaintiffs claim the defendants fired 127 workers,
allegedly for hiding income during a layoff, while they were
collecting unemployment.

But the plaintiffs say the defendants actually targeted people
with disabilities or with close family members with
disabilities, in violation of federal and state disability laws,
and other federal laws.

Plaintiffs request for the following relief:

     -- an order or judgment awarding all their economic losses,     
        lost wages and benefits, all out of pocket losses due to
        lack of benefits, and other forms of compensation,
        economic and non-economic damages, past and future,
        resulting from the discriminatory treatment described in
        the complaint;

     -- an order reinstating plaintiffs to their employment with
        Atlantic in positions comparable to those which they
        held at the time they were terminated;

     -- an order awarding interest, costs, and reasonable
        attorney fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section
        12205; and

     -- an order awarding such other relief as the court deem
        just and equitable under circumstances.

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


The suit is "Alexander et al. v. Atlantic Automotive Components
et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-00129-RAE," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan under Senior Judge
Richard Alan Enslen.

Representing the plaintiffs is Imants M. Minka of Sandmeyer &
Minka PLC, 1507 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49001, Phone: (269)
342-2745, E-mail:

BERKELEY PREMIUM: $4.7M Settlement in Suit Over Enzyte Proposed
A $4.7 million settlement is being proposed in a class action
brought by purchasers of a sexual enhancement dietary supplement
manufactured by Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, the Dayton
Daily News reports.

The proposed settlement -- which would cover class action cases
filed in Dayton, Ohio, Los Angeles, California, and Barbour,
Alabama -- would notify customers of the Cincinnati-based
company and give them 45 days to make a claim if they did not
receive a requested refund for purchases of:

     * the male enhancement product, Enzyte, from August 2001
       through April 29, 2005, or

     * of female enhancement product, Avlimil, from Jan. 1,
       2003, through July 30, 2004.

Under the settlement, individuals who purchased or otherwise
received any product from Berkely or other defendants in the
lawsuit through Aug. 16, 2004 and who were charged through the
company's managed care direct program and did not receive full
reimbursement or were denied money back guarantee refunds would
also be eligible for pro rata shares of the settlement,
according to court documents.

Federal authorities accused Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, its
owner and president Steven Warshak and five others including
Warshak's mother of luring customers with free-trial offers and
money back guarantees, then billing the customers' credit cards
without authorization.  The accused were charged in a federal
indictment handed up in September by a grand jury in Cincinnati
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 3, 2006).

Judge John W. Kessler of Montgomery County Common Pleas Court
certified the class action in May 2005.

CALIFORNIA: Orange County Slumlord Case Receives Class Status
The Public Law Center and volunteer attorneys from the law firm
of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, obtained a court order on Oct.
16 granting class certification in a Santa Ana slumlord case.

On Oct. 26, the court made an order regarding the particulars of
the class notice.

The suit will affect all current and former tenants who have
lived in the Santa Ana slum apartment complex since 2001.  
Tenants have complained of breach of the warranty of
habitability, negligence, nuisance, fraudulent
misrepresentation, wrongful entry, and retaliation against
landlords in the city.

Santa Ana had previously cited over 260 code violations at the
subject apartment building in Santa Ana, which is literally
crumbling due to water damage, plumbing and electrical problems,
and the infestation by rats and roaches throughout the premises.

Despite notices from the city demanding that repairs be made as
early as January 2003, the landlords allowed the property to
continue to deteriorate.  

As such, in 2005, the Public Law Center and Gibson Dunn filed a
class action complaint against the landlords, with the hope of
obtaining necessary repairs at the property and compensating the
tenants for their landlords' negligence and bad acts.

The court's recent grant of class certification follows on the
heels of other significant pre-trial victories in the tenants'

Late last year, Gibson Dunn successfully obtained the
appointment of a habitability receiver -- a procedure rarely
used in Orange County -- to take over control of the apartment
complex and see that necessary rehabilitation work is promptly

In mid-2006, the receiver was allowed to take out a loan on the
property of over one million dollars to repair the complex, and
as of September 2006, repairs there are well under way.

In addition, the court recently found that the tenants have a
"substantial probability" of success on their punitive damages
claims and, accordingly, granted the tenants' motion to permit
the discovery of the landlords' financial information.

"While low income tenants often find themselves in uninhabitable
living conditions, it is particularly tragic when an apartment
complex is permitted to be neglected to this extreme," said
Kenneth W. Babcock, PLC's Executive Director and General

"Thanks to the Gibson Dunn lawyers who, upon discovering the
building's shocking state of disrepair, made it their mission to
secure the necessary repairs by seeking the appointment of a
receiver, the building is finally being restored to a livable
condition.  And thanks to their tireless efforts to pursue
damages on a class-wide basis, prior and current tenants have a
chance of being compensated for having to endure the terrible
conditions at the property."

The trial on the matter is currently set for April 2007.  The
Gibson Dunn legal team looks forward to pursuing damages for the
tenants at trial, along with an injunction preventing the
landlords from continuing their bad business practices.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Kenneth W. Babcock, Executive Director of Public Law
         Center, Phone: +1-714-541-1010, ext. 272, E-mail:; or

     (2) Lori Ginex-Orinion, Associate Attorney of Gibson, Dunn
         & Crutcher, LLP, +1-949-451-3892, E-mail:, Web site:

CANADA: Former Students Claim Sexual Abuse at Bishop's College
A man who attended the exclusive Bishop's College School in
Lennoxville, Quebec in the late 1950s and early 1960s asked the
Quebec Superior Court for permission to file a class action over
alleged sexual molestation by a former professor, The Globe and
Mail reports.

Court documents identify the plaintiff as A.B.T.  He alleges
that Rev. Harold Forster, who worked at Bishop's between 1953
and 1962, acting as a house master, school chaplain, teacher and
choirmaster, sexually abused him.  He was 14 years old when the
abuse started, he declared in court filing.  

The complaint claims Bishop's failed to respond properly to
victims such as A.B.T.

In the spring of 1963, the court document says A.B.T. was
approached by two younger students who said they had been
similarly assaulted.  A.B.T. reported the incidents without
disclosing what happened to him.  Mr. Forster was fired but only
after six to eight weeks later at the end of the school year.

Mr. Forster died in 1967, according to headmaster Lewis Evans in
an e-mail message warning former students about the planned

The suit is claiming CA$13 million on behalf of other former

DUX INTERIORS: Recalls Mattress Covers Due to Fire Hazard
Dux Interiors Inc., of New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 37,000
units of protective mattress covers.

The company said the terry cloth covers, which were made to fit
over the Dux top pads, do not meet the federal standard for
flammability under the Flammable Fabrics Act.  They pose a risk
of burn injury to consumers if exposed to smoldering or burning
cigarettes.  No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled covers are natural-colored terry cloth made of 100
percent cotton, and come in twin, full, queen, and king sizes to
cover top pads made by Dux.

These recalled covers were manufactured in Portugal and are
being made available solely through Dux-owned stores and
licensed outlets from January 1999 through April 2006.  The
covers was provided at no additional cost to each customer who
purchased a Dux mattress pad and mattress set.

Picture of the recalled protective mattress cover:

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
PMCs and discard them.  Dux Interiors is directly contacting
consumers who received covers covers with their mattress

For more information, contact Dux Interiors Inc. toll-free at
(888) 836-7556 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit

EIS INT'L: $3.8M Conn. Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 20
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold on Dec. 20, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. a hearing on the $3.8 million
settlement of the class action, "In re EIS International, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:97-cv-00813-CFD."

The class consists all persons and entities who purchased EIS
International, Inc. common stock and/or call options on the open
market from Nov. 28, 1995 through March 31, 1997, inclusive,
excluding defendants herein, the officers and directors of EIS,
Surefind Information Inc., and Cybernetics Systems International
Inc., and members of their immediate family, any entity in which
any defendant has or during the class period had a controlling
interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns of any such excluded party.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut in the courtroom of the Honorable Christopher F.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Dec. 6, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Jan. 19, 2007.

On June 4, 1997, a securities fraud class action "Ronald Romano,
et al., v. EIS International, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
3:97-CV-00813-RNC," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut against EIS and certain of its directors
and officers.

The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of EIS during the
period Nov. 28, 1995 through and including March 31, 1996.

The complaint in the action alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business that operated as a fraud and deceit on all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired EIS's stock.

Defendants fraudulent scheme and course of business included,
but not limited to, making materially false and/or misleading
statements regarding the operations of EIS and its acquisitions
of Surefind Information, Inc. and Cybernetics Systems
International, Inc.

These materially false or misleading statements enabled certain
individual defendants to sell thousands of shares of EIS common
stock at inflated prices by trading on undisclosed inside

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
an Order of the Court, the consolidated securities lawsuit,
against EIS International, Inc. and Individual Defendants Joseph
J. Porfeli, Kent Klineman, and Edward Sarkisian, has been
certified as a class action and that a settlement totaling
$3,800,000 in cash against the Defendants has been proposed.

The suit is "In re EIS International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 3:97-cv-00813-CFD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge
Christopher F. Droney.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marvin L. Frank and I. Stephen Rabin both of Murray
         Frank & Sailer, 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-
         mail:; and

     (2) Joel P. Laitman, Jay P. Saltzman and Samuel P. Sporn
         all of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC, 19
         Fulton St., Suite 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: 212-
         964-0046, Fax: 212-267-8137, E-mail:
         or or

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) M. Duncan Grant and Jeffrey A. Toll both of Pepper
         Hamilton - PH, PA, Two Logan Square, 18th & Arch
         Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-
         4343 or 215-981-4185, Fax: 215-981-4750, E-mail: or;

     (2) Daniel J. Klau of Pepe & Hazard, Goodwin Square, 225
         Asylum Street, Hartford, CT 06103-4302, Phone: 860-522-
         5175, Fax: 860-522-2796, E-mail:;

     (3) Richard F. Lawler of Winston & Strawn - Park NYC, 200
         Park Ave., New York, NY 10166-4193, Phone: 212-294-
         6700, E-mail: 212-294-4600, E-mail:; and Charles B. Molster, III of
         Winston & Strawn, LLP-DC, 1700 K Street, N.W.,
         Washington, DC 30006-3817, Phone: 202-282-5988, Fax:
         202-282-5100, E-mail:; and

     (4) James C. Riley of Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, 100
         Field Point Rd., PO Box 2250, Greenwich, CT 06836,
         Phone: 203-869-2342, E-mail:

FARMERS INSURANCE: Appeals Court Overturns Overtime Judgment
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in
favor of Farmers Group, Inc., in a class action that sought
overtime pay for claims adjusters allegedly misclassified as

Essentially, the 27-page ruling means that the insurer won't
have to pay 1,039 current and former insurance adjusters a total
of $52.5 million in overtime pay, which was previously awarded
by a lower federal court.

The suit, "Miller v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Case No.
0535080," consolidated earlier cases filed both as federal and
state class actions in Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington,
Minnesota and Michigan.  

Plaintiffs are former and current claims adjusters who handled
auto-damage claims, non-auto property-damage claims and
personal-injury claims.  They alleged in court filings that the
insurer improperly classified them as exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act's overtime requirements.

Robert Jones, a U.S. district court judge in Oregon, had ruled
that some adjusters were exempt and others not, depending on the
nature of their work and the size of the claims they handled.

A three-judge panel composed of Judges Barry Silverman, Ronald
Gould and, sitting by designation, John Rhoades of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California handed
down the decision.

In the ruling, Judge Silverman stated that under the Department
of Labor's guidelines especially under the FLSA, all claims
adjusters in seven states are exempt since they exercise
discretion and make independent judgments.

The ruling essentially noted that the claims adjusters aren't
subject to federal overtime requirements.  It applies to current
and former Farmers Insurance Exchange adjusters in Colorado,
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and

Judge Jones had said that those workers who dealt with fewer
than $3,000 a month in claims weren't exempt, however, Judge
Silverman dismissed that distinction as unworkable.

With the appeals court's decision, the district court's ruling
in favor of Farmers for adjusters in Michigan, Illinois, New
Mexico, and Washington was upheld, and the 9th Circuit panel
reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the adjusters
for legal claims under Colorado, Minnesota, and Oregon law and
sent them back to the district court.

FLORIDA FARM: Homeowners Favored in Suit Over Wind, Flood Damage
The 1st District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that Florida
Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance must pay policy limits for homes
totally destroyed by a hurricane, even if a majority of the
damage was caused by floodwaters, Paige St. John of The Florida
Capital Bureau reports.

Basically, the 2-1 decision finds that, under the old law,
Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance must pay policy limits
for homes totally destroyed by a hurricane, even if a majority
of the damage was caused by floodwaters.

The 53-page decision orders Farm Bureau to pay policy limits on
the $65,000 Santa Rosa County home owned by Eugene and Debra

Attorney Charles Beall of Pensacola represented the Santa Rosa
County homeowners hit by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

The case is important in other unsettled hurricane claims from
2004 with private insurers.  Policyholders of Citizens Property
Insurance have a class action on the same issue.

In the past, insurance companies argue that they should only pay
for that portion of damage caused by wind.  Their argument is
that home-insurance premiums cover the risk of wind alone and
covering flood damage would cost more.

Farm Bureau argued that the majority of the damage to the Cox
home was caused by flood, but the Coxes sought policy limits.  A
Santa Rosa judge agreed, and ordered Farm Bureau to pay $105,246
including contents and other claims.

The separate class action against Citizens Property remains
pending.  However, attorneys for the state-run insurer of last
resort contends, it is not governed by the same insurance laws
as private insurers.  Therefore it argues that it is exempt from
the old "total damages" law.  

Lower courts in South Florida, Escambia and Leon County have
ruled otherwise against Citizens Property though.

For more details, contact Charles F. Beall Jr. of Moore, Hill, &
Westmoreland, P.A., 9th Floor, 220 West Garden Street,
Pensacola, FL 32502, Phone: (850) 434-3541, Fax: (850) 435-7899,
Web site:

GREAT-WEST LIFE: Retirees Get Favorable Ruling in Pension Suit
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Gerald Jewers has ruled in favor
of aging Great-West Life retirees in a 10-year-old class action
against the insurance giant, The Winnipeg Free Press reports.

In his ruling, the judge ruled that the pensioners are entitled
to be reimbursed for lost pension income in accordance with an
indexing formula that they claim the company altered without

Though the judge ruled in the pensioners' favor, the amount they
are entitled to has yet to be determined.  Both sides in the
dispute must agree on a figure that must then be approved by the
court.  An attorney for the pensioners estimated it could be
more than $30 million.

According to a Great-West Life official, the company would be
reviewing the decision.  It has 30 days to decide whether to
appeal it.

Pensioners won an original action to determine if Great-West was
liable in 2000.  The insurer appealed that ruling, but its
appeal was dismissed in 2005.

Attorneys Robert Tapper and Richard Swystun have represented the
pensioners since filing the suit in 1996.  According to them,
plaintiffs, who retired from the Winnipeg insurance company
between 1982 and 1990, were well into their retirement years
when the case was launched 10 years ago.  More than 40 of the
original members of the class action have died.

At issue in the case was a feature of the company pension plan
introduced in the early '70s that indexed pension income to the
performance of the pension fund.

The company established a formula to work out the indexing.  But
as the return on investments grew well into double digits, it
altered the formula in a way that provided much less of an
increase than the original formula would have provided.

According to calculations from an actuarial expert commissioned
by Messrs. Tapper and Swystun, that the total might end up being
about three times what the pensioners actually received,
essentially more than $30 million.

Because of statutes of limitations, the recent ruling only
allows the pensioners to collect additional funds for the years
1990 to 2005.

Lawyers and officials for Great-West Life continue to dispute
the formula to be used to calculate the lost pension revenue.  
The prolonged resolution of the case is due to the ambiguous
language in the original explanation describing the manner in
which the pensions would be indexed.

For more details, contact:

      (1) Richard M. Swystun of Wolch Pinx Tapper Scurfield,
          Suite 1000, 330 St. Mary Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3C 3Z5,
          Canada, Phone: (204) 949-1700; and

      (2) Robert L. Tapper of Tapper Cuddy, Suite 1000, 330 St.
          Mary Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3Z5,
          Phone: (204) 944-3229, Fax: (204) 947-2593, E-mail:

HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Suit by Casket Buyers
Personal representative of the estates of Dale van Coley and
Joye Katherine Coley, Candace D. Robinson filed a class action
complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in 14 states against Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. and
Batesville Casket Co.

The complaint is filed on behalf of all individuals and entities
in Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
Wisconsin who purchased caskets made by Batesville during the
fullest period permitted by the applicable statutes of

Excluded from this class are defendants and all directors,
officers, agents, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
and/or co-conspirators of Defendants, and all governmental

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, arises from the policies of Batesville,
who possesses dominant power in the casket market, of selling
its caskets only to licensed funeral directors operating
licensed funeral homes.

The complaint alleges Batesville will not sell its caskets to
third-party sellers.  This restrictive sales policy flows
directly from a horizontal conspiracy to boycott third-party
sellers entered into by funeral home consolidators.

Aware of the existence of the conspiracy, and realizing a unique
opportunity to expand its dominant position and achieve monopoly
power in the casket market, Batesville engaged in illegal
unilateral actions designed to increase its market power in
order to illegally gain a monopoly position.

Further, Batesville's unilateral conduct quashed and otherwise
precluded competition in the American casket market, resulting
in higher prices paid by plaintiffs and class members for
caskets and antitrust injury.

This anti-competitive conduct violates the antitrust laws of the
states of Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,

Specifically, Batesville recognized that other casket-makers
the York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Co., a division of
Matthews International Corp. and funeral home consolidators:

     -- Service Corp. International (SCI),
     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc., and
     -- Carriage Services, Inc.

had engaged in an arrangement, combination or conspiracy to
restrain competition in the casket market.  Those companies
allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to prevent independent casket
discounters (ICDs) from selling their brand of caskets, a
campaign of disparagement against ICDs and the caskets they
sell, and concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition
and coordinate casket-pricing.

These efforts by other casketmakers and funeral home
consolidators also allegedly included such acts as restricting
or preventing price advertising, sharing price information, and
promoting sham discounting of funeral package purchases.

On or about Sept. 6, 1990, Mr. And Mrs. Coley had executed a
"pre-paid pre-need funeral merchandise and services" agreement
with Bill Merritt Funeral Service.

On or about Dec. 1, 2002, Joye Katherine Coley passed away,
whereupon her daughter, Candace Robinson, contracted to purchase
a Batesville-brand casket for her mother's funeral service and
interment from Bill Merritt Funeral Service in Bethany,
Oklahoma, utilizing the "pre-paid preneeds" agreement above-
described to make partial payment.

On or about Dec. 13, 2003, Dale Van Coley passed away.  On or
about Dec. 15, 2003, Candace Robinson purchased a Batesville-
brand casket for her father's funeral service and interment from
Bill Merritt Funeral Service, again utilizing the
"pre-paid pre-needs" agreement for partial payment.

On both occasions, the prices of those caskets were allegedly
artificially inflated because of Batesville's attempt to
monopolize the casket-market.

Plaintiffs and their respective estates claim they were injured
by Batesville's violations of Oklahoma antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly situated consumers
located in 14 states who also purchased Batesville-brand

Batesville has denied participating in a conspiracy with funeral
home consolidators and admits that its sales policies which have
resulted in the exclusion of third-party sellers were taken
unilaterally, i.e., Batesville states that there was no
"contract, combination, or conspiracy" between it and the
funeral home consolidators.

Virtually all of the issues of law and fact in this class action
are common to each class member including, without limitation,
the following:

     (i) whether Batesville engaged in the conduct alleged

    (ii) whether Batesville engaged in a concerted effort to
         suppress or exclude competition in the casket market;

  (iii) whether the prices for Batesville's caskets during the
        limitations period were higher than they would have been
        absent the attempted monopolization alleged herein;

   (iv) whether, and to what extent, Batesville's attempt to
        monopolize the casket market has harmed competition; and

    (v) whether there is any legitimate business purpose for
        Batesville anticompetitive conduct.

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


The suit is "Robinson v. Hillenbrand Industries Inc et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv-01190-R," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under Judge David L. Russell.

Representing plaintiffs is G. Rudy Hiersche, Jr. of the Hiersche
Law Firm, 105 N Hudson Ave., Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: 405-235-3123, Fax: 405-235-3142, E-mail:

KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls UVs Over Defective Steering Knuckles
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., of Irvine, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 400 units of Kawasaki MULE utility vehicles.

The company said these vehicles could have been assembled with
improperly manufactured steering knuckles that could break while
the vehicle is in operation.  This can cause a loss of steering
control and cause a crash resulting in injury or death.

Kawasaki has received no reports of incidents or injuries.

The recall involves Kawasaki MULE 3000 (KAF620-G), MULE 3010 4x4
(KAF620-E/H), MULE 3010 Trans4x4 (KAF620-J/K) and MULE 3010
Diesel Trans4x4 (KAF950-C) models.  These are 4-wheel off-
highway vehicles featuring side-by-side seating for two or four
people, and automotive-style controls.

These Kawasaki MULE utility vehicles were manufactured in the
U.S. and are being sold by Kawasaki dealers sold these MULE
utility vehicles from August 2006 through September 2006 for
between $8,800 and $10,800.

Picture of the recalled Kawasaki MULE utility vehicle:

Consumers are advised to stop using the MULE utility vehicle
immediately and contact their local Kawasaki dealer to schedule
an appointment for an inspection of the steering knuckles and a
free replacement, if necessary.

For more information, contact your local Kawasaki dealer or call
Kawasaki toll-free at (866) 802-9381 between 8:30 a.m. and
4:45p.m. PT Monday to Friday, or visit

KENTUCKY FRIED: Faces Suit in D.C. Court Over Use of Trans Fats
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer
advocacy group, filed a purported class action against Kentucky
Fried Chicken in D.C. Superior Court over trans fats.

The suit, filed in June, is asking that KFC, a unit of Yum
Brands, Inc., be prohibited from using partially hydrogenated
oil, or at least be required signs warning consumers that many
of its foods are high in trans fats.

Yum called the litigation "frivolous" and "completely without
merit."  A motion to dismiss the lawsuit is under consideration
by the court, according to a CSPI spokesman.

The class action was in the name of Arthur Hoyte, a retired
doctor who said he had eaten KFC's chicken without being warned
of the health risks.

Dr. Hoyte was joined by CSPI and the law firm of Heideman
Nudelman & Kalik, in filing the suit.

Recently, KFC announced it is to switch to non-trans cooking
oil.  The announcement reveals that KFC will convert to low
linolenic soybean oil, which reduces the need for the trans
fatty acid producing hydrogenation process.  The switch, to be
made in all 5,500 KFC restaurants, is expected to be complete by
April 2007.

In response to KFC's move, the consumer advocacy group, said it
is formally withdrawing from the lawsuit against the chain,
although the law firm is due to continue the suit alone.

Trans fatty acids - also known as trans fats - are formed when
liquid vegetable oils are partially hydrogenated or 'hardened'
for use as spreads such as margarine, cooking fats for deep-
frying and shortening for baking.  

Foods high in trans or saturated fatty acids increase blood
cholesterol levels, thereby increasing the risk of heart

Trans fats first came into the public eye in 2003, when a
lawsuit filed against Kraft Foods for the trans fat content of
its Oreo cookies resulted in the firm reformulating its
trademark product.

For more details, contact Center for Science in the Public
Interest, 1875 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 300, Washington,
D.C. 20009, Phone: (202) 332-9110, Fax: (202) 265-4954, E-mail:

Heideman Nudelman & Kalik on the Net:

MORTON & VELSICOL: $875M Suit Filed Over Tenn. Chemical Exposure
Attorney Jay Bailey filed a suit in the Chancery Court of North
Memphis, Tennessee over alleged exposure of the Cypress Creek
neighborhood to deadly carcinogens, the RedNova reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Morton and Velsicol Chemical Corp.  
     -- Memphis and Shelby County Health Department and
     -- the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation.

The suit was on behalf of Kenneth Spencer and his mother, Mary
Bowden, 57, who died in July of last year.

Ms. Bowden lived in the Cypress Creek neighborhood of North
Memphis.  Although her cause of death is not mentioned, the suit
said she was among those exposed to dangerous contaminants.

The suit filed alleges Velsicol attempted to conceal the extent
of dangerous chemical byproducts it was producing and that the
health department and state environmental department failed to
warn residents of possible harmful exposure or to properly
monitor and regulate the chemical manufacturer.

The suit asks for $875 million in damages.

The Chancery Court suit seeks class-action status, alleging that
numerous residents and visitors have been exposed to harmful

According to Velsicol officials, the company at 1199 Warford
began operations in 1952 and followed the common practice of
industrial plants at the time of discharging processed
wastewater into Cypress Creek.  Company officials said the
practice was stopped in 1964 when it tied in to the city sewer

In August, the Tennessee Department of Health said studies of a
2 1/2 -mile stretch of the polluted creek showed that fewer than
20 of 129 residential properties tested had soil-contamination
levels that could pose a health risk, the report said.

Velsicol has conducted soil cleanups for three of the
properties, at least five other yards need cleanups and the
company has been denied access to another nine.

Velsicol, which manufactures pesticides, was named as a
defendant in a similar suit filed two years ago by neighboring
residents, pending in federal court, according to the report.

NEW YORK: Community Groups Mull Legal Options After NYU Study
Community groups in New York's South Bronx are exploring their
legal options including a possible class actions in relation to
a new study proving the link between traffic pollution and
childhood asthma, The New York Daily News reports.

The landmark New York University study of Bronx schoolchildren
established that certain particles in diesel exhaust trigger
asthma symptoms and that children in the South Bronx have double
the risk of exposure compared to other boroughs.

Rae Zimmerman of NYU's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service,
a principal researcher for the study, pointed out that if a
family lives in the South Bronx, their child is twice as likely
to attend a school near a highway as other children in the city.

About 20% of pre-K through eighth-grade students in the South
Bronx goes to school within 500 feet of a highway, compared to
the 10% citywide average.

Kellie Terry-Sepulveda, executive director of The Point
Community Development Corp., which helped in the study, said
that their group is working with the law firm of Davis Polk &
Wardwell to examine the legal implications.  

She added that future legal actions could be aimed at forcing
more stringent state emissions standards, better enforcement of
existing standards or even requiring air filters in affected

The five-year study followed 10 asthmatic students from each of
four elementary schools in the study area south of the Cross-
Bronx Expressway.  

It charted their symptoms, lung function and activities, as well
as their pollution exposure via personal air-quality monitors on
their backpacks.

Schools involved with the study included: Public School 154,
Community School 152, Middle School 302 and MS 201.  Three South
Bronx community groups assisted with the study:
      -- Sports Foundation, Inc.,

      -- We Stay/Nos Quedamos, Inc., and

      -- Youth Ministries for Peace & Justice, Inc.

For more details, contact Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington
Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000, Fax: 212-450-
3800, Web site:

NITTY GRITTY: Appeals Court Junks Price Fixing Suit Against Bars
The District Four Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a judge in
Dane County, Illinois dismissing a case filed against Madison
bar owners over allegations they conspire to fix prices of
drinks, Channel3000 reports.

The class action was filed against the Nitty Gritty and 23 other
downtown bars.  It was filed by two University of Wisconsin-
Madison students claiming that two dozen bar owners in Madison
illegally conspired to raise prices in violation of antitrust
laws when they voluntarily banned drink specials after 8 p.m. on
Friday and Saturday nights in 2002.  The plaintiffs sought "tens
of millions of dollars" on behalf of thousands of customers who
allegedly paid higher prices since then.  

A Dane County judge dismissed the case last year.  The appeals
court upheld the ruling on Oct. 25, saying bars' action was
exempt from antitrust laws because they were reacting to
regulatory pressure from the city.

Kevin O'Connor is the lead attorney for the bars.

PREMCOR INC: Goldenberg Reveals Individual Claims Representation
Illinois firm Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli, Rowland, Short &
Gori has disclosed under the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct its representation of both a separate class action and a
suit over individual claims against Shell Oil affiliate Equilon
Enterprises and refinery owner Premcor Group.

The disclosure came as a practical matter in a second notice of
a settlement with the plaintiff class.  Goldenberg represents
120 Hartford property owners in a single suit over petroleum
vapors in the village of Hartford.  The suit was filed against
almost the same defendants named in a class action brought by
seven Missouri attorneys.

The Missouri attorneys filed the suit against Premcor Refining
Group Inc., Shell Oil and other oil companies in 2003, alleging
that the company's refinery created an underground pool of
gasoline whose vapors are causing damage to Hartford residents'
homes.  They proposed and obtained a positive ruling to make
Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff in the suit.  
The Goldenberg clients did not became part of the  "Sparks"
class.  Apex Oil and Sinclair moved for reconsideration, and
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack granted it.  

Afterwards, Goldenberg Heller negotiated with Premcor and Shell
Oil on a settlement that would apply throughout Hartford.  The
parties reached a settlement, and Judge Stack approved it.  The
Goldenberg firm incorporated the settlement into a new lawsuit
with Harry Goforth as class representative.  The firm mailed
notices to Hartford residents and property owners.

The Missouri team asked the Illinois Supreme Court to enter a
supervisory order against Judge Stack, but the Supreme Court
denied the petition Oct. 13.  On that date Judge Stack signed an
order directing Goldenberg to send another notice to Hartford
residents and property owners.  In the notice, the firm said it
also represents lead plaintiff "Abert" and 119 other property
owners in Hartford suing a number of defendants in addition to
Equilon and Premcor in the Abert case.  It thus asks consent to
continue representing the Abert clients.

A final approval for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 11,

Goldenberg, Heller & Antognoli, P.C., 2227 S. State Route 157,
P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025, Phone: (618) 656-
5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail:

RAYTHEON CO: Reaches $5.5M Settlement in Mass. ERISA Breach Suit
Parties in the consolidated class action against Raytheon Co.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, reached a tentative settlement in the matter, which is
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of

In May 2003, two purported class actions were filed on behalf of
participants in the company's savings and investment plans that
invested in the company's stock between Aug. 19, 1999 and May
27, 2003.  

These actions are:

      -- "Benjamin Wall v. Raytheon Co. et al. (Civil Action
         No. 03-10940-RGS)," and

      -- "Joseph I. Duggan, III v. Raytheon Co. et al.
         (Civil Action No. 03-10995-RGS)."

The two class actions were brought pursuant to ERISA.  Both are
substantially similar and have been consolidated into a single
action as, "Wall v. Raytheon CO. et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-10940-

In April 2004, a second consolidated amended complaint was filed
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the company's
savings and investment plans that invested in company common
stock since Oct. 7, 1998.

The Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint alleges that the
company, its Pension and Investment Group, and its Investment
Committee breached ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to:

      -- prudently and loyally manage plan assets;

      -- monitor the Pension and Investment Group and the
         Investment Committee and provide them with accurate

      -- provide complete and accurate information to plan
         participants and beneficiaries; and

      -- avoid conflicts of interest.

In October 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint.  In September 2005,
the court heard the motion to dismiss but declined to decide the
motion subject to a trial on a statue of limitations issue,
which was scheduled for June 2006.

In mediation with a federal magistrate in May 2006, the parties
reached a tentative settlement.  On June 23, 2006, a proposed
settlement agreement was presented to the court for approval.

If approved by the court, the settlement agreement would require
the company to pay $5.5 million, with part of that amount
payable directly to the company's savings and investment plans,
part payable directly to certain participants and beneficiaries
and part payable for expenses.

The company would also pay plaintiffs' attorney fees of $1.4
million, as determined by a federal magistrate in September
2006.  It recorded a charge of $7 million to other expense in
the three months ended June 25, 2006 in connection with the
tentative settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, the class for purposes of
settlement would consist of any person who was a participant or
beneficiary at any time between Oct. 7, 1998 and April 30, 2006,
and whose plan accounts included investments in the Raytheon
Common Stock Fund.  The court has stayed any proceedings in
light of the proposed settlement.  

The suit is "Wall v. Raytheon CO. et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
10940-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court fort the District
of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward W. Ciolko and Mark K. Gyandoh of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail:; and; and

     (2) Peter H. LeVan, Jr. of Hangley Aronchick Segal &
         Pudlin, One Logan Square, 27th Floor, Philadephia, PA
         19103-6933, US, Phone: 215-496-7071, Fax: 215-585-0300,

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Rebecca Ruby Anzidei and James P. Gillespie of Kirkland
         & Ellis, LLP, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-879-5046 and 202-879-
         5000, Fax: 202-879-5200, E-mail:
         and; and

    (ii) James F. Kavanaugh, Jr. of Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal,
         Peisch & Ford, LLP, Ten Post Office Square Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-482-8200, Fax: 617-482-6444, E-mail:

ROLLING STONES: Fan Plans Litigation Over Cancelled N.J. Concert
A $51 million class action is being planned against rock band,
Rolling Stones, by its fans over the cancellation of one of its
concert in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Rosalie Druyan wants to sue to Rolling Stones over the
cancellation, which happened four hours before the concert's
scheduled start and was due to Mick Jagger's sore throat.

In a class action to be filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Mrs.
Druyan contends the late cancellation cost her and other fans a
lot of money on non-refundable hotel reservations.  

She adds that they were forced to spend the night together in
cold and rainy Atlantic City.  Her lawyer-husband, Martin
Druyan, represents Mrs. Druyan in the case.

The rock band was to perform at Boardwalk Hall when Mr. Jagger
came down with a sore throat.  However, the bad news didn't come
soon enough for Rosalie Druyan, who last month had bought a pair
of tickets to the show for $575.

According Mrs. Druyan, she received a Ticketmaster e-mail on her
BlackBerry notifying her of the cancellation when she was a few
kilometers from Atlantic City.  By then it was too late to
cancel a $300 reservation at the Trump Taj Mahal and too rainy
to drive back to Brooklyn.

For more details, contact Martin Druyan, 450 7th Ave., New York,
NY 10123, Phone: 212-279-5577.

SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
dismissed, with prejudice, the class action "In re Bio-
Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation."

Christopher Clement, president and chief executive officer of
Savient Pharmaceuticals, commented, "We are pleased with the
Court's decision as this is the second ruling by the Court in
favor of dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and, we believe,
supports our long-standing position that the lawsuits were
without merit."

The original class action complaints were filed in December
2002, and January, 2003, against Bio-Technology General Corp.,
now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on behalf of
investors who had purchased shares of BTG during an alleged
Class Period of April 19, 1999, through Aug. 2, 2002.

The complaints alleged that these investors had allegedly been
defrauded because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated
year-end and quarterly reports of its earnings and related
financial statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which
the company had previously announced would be forthcoming in its
Form 8-K and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 25, 2003.

On Aug. 10, 2005, the court granted, without prejudice, Savient
Pharmaceuticals' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint,
and allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead their Complaint.

In October 2005, the plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint, which Savient Pharmaceuticals again moved the Court
to dismiss, in January, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26,

The court's decision dismissing the second amended complaint is
based on the plaintiff's continued failure to set forth
particularized facts, through direct or circumstantial evidence,
which give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted
with intent to defraud, recklessness or a conscious disregard of
the truth.

The court also concluded that plaintiffs had not demonstrated
that there was any evidence that, if given yet another
opportunity, the plaintiffs would be able to cure these defects.

The court, therefore declined to allow plaintiffs to file yet
another amended complaint, and instead dismissed the action with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs have the right to file an appeal.

The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Harold A.

Plaintiff firms in this case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), 515
         North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL,
         33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., 2900,
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;

     (4) Dekel-Sabo Law Office, Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky
         St., Ramat Gan, Phone: 972.3.6133310, Fax:
         972.3.6133321, E-mail:;

     (5) Glancy and Binkow of 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
         311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-

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

     (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail:;

     (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:; and

     (9) Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), 1818 Market
         St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6611.

SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Norton Anti-Virus Renewals
Symantec Corp. is facing a class action complaint in Santa Clara
County Court accusing it of fraud in its sale of Internet
security and anti-virus software, including Norton software.

The company is accused of misrepresenting the renewal policy and
giving buyers a shorter subscription than advertised, the
Courthouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs claim that after buying a year's worth of Norton
anti-virus ware, Symantec regularly sends them "urgent pop-up
notices" warning them that they may be at risk because they need

Plaintiffs' further claim that Symantec treats a request for the
upgraded virus protection as a subscription renewal, cheating
the consumers of the full year's protection they bought and
renewing the subscription deceptively without proper notice, the
suit states.

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages and restitution of ill-gotten

Representing plaintiffs is Mark Chavez of Chavez & Gertler LLP,
42 Miller Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941, Phone: 415.381.5599, Fax:
415.381.5572, E-mail:

TELSTRA CORP: Investors' Suit Reassigned to Judge Roger Gyles
The presiding judge in a shareholder class action against
Telstra Corp. stepped aside after learning he faces a potential
conflict of interest by being an investor in the company, The
Australian reports.

Federal court judge Peter Graham had earlier disclosed to the
court that he was a shareholder in Telstra, but parties in the
suit did not object and arguments continued.  Later, however, he
discovered that he had traded shares between Aug. 11 and Sept. 7
last year, which is an important period to the case.  He
accordingly declared the fact, and stood down.  

The case was reassigned to judge Roger Gyles.

On Jan. 20, 2006, law firm Slater & Gordon filed a legal action
against the company in the Federal Court of Australia, Sydney

Slater & Gordon, on behalf of Telstra shareholders, is alleging
the company failed to fully provide the Australian Stock
Exchange with key financial information.  It is alleged that on
Aug. 11, 2005, Telstra gave a private briefing to senior Federal
ministers forecasting a drop in future earnings and revealing a
$3 billion underspending on operating and capital expenditure in
the previous three to five years.

This information was not revealed to the market, in breach of
the Australian Stock Exchange Listing Rules and the Corporations
Act, until Sept. 7 when Telstra released a copy of the
government briefing to the ASX.

In this four-week period alone, more than 1 billion Telstra
shares were traded with early estimates suggesting investors
paid approximately $300 million over the true market value.

Headquartered at Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia, Telstra
Corp. -- is a telecommunications  
and information services company.  Telstra offers a full range
of services and compete in all telecommunications markets
throughout Australia, providing more than 10.3 million
Australian fixed line and more than 6.5 million mobile services.

Shareholders are represented by law firm Slater & Gordon.  On
the Net:

UNITED KINGDOM: Pensioners in South Africa Bring Suit to ECHR
The South African Alliance of British Pensioners is asking
additional support on its case to recoup annual pension
increases that is filed before the European Court for Human
Rights in Strasbourg, Belgium, according to a blog entry of
Steven Jones at Moneyweb.

British state pensioners living in South Africa are not entitled
to the annual increases granted by the British government to
pensioners resident in the U.K. because of their residence
status.  The setup is regarded as discriminatory, since the
pensioners living abroad will have made the same contributions
to Social Security as a pensioner who remains in the U.K. during
his or her retirement, according to Moneyweb's Personal Finance.

Under the current system, pensioners visiting the U.K. on a
holiday will receive an increase in pension almost equivalent to
all the increases they are due.  But once, they leave the U.K.,
their pensions revert to their former fixed rate.

Further, according to Mr. Jones, while British pensioners living
in the U.S., which is a non-Commonwealth country, receive all
the increases granted to U.K.-based pensioners, those who are
resident in South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,
which are all members of the Commonwealth, do not receive any

In response to the problem of the British pensioners, the South
African Alliance of British Pensioners was formed.  Although,
British law does not allow class actions, it supported Annette
Carson, a British pensioner living in South Africa, in a lawsuit
purportedly on behalf of other pensioners.

Ms. Carson's case went through the British justice system, until
the House of Lords, which ruled against her.  Bob Robertson of
the South African Alliance of British Pensioners is, thus,
planning to bring the case to the ECHR in Strasbourg, which has
jurisdiction on member states of the European Union, of which
Britain is a member.

The ECHR has stipulated that a list of registered alliance
members with the same plight be placed before the court, and so,
the alliance is calling on persons who qualify to be members to
register.  According to the report, there are currently 36,000
South African residents currently receiving British pensions,
but only 9,000 are members of the alliance.  

Membership fee in the alliance is ZAR45 ($5.97) per annum.

For more information, contact Bob Robertson, P.O. Box 2305, Port
Alfred 6170, Phone: (046) 6245768, E-mail:

VESTIN REALTY: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Vestin Fund II Merger
Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. are
defendants in a breach of contract suit filed in San Diego
Superior Court in California by certain plaintiffs who allege,
among other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal
rights in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund II into
Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc.

The action is being brought as a purported class action on
behalf of all members of Vestin Fund II who did not vote in
favor of the merger.  

Defendants believe that the allegations are without merit and
that they have adequate defenses.  They intend to undertake a
vigorous defense.  

The terms of the company's management agreement and Vestin Fund
II's Operating Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby
Vestin Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for
indemnification by the company with respect to the above

Vestin Group, Inc.'s (OTC: VSTN) principal activity is
commercial mortgage brokerage business.  It arranges loans to
owners and developers of real property whose financing needs are
not met by traditional mortgage lenders.  The Group's mortgage
business involves processing loan applications, approving loans,
funding loans and servicing loans.  The primary operations of
the Group consist of arranging for investor funding of mortgage
loans for the construction of commercial and residential
projects.  The loan portfolio also includes construction loans,
brokered loans, home mortgage loans, and other loans.    

WELLS FARGO: Court Allows Mutual Fund Kickback Suit to Proceed
Judge William H. Alsup of the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California allowed a class action against Wells
Fargo & Co. and some of its subsidiaries to proceed, but
dismissed portions of the case and ordered other investors to
come forward by Nov. 17.

The lawsuit, filed by mutual fund investors in 2005, seeks to
recover millions of dollars in alleged secret kickbacks earned
by brokers at Wells Fargo and a subsidiary, H.D. Vest Investment

The suit claims that Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest brokers pushed
clients into pre-selected mutual funds in exchange for secret

As summed up by the court in its Oct. 24 order: "investors
thought they were dealing with unbiased broker-dealers when in
fact they were not."

The list of mutual funds includes Wells Fargo name-brand funds
and funds from Dreyfus, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford,
MFS, Oppenheimer, Putnam, and others.

Judge Alsup ruled that the plaintiff had asserted two forms of
illegal conduct:

      -- the plaintiff received biased advice from broker-
         dealers when he thought he was getting impartial
         recommendations; and

      -- the fund assets were dissipated by paying excessive
         fees to the investment advisers and distributors.

In 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers fined
Wells Fargo $6.99 million for mutual fund kickbacks.

Judge Alsup also dismissed certain claims unless new investors
come forward.  The judge ruled that the current plaintiff could
not pursue claims against H.D. Vest, a Wells subsidiary, or
against other Wells funds he did not own.

Judge Alsup gave plaintiff's counsel until Nov. 17 to come
forward with other investors who wish to pursue claims against
H.D. Vest and other Wells Fargo funds.  

In the past two years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission has issued fines for similar kickback arrangements
against at least five mutual fund companies.  Lawsuits against
others have led to settlements recovering more than $200 million
for investors.

Trial against Wells Fargo has been set for November 2007 in San
Francisco federal court.

For more information, contact Gutride Safier LLP -- Michael Reese, Esq., Phone: +1-
212-579-4625, or Adam Gutride, Esq., +1-415-271-6469.

The suit is "Ronald Siemers v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-04518-WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California under Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bruce A. Ericson at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
         LLP, 50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880 San
         Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone: (415) 983-1000, Fax:
         (415) 983-1200, E-mail:;

     (2) Thomas O. Jacobs, Office of the General Counsel, Wells
         Fargo & Co., 633 Folsom St., 7th Floor, San Francisco,
         CA 94107 U.S., Phone: 415-622-6656, Fax: 415-975-7864,

WESTWOOD ONE: Faces Lawsuit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Westwood One, Inc.

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

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

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

For more information on the case, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:,

WINDOW BLINDS CASES: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss Ill. Suit
Defendants in a suit over dangling cords on window blinds had
asked Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian in Madison County, Illinois
to dismiss the suit against dozens of companies for lack of
personal jurisdiction, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Lowe of Clayton, who filed the
complaint last year, said in an Oct. 6 response, that Illinois
is the proper jurisdiction for the case because the defendants -
- manufacturers, distributors and retailers -- engaged in a
nationwide conspiracy.  He said the suit is a case of specific

"Even a single act by the defendant can create a substantial
connection with Illinois and justify this court exercising
specific jurisdiction," he wrote, according to the report.

There are 60 defendants in the suit, and the court's refusal to
hear the suit in Illinois would require the same lawsuit to be
litigated in numerous forums, he said.

One of the defendants that filed a motion to dismiss is Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.  But the store's reason was failure of service.  
Cody Moon of O'Fallon wrote, "...plaintiffs made no effort to
serve Wal-Mart with summons and complaint for one year and
provided no legitimate excuse for doing so."

Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has not set a hearing on the motions.

The suit was filed by Ronald Alsup of Edwardsville and Robert
Crews of Granite City against at least 60 manufacturers,
distributors and retailers.  They allege that retailers
conspired to conceal a risk that dangling cords could strangle
people.  They seek to represent "hundreds of millions" of window
blind buyers.  They claim no personal injury, but seek damages
equal to the difference between what they paid for window blinds
and what they would have paid if they had known the risk.

For more information, contact Jeffrey C. Lowe, Associate at
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 71 S. Wacker, Chicago, Illinois
60606-4637 (Cook Co.), Phone: 202-263-3821, Fax: 312-701-7711
Telex: 190404.

ZURICH AMERICAN: Continues to Settle Antitrust Violations Suits
Zurich American Insurance Co. has prepared more than $209
million to settle investigation and a class action over alleged
conspiracy to eliminate competition, mislead customers and
inflate premiums paid for commercial casualty insurance policies
in Ohio, it emerged in a report by the Insurance Journal.

Zurich is allotting part of the fund to pay nearly 79,000 of its
business and government policyholders in Ohio.  The company is
paying $5 million in civil penalties for allegations of
antitrust and insurance laws violations and $2 million to
reimburse Ohio state attorneys for investigative costs.  It also
agreed to adopt comprehensive business reforms and cooperate
with the state's continuing investigation.  The company did not
admit wrongdoing.

The investigation concerns claims that Zurich and other insurers
participated in a market allocation scheme with Marsh & McLennan
not to compete with each other for customers.

Earlier, Zurich agreed to pay $151.7 million in restitution and
reform its business practices to settle allegations that it
unlawfully rigged bids for commercial insurance and made
undisclosed payments to brokers for steering clients to Zurich
(Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2006).

The settlement resolves antitrust and unfair business practices
investigations by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and
Attorneys General in nine other states.   

The restitution will be provided to Zurich customers eligible to
receive compensation in a private class action now pending in
New Jersey federal court.  The money will be allocated among the
settling states under a schedule to be developed by the private
class action counsel, in consultation and cooperation with the
attorneys general.  That allocation plan, which must be approved
by the New Jersey federal court, and other factors will
determine how much of the $151.7 million ultimately goes to
eligible California businesses, said Mr. Lockyer.

Aside from the restitution, the settlement requires Zurich to
pay the states a total of $20 million to cover their costs and

In addition to California, the other settling states are:
Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals

November 1-2, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 2-3, 2006
American Conference Institute
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

November 1-2, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Hotel, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 7, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 9-10, 2006
American Conference Institute
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

November 13-14, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 16-17, 2006
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 4-5, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 4-5, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 5, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 7-8, 2006
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco

December 7-8, 2006
The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA

December 11-12, 2006
The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA

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

December 13-15, 2006
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

* Online Teleconferences

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;   

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

November 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

November 1, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 2, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 7, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 8, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 9, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 13, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 14, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
November 15, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 15, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 16, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 16, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 17, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 21, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 28, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 28, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

November 29, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 4, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 5, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 5, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 6, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 11, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 12, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 12, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

December 14, 2006
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Big Class Action

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Big Class Action

Online Streaming Video

LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video


American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221;   

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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XETHANOL CORP: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Xethanol Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Xethanol and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements.

Specifically, it is alleged that Xethanol repeatedly assured
investors that it could sustain itself on revenue from corn
ethanol production.

However, throughout the class period, Xethanol failed to
disclose the following adverse facts:

      -- Xethanol had misrepresented management's experience and
         standard of ethics;

      -- Xethanol had omitted disclosing a series of related
         party transactions and association with investors who
         had alarming records of stock fraud and related
         shareholder abuses;

      -- Xethanol had materially overstated the company's
         profitability by under-reporting the true costs
         associated with completing a biomass to ethanol
         production facility, and by failing to make proper
         adjustments to the company's financial reports; and

      -- Xethanol lacked any reasonable basis to assert that it
         was operating according to plan or could achieve the
         near-term commercialization of biomass ethanol
         production, or achieve the guidance sponsored and/or
         endorsed by the company.

Interested parties may no later than Dec. 26, 2006, request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class.  

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:, Web site:  


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *