CAR_Public/061102.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 2, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 218

                            Headlines

BEACON PRODUCTS: Recalls Lighting Fixtures to Refit Coupling
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces CLRA Violations Suit in California
CINTAS CORP: Class Status Motion by DWP Contract Workers Revived
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Court Orders Disclosure of Abusers' Names
FEDEX: Faces Suit Over Uncontracted "Brokerage" Fees Assessment

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Mortgage Insurance Suits Settlements Okayed
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
GOOGLE INC: Calif. Judge Hears Arguments in KinderStart.com Suit
GROKSTER LTD: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Music Publishers
HOLLINGER INT'L: Former Chief Files Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit

HOSPITAL CORP: Kan. Court Refuses to Sanction "Spires" Attorney
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls ATV to Secure Steering Shaft Connection
KRISPY KREME: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.C. for $75M
MATERNITY STORES: Calif. Customers Get Windfall from Settlement
MICROSOFT CORP: Settlement Offers Tech Funds for Calif. Schools

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: DPAs Plan Litigation Over Employment Status
NATURAL SELECTION: Faces Ill. Suit Over E. Coli-Tainted Spinach
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Planned Appeal Against Stock Suit Dropped
PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Muffin Mix Over Undeclared Milk Content
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls CoaguChek Blood Clotting Test Strips

SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS: Sued in Indiana Over Patient Info Leak
UNILEVER: Expands Recall of Milk-Containing Knorr-Lipton Sides
UNITE: Cintas Workers Seek to Unseal Closed Files in "Pichler"
UNITED STATES: D.C. Lawyer Plans Suit Over Anthrax Vaccinations
UNITED STATES: Legal Curbs Proposed to Limit Corporate Actions


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONNETICS CORP: Zimmerman Levi Announces Securities Suit Filing
DELL INC: Stock Suit Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 13
WARNER CHILCOTT: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Bernard M. Gross Announces N.Y. Securities Suit
XETHANOL CORP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


BEACON PRODUCTS: Recalls Lighting Fixtures to Refit Coupling
------------------------------------------------------------
Beacon Products Inc., of Sarasota, Florida, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,600 units of pendant-style outdoor lighting fixtures.

The company said the lighting fixtures could fall from their
lamp posts due to a problem with the coupling system used to
secure them.  This poses a risk of injury for persons beneath
the lighting fixtures.

Beacon Products Inc. has received one reported incident
involving an outdoor lighting fixture that fell from its lamp
post because its coupling system had failed.  No injuries or
property damage have been reported.

The pendant-style outdoor lighting fixtures were installed by
municipalities and developers as subdivision and/or downtown
urban streetlights.  The lighting fixtures typically appear
along sidewalks and smaller avenues.  They are made of aluminum
and sold in various colors.  Some have glass covers.  Recalled
models include:

     -- Cambridge,     -- Magna,   
     -- Capital,       -- Maritas,
     -- Coal Miner,    -- Miramar,     
     -- Depot,         -- Metropolis,
     -- F-10 Fitter,   -- Neptune,    
     -- F-13 Fitter,   -- Pierwalk,
     -- F-21 Fitter,   -- Radial Wave," and    
     -- F-35 Fitter,   -- Tivoli
     -- Kings Park,

These pendant-style outdoor lighting fixtures were manufactured
in the U.S. and are being sold by independent commercial
lighting agents via catalogs from January 2001 through October
2004 for between $180 and $1,100 per fixture.  These lighting
fixtures were not sold directly to consumers.

Picture of the recalled pendant-style outdoor lighting fixtures:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07017.jpg

Persons responsible for maintaining outdoor lighting fixtures or
streetlights should immediately cordon off the area underneath
each lighting fixture and contact Beacon to receive free
retrofit kits.  Beacon will also reimburse labor costs up to $50
per lighting fixture.

For more information, contact Beacon Products at (877) 755-9594
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.beaconproducts.com.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces CLRA Violations Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
BMW of North America, LLC is accused of violating the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act in a suit filed in Los Angeles Federal Court,
according to the Courthouse News Service.

California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Section 1750 of the
Civil Code of California) prohibits vagueness, unfair business
practices, and deception by declaring unlawful "methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken
by any person in a transaction intended to result or which
results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any
consumer"

Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey-based BMW of North America is a
subsidiary of BMW.  It imports BMW, MINI, and Rolls-Royce cars
and motorcycles into the U.S. and provides marketing, sales, and
financial services for some 340 BMW dealerships, about 330 BMW
Sports Activity Vehicle dealerships, some 150 BMW motorcycle
retailers, about 80 MINI dealerships, and 25 Rolls-Royce
dealers.


CINTAS CORP: Class Status Motion by DWP Contract Workers Revived
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeal Judge Dennis Perluss reinstated a motion to
certify a suit against rental company Cintas Corp. by employees
claiming unclaimed wages and benefits under the Living Wage
Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles, the Metropolitan News-
Enterprise reports.

Judge Perluss ruled that Los Angeles Superior Court Maureen
Duffy-Lewis was wrong in denying class certification in the suit
for reasons that the proposed class was not ascertainable and
lacked a well-defined community of interest.

The suit was filed by employees who claim that they and 300 or
more of their fellow workers at Cintas facilities in Whittier,
Pico Rivera, and Ontario were paid less than the minimum wage
and denied mandated paid leave for work performed on a Cintas
contract with the Department of Water and Power.

Under an agreement by DWP with Cintas for the lease, cleaning,
and repair of uniforms and other supplies from 2000 to 2004, the
company promised to comply with the Living Wage Ordinance that
took effect in 1997.  

The ordinance requires that most workers on service contracts
with the city receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, plus an
employer contribution of not less than $1.25 per hour to
employee health care, or a wage of $8.50 per hour.  It also
requires that employees be given 12 days of annual paid leave,
and up to 10 days of unpaid family and medical leave per year.

Plaintiffs allege that Cintas violated the ordinance in addition
to several Labor Code violations, including failure to maintain
required records and failure to pay overtime premiums.

The contract was terminated in 2004.  The city sued for damages
as a result of Cintas' alleged violations of the ordinance.  The
case was settled without admission of wrongdoing by the company.  
The employees also later filed a suit against Cintas.  Judge
Duffy-Lewis refused to certify the suit saying plaintiffs failed
to establish a well-defined community of interest partly because
of the differences of the workers' work schedules.  

Some class members worked on the DWP contract at least 20 hours
per month, as required by an administrative regulation
implementing the ordinance, and others did not.

Judge Duffy-Lewis also said plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the
superiority of a class action over individual adjudications.

In an opinion filed Sept. 27, and certified only recently for
publication, Judge Perluss said the proper way to resolve the
class issue is to divide the class into subclasses.  One should
be for those who worked 20 hours or more each month on the
contract and the other of workers who worked on the contract
less than 20 hours per month during the applicable period.  In
relation, the burden falls on Cintas to provide record of
employees' time spent on DWP work.

The case was argued on appeal by Michael Rubin of Altshuler,
Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain for the plaintiffs and Diane L.
Gibson of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey for Cintas.  City Attorney
Rocky Delgadillo filed an amicus brief supporting the
plaintiffs.

The case is "Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. Case No. 2, 06 S.O.S. 5658."


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Court Orders Disclosure of Abusers' Names
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Court of Appeals, ruling in the sexual abuse suit
against the Diocese of Covington, ordered that the names of
accused offenders who are still living should be given to
prosecutors, Associated Press reports.  

Judge Lisabeth Hughes Abramson wrote for a three-judge panel
that the judge's motive "was designed to serve the compelling
public interest in assuring that child sexual abuse is fully
reported to prosecuting authorities."  Regarding the disclosure
of victims' names, he ruled that prosecutors don't need the
names of all the victims to conduct criminal investigations, and
they don't need the names of alleged abusers who have since died
because they can't be prosecuted.

                        Case Background

Lawyer Stan Chesley filed the class action in Boone County
Circuit Court in 2003, claiming 21 priests and some other
workers abused more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington
for decades while church officials did nothing to stop the
misconduct (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2003).

According to court filings, from about 1956, information on the
sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed
from the public, including parents of children in schools and
parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well
as from family members of employees of the diocese.

Senior Judge John Potter previously ordered the release of
personal information about the victims.  Plaintiff attorneys
filed an appeal on Sept. 8 against the ruling.

Attorneys had argued that the order violates the victims'
constitutional right to privacy.  According to the appeal, Judge
Potter himself stated in an order of June 2005 that the
information victims submitted in the settlement process wouldn't
be made public without their consent.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled on Sept. 29 that attorneys
for the sex abuse victims do not have to give prosecutors the
names of victims (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2006).

                           Settlement

A $85 million settlement in the case was initially approved in
July 2005.  On Jan. 31, Judge Potter finally approved the
settlement with 361 victims.  The agreement calls for plaintiffs
to receive between $5,000 and $1 million based on the severity
and duration of the abuse they suffered.  The first monetary
awards were distributed to victims in September (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

The distribution of the settlement is being handled by special
masters William Burleigh, chairman of the board of the E.W.
Scripps Co., and Thomas D. Lambros of Ashtabula, former chief
federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio.

                        Attorneys' Fees

Judge Potter awarded plaintiff attorneys $18.5 million in fees
in May, but Mr. Chesley had refused to give another attorney,
Brenda Dahlenburg Bonar, a share.  Ms. Bonar argues that she is
entitled part of the fees for her efforts in the initiation,
prosecution and ultimate settlement of the case.  The initial
two plaintiffs in the case that eventually became a class action
were her clients, as well as 13 of the original class members.

Judge Robert McGinnis in Boone Circuit Court, who replaced Judge
Potter upon his resignation, has ordered plaintiff attorneys to
file a new lawsuit separate from the diocesan suit to determine
awards for attorneys (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).


FEDEX: Faces Suit Over Uncontracted "Brokerage" Fees Assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Poyner Baxter LLP of North Vancouver, Canada
filed on Oct. 24 a class action in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia against:

     -- Fedex Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage (Canada),
        Inc., and

     -- Fedex Ground Package System, Ltd.

The suit parallels one commenced against United Parcel Services
Canada Ltd.  The actions concern the assessment of uncontracted
"brokerage" fees on U.S. products delivered to Canada, a charge
not specified in sales contract.

In the two actions, the claimants were each charged fees in the
$30 to $40 range for a service that could have been provided by
Canada Post for five dollars.

Poyner Baxter is working closely with Ontario law firm Siskinds,
headquartered in London, and lawyer Daniel Bach.

The named complainant in the British Columbia Fedex action,
North Vancouver writer Matt Blackman, reported that after he had
made a U.S. purchase in the amount of about $100, he
specifically asked about what add on charges he might expect.  
He was allegedly told that the "Fedex Ground" bill would be $25
plus taxes and any government customs levies assessed against
the merchandise.  He claims that he eventually faced a bill of
$60.04 to ship the item, about $35 of which was the excessive
brokerage fee.

Said lawyer Jim Poyner, "Mr. Blackman did everything he could do
in advance to determine what charges he might face and he was
deceived.  He then took his complaint to the office of the
president of Fedex in Canada, and was simply brushed off with a
comment that the charge was 'standard practice.'

"The parallel in these cases demonstrates corporate policy that
is arrogant, deliberately unlawful and exploitative, and I don't
think we will have any difficulty proving this in court."

The Statements of Claim filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia allege "deceptive practices" under this province's
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BCCPA).

The actions acknowledge that it is customary in online orders
for the buyer to contract to pay the value of the goods, a
shipping and handling fee, and any applicable government taxes,
excise and customs duties.  It states that the failure to
establish a contractual agreement with consumers with respect to
brokerage, obtain consent to act as an agent and disclose the
existence of a fee or its amount, had the "tendency or effect of
deceiving or misleading consumers by creating the false
impression that no charges will be levied."

Citing the BCCPA, the statement of claim in the UPS case
(virtually the same language in the Fedex action) goes further:

"The circumstances of the payment of the Brokerage Fee,
including, but not limited to, the absence of a contractual
agreement, the absence of disclosure of the existence or amount
of the Brokerage Fee, the absence of consent for the Defendant
to act as a customs broker, and the grossly excessive amount of
the Brokerage Fee, results in a transaction so harsh and adverse
as to constitute an unconscionable practice within the meaning
of section 8 of the BPCPA."

Lawyer Jim Poyner added: "In these days of fuel surcharges and
special fees in various aspects of routine business affairs, we
are becoming inured to this kind of unpleasant surprise.  But
there is no gray area in this matter.

This is the case of corporations deliberately exploiting a
modern trend in a totally unwarranted and unlawful fashion.
Charging unauthorized amounts is wrong in itself, but then
demanding $35 or $40 from customers for a service that costs
five dollars at Canada Post, goes beyond mere deception."

The suit seeks an injunction to stop this practice, punitive
damages, an audit of all such fees collected in the province and
a refund to all consumers wrongfully charged.

                       Prayer for Relief

Among others, plaintiff claims on his own behalf and on behalf
of members of the putative class:

     -- a refund of the BPCPA of all monies paid to and
        received by Fedex for unsolicited services;

     -- damages suffered or losses incurred due to a
        contravention of the provisions of the BPCPA pursuant to
        the provisions of section 171 of the BPCPA;

     -- a declaration that the actions of Fedex as aforesaid are
        actions by a supplier in respect of a consumer
        transaction in contravention of the provisions of
        section 172 (1) (a) of the BPCPA;

     -- a permanent injunction restraining Fedex from continuing
        the actions taken by them as aforesaid in contravention
        of the BPCPA, pursuant to section 172 (1) (b) of the
        BPCPA;

     -- an order that Fedex restores to the plaintiff and other
        putative class members all monies acquired by it as a
        result of its actions as aforesaid in contravention of
        the provisions of the BPCPA, pursuant to section 172 (3)
        (a) of the BPCPA;

     -- a declaration that Fedex is a trustee of all monies
        received as aforesaid from the Plaintiff and putative
        class members and an order directing the return of those
        funds;

     -- punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages;

     -- costs pursuant to section 37(2) of the Class Proceedings
        Act;
        and

     -- interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act.

A copy of the Statement of Claim is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1445

For further information: Poyner Baxter, Suite 408 - 145 Chadwick
Court, North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1, Phone: (604) 988 6321,
Fax: 604.988 3632, E-mail: classaction@poynerbaxter.com; on the
Net: http://www.poynerbaxter.com.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Mortgage Insurance Suits Settlements Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial Inc. has received court approval for the
settlements for two lawsuits alleging the insurer overcharged
for mortgage insurance, the company said in a regulatory filing,
according to Reuters.

The company did not admit wrongdoing.  The Reuters report did
not mention particulars of the case.

               Lawsuit Against Broker, Mr. Allen

In 2005, Gwenworth announced a $5.25 million settlement in a
lawsuit filed on behalf of customers of Anthony Allen and his
business partner, Gregory Maynard (Class Action Reporter, May
10, 2005).

Mr. Allen served as a broker for The Life Insurance Company of
Virginia, which was acquired in the late 1990s by GE Capital
Assurance Co.  GE Capital Assurance transferred its business to
Genworth Financial Inc. when GE created Genworth Financial in
late 2003.

Genworth Financial is paying the settlement.

Mr. Allen, a former Fayetteville business owner, and Mr. Maynard
are charged with defrauding an estimated 120 people out of as
much as $14 million.  According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs
lost a combined $800,000 to Mr. Allen.  Later that lawsuit was
converted into a class action.

Investigators explain that before he was arrested, Mr. Allen
invested his clients' money with legitimate companies but later
talked them into investing in one of the companies he owned.  
Later, he pocketed the money, investigators said.

                      The Georgia Lawsuit

In 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against one of Genworth Financial's insurance
subsidiaries and other life insurance companies, styled "McBride
v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life and Annuity
Assurance Co." (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2004).

The suit is related to the sale of universal life insurance
policies.  The complaint was initially filed in Georgia state
court as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
certain universal life insurance policies from that subsidiary
and alleges improper practices in connection with the sale and
administration of universal life policies.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On Dec. 1, 2000, the company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  No class was
certified.  The company vigorously denied liability with respect
to the plaintiff's allegations.  Nevertheless, to avoid the
risks and costs associated with protracted litigation and to
resolve the company's differences with policyholders, the
company agreed in principle on Oct. 8, 2003 to settle the case
on a nationwide class action basis with respect to the insurance
subsidiary named in the lawsuit.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted on Oct. 6 the defendant's motion to dismiss the suit,
"In re GlaxoSmithkline PLC Securities Litigation, 05 Civ. 3751."  
The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint in the case is
dismissed with prejudice.

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted on grounds, inter alia, that certain
claims are time-barred, and that plaintiff has failed to plead
fraud with particularity, failed to allege scienter, and failed
to allege loss causation.

The initial complaint in this action was filed on April 12,
2005.  Lead plaintiff Joseph J. Masters brought the putative
class action alleging that GlaxoSmithkline plc and GSK Chief
Executive and Chairman Jean-Pierre Garnier violated section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section
78j(b)(1994), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5
(2001), by making various false and misleading statements
resulting in damages to GSK investors during the class period.

This is a putative class action filed on behalf of individuals
who acquired GSK common stock or American Depositary Receipts
from Dec. 27, 2000 to Aug. 5, 2004.

Plaintiff alleges that he acquired GSK securities during the
Class Period and suffered damages as a result.

Two additional actions, No. 05-cv-3885 and No. 05-cv-4723, were
brought in the Southern District of New York on April 18, 2005
and May 16, 2005, respectively.  A fourth related action, No.
05-cv-6231, was transferred here from the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

By order dated July 25, 2005, the District Court consolidated
all four actions and granted Mr. Masters' unopposed motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

The parties availed themselves of this procedure, and a second
amended complaint was docketed on April 6, 2006.

The second amended complaint alleges violations of the U.S.
Exchange Act in two counts:

      -- defendants violated section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by, inter alia,
         making untrue statements of material fact that resulted
         in damages to plaintiff and the class; and

     -- control person liability under section 20(a) of the
        Exchange Act as to defendant Mr. Garnier.

The second amended complaint alleges that GSK misrepresented the
safety and efficacy of Paxil in treating Major Depressive
Disorder in children by allowing positive information about
Paxil to be disclosed publicly but withholding or concealing
negative information.

The second amended complaint alleges that GSK engaged in a
"disinformation campaign" designed to suppress information about
the withdrawal effects of Paxil.

It raises Patent Allegations claiming that GSK misled investors
by issuing statements misrepresenting the validity and duration
of GSK's patents for Paxil and Augmentin.

It raises False Claims Act Allegations claiming that GSK was
sued for False Claims Act violations several times, starting
with an action brought on Nov. 16, 2001, when GSK was trading at
$53.96 per share.

It raises Insider Trading Allegations claiming that Mr. Garnier
took advantage of material adverse information not known to the
public while issuing materially false and misleading statements.

The suit is "In Re Glaxo Smithkline Plc Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05 Civ. 3751," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody, Esq., Aaron Brody,
Esq., Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull Stull & Brody (New York); and
Timothy J. Burke of Stull Stull & Brody, (LA).  On the Net:
http://www.secfraud.com/.

Representing the defendants are Andrew J. Levander, Esq., and
Neil A. Steiner, Esq. at Dechert LLP.  On the Net:
http://www.dechert.com/.


GOOGLE INC: Calif. Judge Hears Arguments in KinderStart.com Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California heard arguments on whether an antitrust
lawsuit by KinderStart.com LLC against Google Inc. should
proceed to discovery phase or be dismissed, according to
Reuters.

Judge Fogel said in opening comments that he was concerned
attorneys for plaintiff KinderStart had not met the legal
standard for defamation at the core of its complaint, according
to the report.  He thus asked Google whether it defamed a small
company by cutting it from its web search ranking system.  He
asked whether Google has a free speech right to prioritize some
sites over others in how it constructs computer formulas in its
search system.

Judge Fogel said he would take until at least the end of the
year to render a formal ruling.

On March 17, 2006, KinderStart filed a civil complaint asking to
represent owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's search
engine since January 2001.

In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google wrongfully
banned some Web sites.  It also said that these Web sites could
no longer be restored, since Google does not disclose its
procedures from striking them out.

Claiming that it was dropped from Google's index a year ago
without being informed, KinderStart also alleged that the
practice is anti-competitive and that Google misled the public
by positioning its search engine as an objective source for
finding Internet content.

The suit is seeking class-action status, citing that many other
companies suffered by getting left out of Google search results.   
It seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that
would require Google to change its practices.

In recent months, Judge Fogel allowed KinderStart.Com to amend
its complaint against Google before it decides whether to
dismiss the case.

The KinderStart complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dc3  

The suit is "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No.
5:06-cv-02057-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory John Yu of the Global Law
Group, 2015 Pioneer Ct., Suite P-1, San Mateo, CA 94403, Phone:
650-570-4140, Fax: 650-570-4142, E-mail: glgroup@inreach.com.

Representing the defendant are Colleen Bal, David H. Kramer and
Bart Edward Volkmer, Esq. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-493-9300 and
(650) 565-3508, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-mail: cbal@wsgr.com,  
dkramer@wsgr.com and bvolkmer@wsgr.com.


GROKSTER LTD: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Music Publishers
------------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for the music publisher plaintiffs in the ongoing
litigation against the operators of the Kazaa peer-to-peer
network informed the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Oct.
30 that the music publishers have reached an anticipated
settlement of the publishers' class action against the operators
of the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.  

The settlement, reached after months of negotiations, is subject
to final approval of the formal agreement by the board of the
National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), which sponsored
the litigation on the publishers' behalf, the representative
class plaintiffs and the court.

Under the terms of the settlement, Kazaa has agreed to pay a
substantial sum to compensate music publishers and songwriters
for the infringement of musical works on the Kazaa network.

"The anticipated settlement represents an important victory for
songwriters, music publishers and music fans alike," said David
Israelite, NMPA President and chief executive.  "It will be
another key milestone in the ongoing transformation of the
digital music marketplace to one that will allow legal services
to thrive."

The NMPA, on behalf of a certified class of over 27,000
songwriters and music publishers, along with the RIAA and MPAA,
brought the case against the illegal peer to peer music services
Grokster and Streamcast to the U.S. Supreme Court after it was
tried in the Ninth Circuit Court in California.  The case,
charging that Grokster and Streamcast facilitated copyright
infringement on a massive scale, was heard by the Court on March
29, 2005.

In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that
unauthorized peer-to-peer networks could be held liable for
inducing massive copyright infringement.  Earlier this year, the
Kazaa defendants settled with the record labels and movie
studios and agreed to introduce filtering technologies to end
distribution of copyright-infringing files.

The suit is "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, et al. v. Grokster Ltd., et
al., Case No. 2:01-cv-08541-SVW-FMO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of New York under Judge Stephen
V. Wilson with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

One of the lawyers representing the defendant is Charles S.
Baker at Porter and Hedges, 700 Louisiana, 35th Floor, Houston,
TX 77002, Phone: 713-226-0676, E-mail: cbaker@porterhedges.com.

One of the lawyers representing the plaintiff is Drew E. Breuder
at O'Melveny & Myers, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90067-6035, Phone: 310-553-6700.


HOLLINGER INT'L: Former Chief Files Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the former chairman and chief executive of Hollinger
International Inc., now Sun-Times Media Group, Inc., asked the
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss
or delay a securities class action against the company, Crane's
Chicago Business reports.

Conrad Black wanted the suit dismissed or at least delayed
because Mr. Black and other former officers are facing similar
charges in an ongoing federal criminal case where he has been
accused of fraud, the report said.

Mr. Black's lawyers reportedly wrote in the dismissal request:
"If the civil case is stayed, issues common to both cases may be
resolved in the criminal case, narrowing or eliminating issues
in the civil case.  Upon completion of the criminal trial,
plaintiffs will have access to the trial transcripts and
additional documents potentially narrowing the scope of
discovery in this case."

Mr. Black has pleaded not guilty to allegations of wrongdoing in
the company.

                         Case Background

In February and April 2004, the Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters
Pension and Retirement Fund initiated purported class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against:

     -- the company and certain former executive officers and  
        former directors of the company;

     -- The Ravelston Corp. Ltd.;

     -- certain affiliated entities; and  

     -- KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public  
        accounting firm.  

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  The consolidated action is entitled, "In re
Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on Aug. 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended class action
complaint on Nov. 19, 2004.  

The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class
action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E.
Dean Carlson.  

They are purporting to sue on behalf of an alleged class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of securities
of the company between and including Aug. 13, 1999 and Dec. 11,
2002.  

On June 28, the District Court dismissed six of eight counts in
a securities class action complaint filed by several plaintiffs
against Hollinger and certain of its officers and directors.

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding: certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.   

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, rescission,
and an injunction against future violations.  

A copy of the Second Amended Complaint is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1067

In recent months, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order upholding certain securities fraud claims by
plaintiffs against Hollinger and the company's officers,
directors and auditors and companies affiliated with the company
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2006).

As part of its ruling, the court directed plaintiffs to address
standing issues raised by the defendants by amending the
complaint to add named class members who purchased Hollinger
stock between June 29, 2001 and Dec. 11, 2002.

The suit is "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge David H. Coar.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),  
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:  
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;  

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

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,  
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:  
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite  
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:  
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com;

     (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,  
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750;  
         and  

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


HOSPITAL CORP: Kan. Court Refuses to Sanction "Spires" Attorney
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Marten in Wichita, Kansas federal court denied a
request to impose sanction on a local lawyer who filed an
unsuccessful class action claim that the parent company of
Wesley Medical Center intentionally understaffed registered
nurses at its hospitals, The Wichita Eagle reports.

Judge Marten ruled that while the lawsuit by Lawrence Williamson
was "frivolous," sanctions were not warranted in the case.

Hospital Corp. of America asked the court to sanction Mr.
Williamson after the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas dismissed the consumer class action alleging HCA, the
parent company of Wesley Medical Center in Wichita it operates
under unsafe levels of nurse staffing (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 1, 2006).  Hospital Corp. asked Mr. Williamson and his
clients to pay nearly $400,000 in attorney's fees to the nine
lawyers it hired to defend the lawsuit since April.

The suit had contended that the hospital chain defrauded
patients by directing its affiliated hospitals to staff its
nursing units below generally accepted levels.

Judge Marten ruled the case involves medical malpractice that
needs to be examined on an individual basis and not in a
consumer class action.  He also ruled that the company as a
corporation could not be held liable for cases at each of its
hospitals.

                         Case Background

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the
company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit in
the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas in March.  She
claimed that her husband died because the hospital did not have
enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized
in 2004 (Class Action Reporter May 24, 2006).

The lawsuit asked the company to repay no less than $12.5
billion to millions of patients who have been treated at its
hospitals.

The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No.
2:06-cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara.  It was dismissed in July.


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls ATV to Secure Steering Shaft Connection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, of Irvine, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 291 units of Kawasaki 2007 Model Year Bayou 250
All-Terrain Vehicles.

The company said the nuts securing the tie-rod ends to the
steering shaft may not have been tightened sufficiently during
assembly.  If the nuts loosen during operation, the operator
could lose steering control, posing a risk of crashing.  No
incidents or injuries reported.

The recall involves 2007 model year Kawasaki KLF250A7F ATVs.  
These are 4-wheel ATVs sold under the brand name Kawasaki Bayou
250.  They are available in red, green, or white, and the words
"Kawasaki" and "Bayou" are on the sides, and "250" on the rear
fender.

These all-terrain vehicles were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at authorized Kawasaki dealers nationwide from
September 2006 through October 2006 for about $3,000.

Picture of the recalled all-terrain vehicle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07504.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the ATV immediately and
contact their local Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free repair.  
The correction will consist of tightening the tie-rod end
mounting nuts to the proper torque.  Kawasaki dealers will
correct this problem at no charge.

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


KRISPY KREME: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.C. for $75M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement with the lead plaintiffs in the pending
securities class action, the plaintiffs in the pending
derivative action and all defendants named in the class action
and derivative action, except for the company's former chairman
and chief executive officer, providing for the settlement of a
securities class action and a derivative action.

Both the class action and derivative action settlements are
subject to preliminary and final approval of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

With respect to the securities class action, the Stipulation
provides for the certification of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased the company's publicly-traded securities
between March 8, 2001 and April 18, 2005, inclusive.  

The settlement class will receive total consideration of
approximately $75 million, consisting of:

     -- a cash payment of $34,967,000 to be made by the
        company's directors' and officers' insurers;

     -- a cash payment of $100,000 to be made by the company's
        former chief operating officer, John W. Tate;

     -- a cash payment of $100,000 to be made by the company's
        former chief financial officer, Randy Casstevens;

     -- a cash payment of $4,000,000 to be made by the company's
        independent registered public accounting firm; and

     -- common stock and warrants to purchase common stock to be
        issued by the company having an aggregate value of
        $35,833,000 (based on the current market price of the
        company's common stock).

All claims against defendants will be dismissed with prejudice;
however, claims that the company may have against Scott A.
Livengood, the company's former chairman and chief executive
officer, that may be asserted by the company in the derivative
action for contribution to the securities class action
settlement or otherwise under applicable law are expressly
preserved.

The Stipulation contains no admission of fault or wrongdoing by
the company or the other defendants.

With respect to the derivative litigation, the Stipulation
provides for the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against defendants except for claims against Mr.
Livengood.  The company, acting through its Special Committee,
settled claims against Mr. Tate and Mr. Casstevens for the these
consideration:

     * Messrs. Tate and Casstevens each agreed to contribute
       $100,000 in cash to the settlement of the securities
       class action;

     * Mr. Tate agreed to cancel his interest in 6,000 shares of
       the company's common stock; and

     * Messrs. Tate and Casstevens agreed to limit their claims
       for indemnity from the company in connection with future
       proceedings before the U.S. Securities and Exchange
       Commission or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
       District of New York to specified amounts.

The company, acting through its Special Committee, has been in
negotiations with Mr. Livengood but has not reached agreement to
resolve the derivative claims against him and counsel for the
derivative plaintiffs are deferring their application for fees
until conclusion of the derivative actions against Mr.
Livengood.  All other defendants named in the derivative action
will be dismissed with prejudice without paying any
consideration, consistent with the findings and conclusions of
the company's Special Committee in its report of August 2005.

"The settlement of these legal matters represents a significant
step in the turnaround of Krispy Kreme," said Daryl Brewster,
President and Chief Executive Officer.

The company estimates that, based on the current market price of
its common stock, it will issue approximately 1,875,000 shares
of its common stock and warrants to purchase approximately
4,400,000 shares of its common stock in connection with the
Stipulation.  The exercise price of the warrants will be equal
to 125% of the average of the closing prices of the company's
common stock for the 10-day period surrounding the filing of its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Jan. 29,
2006.

The company has recorded a non-cash charge to earnings in fiscal
2006 of $35,833,000, representing the estimated fair value of
the common stock and warrants to be issued by the company.  The
company has recorded a related receivable from its insurers in
the amount of $34,967,000, as well as a liability in the amount
of $70,800,000 representing the aggregate value of the
securities to be issued by the company and the cash to be paid
by the insurers.

The settlement is conditioned upon the company's insurers and
the other contributors paying their share of the settlement.  
The provision for settlement costs will be adjusted to reflect
changes in the fair value of the securities until they are
issued following final court approval of the Stipulation, which
the company anticipates will occur in late calendar 2006 or
early calendar 2007.

Founded in 1937 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Krispy Kreme -
- http://www.krispykreme.com-- is a leading branded retailer  
and wholesaler of high-quality doughnuts, including its
signature Hot Original Glazed.  There are currently
approximately 295 Krispy Kreme factory stores and 90 satellites
operating systemwide in the U.S. of America, Australia, Canada,
Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kuwait, Mexico, South Korea and the United
Kingdom.


MATERNITY STORES: Calif. Customers Get Windfall from Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoppers who bought merchandise at one of several maternity
clothing chains in California may benefit from the settlement of
a purported class action, The KCRAChannel.com reports.

The lawsuit alleges that Motherhood Maternity, Mimi Maternity
and Pea In The Pod stores broke state law by requesting and
recording customers' addresses.

The owner of the stores denied the suit's allegations, but
offered to settle the case.  The woman who brought the suit is
set to get $3,000, while her lawyers are expected to receive
$230,000.

The rest of the members of the class action are expected to each
get $15 in store credit.  If a judge approves the settlement,
the store credit will expire in nine months.


MICROSOFT CORP: Settlement Offers Tech Funds for Calif. Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schools in Fallbrook are set to receive a windfall that is
expected to provide them several hundred thousand dollars to buy
technology over the next few years, according to The North
County Times.

That windfall comes from a settlement involving software giant
Microsoft Corp.  Technically, the money is left over from a $1.1
billion settlement reached in 2003 in an antitrust class action
against the company.

The $1.1 billion settlement resulted from a class action in San
Francisco County, alleging that the company violated antitrust
laws and overcharged California consumers for some of its
software between 1995 and 2001.

On June 16, 2003, under Judge Paul Alvarado of the California
Superior Court, the company reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the case.

In 2004, individual consumers were given the opportunity to
apply for small vouchers as part of the settlement.  Any money
left unclaimed was turned over to California's schools, which in
September became eligible to apply for vouchers through the
California Department of Education if at least 40 percent of
their students qualify as being from low-income families.

Eligibility was determined by how many students at a given
campus are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals
through the National School Lunch Program.

According to a July 26 memo from California Superintendent of
Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, statewide, officials expect
between $400 million and $600 million in vouchers to be
distributed to schools for technology as a result of the case.

Under the settlement, six schools in the Fallbrook Union
Elementary School District will share about $208,000 worth of
technology vouchers.  

The Fallbrook Union High School District expects to get about
$167,000 in those vouchers, with $147,000 worth going to
Fallbrook High School.

According to Fallbrook education officials, the vouchers come
with restrictions on what they may be used to buy.  It was
stipulated that half of the money could be used to buy hardware
such as computers, printers and networking equipment, while the
other half must be spent on software.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: DPAs Plan Litigation Over Employment Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Robert Costello is planning to file a purported class
action against the National Football League (NFL) over its
classification of its drug program agents (DPA), Michael
O'Keeffe and T.J. Quinn of The New York Daily News reports.

DPAs are responsible for collecting urine specimens from NFL
players.  The planned suit comes after two DPAs asked the IRS
for a ruling on their employment status this year.

The agency agreed that they are employees, not independent
contractors as the NFL has claimed, and thus should be entitled
to all the benefits an employee are due.

According to Tom Taylor, one of the original DPAs, doctors and
others in the management council were constantly pushing that
theme that they were independent contractors.

But of course, Mr. Taylor and other DPAs were aware that they
were being micromanaged, and he pointed out that no independent
contractor would put up with that kind of nonsense.  "Inquiry
and investigation led us to believe that we were employees and
we were not being treated properly," says Mr. Taylor.

With the IRS' determination, Mr. Taylor and several other
current and former DPAs hired Mr. Costello to represent them in
seeking back benefits and Social Security payments that could
total hundreds of thousands of dollars for the most veteran of
the agents.

It was previously reported that in order to avoid having to pay
benefits to agents past and current, the NFL will replace all 80
of its DPAs next month and outsource their collections to
Comprehensive Drug Testing (CDT), a California company.  CDT
handles collections for Major League Baseball and the National
Hockey League.

As of the moment, the NFL's response has been to stall,
according to Mr. Costello.  The league, which could be liable
for tens of millions in payments, is refusing even to comment on
the IRS' determination that the agents are employees.

The law is clear on what the players are owed in benefits,
pension and welfare payments, Mr. Costello pointed out, as well
as reimbursement for Social Security payments.

Mr. Costello thus said that they hope the league will resolve it
amicably or they'll have to take further action.  He has not
given the NFL a deadline to respond, but Mr. Costello revealed
that he might file a lawsuit, possibly a class action.

According to Mr. Costello, he did not know whether all the
league's current and former DPAs, most of who were former
federal or local law enforcement officers are aware of the IRS'
ruling.

The IRS' determination that the agents are employees could
potentially affect the league's investigators, also former feds
and cops who are now treated by the NFL as independent
contractors as well.  Several current and former DPAs revealed
that investigators generally made $75 per hour, while DPAs made
$50.


NATURAL SELECTION: Faces Ill. Suit Over E. Coli-Tainted Spinach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Selection Foods faces a purported class action in Cook
County Circuit Court in Illinois over spinach possibly tainted
with E. coli, The Chicago Sun Times reports.

The suit against the California-based company, which sells
prepackaged spinach under the Earthbound Farm brand, was filed
by G&G Restaurant Corp., owner of Hamilton's Restaurant in
Glenview.

Unlike other actions filed in the latest outbreak, the case does
not allege physical harm, but seeks only compensation for money
spent on spinach that had to be discarded.  

Asked for comment on the suit, George Gregousis, who owns
Hamilton's said that he wanted to ensure that this will not
happen again and reiterated that they are a restaurant, and are
well-known for its fresh products.

Federal authorities have identified Natural Selection as a
possible source of the E. coli outbreak.  The strain of E. coli
linked to the tainted spinach can cause diarrhea, and in some
cases kidney failure.  In the latest outbreak, 114 cases have
been reported nationwide, with one death in Wisconsin.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Planned Appeal Against Stock Suit Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. said that plaintiffs in the shareholder
class action complaint that was dismissed, with prejudice, by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
earlier this year, have decided not to appeal the dismissal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The company and its former chief executive officers and its
current chief financial officer are defendants in a lawsuit
originally filed on Apr. 21, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  The plaintiff is Francis
Layher, for himself and on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities
between May 5, 2003 and Feb. 23, 2004.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks an order determining that the
action may proceed as a class action, awarding compensatory
damages in favor of the plaintiff and the other class members in
an unspecified amount, and reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and September of
2004 in the same court by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy
J. Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig and
G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially
similar damages.

All of these lawsuits were transferred to a single judge and
consolidated into a single action.  Lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel have been appointed and the consolidated complaint was
filed on Dec. 20, 2004, which, among other things, extended the
putative class period to Oct. 18, 2004.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The
company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted on Sept. 30,
2005.

The District Court also granted plaintiffs the right to amend
their complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct.
31, 2005.

On Mar. 20, 2006, the District Court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice all of the claims against the company and the
individual defendants.  

On Apr. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the
decision of the District Court to dismiss the complaint to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In Odyssey Healthcare's report of its third-quarter results, the
company said that plaintiffs have decided not to appeal the
dismissal.

The suit is "In Re: Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00844," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C.
Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins - San Diego, 655 W Broadway, Suite
         1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/231-1058, Fax:
         619/231-7423;

     (2) Joe Kendall of Provost Umphrey Law Firm - Dallas, 3232
         McKinney Ave., Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone:
         214/744-3000, Fax: 214/744-3015, E-mail:
         Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com; and

     (3) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-
         7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.  

Representing the defendants is Karen L. Hirschman of Vinson &
Elkins - Dallas, 3700 Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Ave.,
Dallas, TX 75201-2975, Phone: 214/220-7795, Fax: 214/220-7716,
E-mail: khirschman@velaw.com.  


PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Muffin Mix Over Undeclared Milk Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods Corp. of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey is recalling
a limited production run of Duncan Hines Bakery-Style Chocolate
Chip Muffin mix, which was manufactured by a co-packer for
distribution by Pinnacle, due to an undeclared allergen (milk).

The product is being recalled because the chocolate chips in the
mix may contain milk protein.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk may run the risk of a serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

This voluntary recall was initiated after the company learned
that the "Duncan Hines Bakery-Style Chocolate Chip Muffin Mix"
contained an undeclared allergen (milk).

Retail Carton     Carton Description      Production Code
UPC Code                                  located on top of
                                          Carton

44209 42012       "DUNCAN HINES BAKERY-   27166523
                  STYLE CHOCOLATE CHIP    27266521
                  MUFFIN MIX"             27266522
                                          27266523
                                          31266522
                                          31266523
                                          06666622
                                          06666623

People who are allergic to or have a severe sensitivity to milk,
are advised not consume this product.  They are asked to return
the product to the store where it was purchased for a full
refund.

The product is safe to eat by people who are not allergic to
milk.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-554-
5680.  The Food & Drug Administration has been made aware of
this recall.


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls CoaguChek Blood Clotting Test Strips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Diagnostics is recalling all CoaguChek PT test strips
currently in the market, due to a potential for a test strip
defect that may cause falsely elevated test results.

The company has identified the root cause and is instituting
corrective action with highest priority.  The company has
confirmed one incident and its internal investigation suggests
that a small percentage of strips may be affected.   No deaths,
illnesses or injuries have been reported due to this issue when
it issued the recall.

CoaguChek PT test strips are used by patients in the home and by
professionals in medical settings to determine blood clotting
time of patients taking anti-coagulants, also known as blood
thinners.  Blood thinners are used to treat patients with a
potential for blood clots, for example, patients with heart
valve replacements, certain types of heart disease or blood
clots in their legs.  Incorrect results may have serious or life
threatening consequences because patients may be improperly
treated.

Roche Diagnostics has determined the potential for a test strip
defect when insufficient active ingredient (thromboplastin) is
applied to the test strip, possibly causing falsely elevated
results.  As a result of the unpredictable positive bias,
patient test results may be falsely elevated.  This can result
in an incorrect dose of anti-coagulant or unnecessary corrective
measures to reduce the effect of circulating anti-coagulants.
Both incorrect treatment choices could put patients at risk for
blood clots.

Roche Diagnostics is notifying all home users of the CoaguChek
PT test strip to immediately discontinue use of and discard the
product as well as to consult with their health care provider to
determine alternate testing methodologies and clinical
implications.  U.S. customers with questions or concerns should
call Roche Diagnostics' Point-of-Care Technical Service at 1-
800-820-0995.

Roche Diagnostics is notifying all health care professionals who
use the CoaguChek PT test strip to institute 'duplicate testing'
-- or two strips on each patient -- using different lot numbers
to reduce the risk of bias.  If health care professionals
require another lot to enable duplicate testing, they are
encouraged to call their medical supply distributor.  For
general questions, health care professionals should call the
company's Point-of-Care Technical Service Center at 1-800-820-
0995.  These actions must remain in place until the issue has
been resolved and health care professionals are supplied with
unaffected replacement product.

Letters are being sent to customers, providers and physicians --
including additional information regarding this voluntary
action.  Roche Diagnostics is working with its affiliates
worldwide to coordinate appropriate activities.  Any adverse
reactions experienced with the use of this product, and/or
quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch
Adverse Event Reporting program online:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm,Phone: 1-800-FDA-1088,  
or by returning the postage-paid FDA form 3500 [which may be
downloaded from http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmby  
mail: MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787 or
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178.

This action is being taken by Roche Diagnostics with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS: Sued in Indiana Over Patient Info Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The Sisters of St. Francis Health Services Inc. and its
contractor faces a purported federal class action over an
alleged security lapse that may have exposed the private
information of more than 260,000 patients, The Associated Press
reports.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court
of Indiana, the suit claims that defendants violated federal
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
privacy laws and failed "to take reasonable corrective action"
such as promptly notifying patients of the breach.

Greenwood resident Michael Chaney, who seeks class-action status
for the suit, filed it on Oct. 27, 2006.  The suit also seeks
damages including no less than $5,000 for each affected class
member.

According to the suit, the breach occurred in July when an
employee of Advanced Receivables Strategy Inc., or ARS,
mistakenly left compact discs containing information including
names and Social Security numbers in a computer bag being
returned to a store.  The hospital system did not notify
patients of the lost information until October.

The lawsuit also names as defendants hospital system Greater
Lafayette Health Systems Inc., ARS parent Perot Systems Corp.
and an individual ARS employee.

The suit is "Chaney v. Sisters of St. Francis Health Services,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01583-SEB-VSS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge
Sarah Evans Barker with referral to Judge V. Sue Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott Allen Benkie and Douglas A. Crawford of Benkie &
         Crawford, 47 South Meridian Street, Suite 305,    
         Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: (317) 632-4448, Fax:
         (317) 637-8555, E-mail: sabenkie@aol.com and
         dacrawford60@aol.com; and

     (2) Rodney V. Taylor of Christopher & Taylor, 1219 North
         Delaware Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, Phone: (317)
         635-9000, Fax: (317) 686-2200, E-mail:
         rodtaylor@abatelegal.com.


UNILEVER: Expands Recall of Milk-Containing Knorr-Lipton Sides
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unilever of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey voluntarily issues
expanded recall and allergy alert on undeclared milk in certain
Knorr-Lipton "Sides", all of which were manufactured in one
facility and are listed below.

Product Name              Packaging Type         UPC Code

"Knorr-Lipton
Fiesta Sides
Spanish Rice --
Rice & Pasta Blend
with Bell Peppers in
a Sweet Tomato Sauce"    5.6 oz.(158g) pouch     UPC# 4100002268

"Knorr-Lipton Fiesta
Sides Chipotle Rice
-- Rice & Orzo Blend
in a Southwestern
Smoked Chipotle
Flavored Sauce"          5.7 oz.(161g) pouch     UPC# 4100002605

"Knorr-Lipton
Cajun Sides
Dirty Rice --
A Delicious Rice &
Pasta Blend with
Onions, Garlic and
Mild Cajun Spices"       5.7 oz.(161g) pouch     UPC# 4100002280

"Knorr-Lipton Cajun
Sides New Orleans
Style Chicken Rice
-- Rice & Pasta Blend
with Red Peppers,
Chicken Flavor & Mild
Cajun Spices"            5.5 oz(155g) pouch      UPC#4100002609

"Knorr-Lipton Rice
Sides Chicken -- Rice
& Pasta Blend in a
Savory Chicken
Flavored Sauce"          5.6 0z.(158g) pouch     UPC# 4100002266

"Knorr-Lipton Rice
Sides Sesame Chicken
-- Whole Grain Rice &
Pasta Blend in a Sesame
and Chicken
Flavored Sauce"          5 oz.(141g) pouch       UPC#4100020920

"Knorr-Lipton Pasta
Sides Chicken -- Whole
Grain Fettuccini in a
Savory Chicken
Flavored Sauce"          4.4 oz(124g) pouch      UPC#4100020923

"Knorr-Lipton Asian
Sides Thai Sesame
Noodles -- Lo Mein
Noodles in a Soy,
Lemongrass & Sesame
Flavored Sauce"          4.4 oz(124 g) pouch    UPC#4100002805

The UPC Code for each product is located at the bottom right-
hand side of the back of the pouch.

All Best If Used By Date Codes of the above products are
affected.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.  The recall only relates to the above
products.  No other Knorr-Lipton "Sides" product, or Knorr or
Lipton product is being recalled.  The company is cooperating
with the FDA and also issuing an alert through the Food Allergy
& Anaphylaxis Network.

These products were distributed nationwide, and reached
consumers through retail stores, club stores and dollar stores.  
The affected products are being recalled from consumers and
retailer store shelves, back rooms and warehouses.

To date, the company has received reports of two adverse
reactions to the above products from people with known milk
allergies.

The recall was initiated after the company discovered that
products containing milk were distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of milk in the ingredient lists on the
labels.

Consumers who have purchased packages of any of the above
described products are urged to discard them immediately.  They
may also contact the company at 1-866-839-7162 for a full
refund.


UNITE: Cintas Workers Seek to Unseal Closed Files in "Pichler"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Cintas Corp. employees suing the Union of
Needlestrades, Industrial & Textil Employees AFL-CIO (UNITE) for
unlawfully violating their privacy have filed motions to unseal
closed documents in the case, Jane M. Von Bergen of The
Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Previously, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of employees who
filed the class action, "Pichler, et al. v. UNITE (Union of
Needlestrades, Industrial & Textil Employees AFL-CIO) et al."

The court ruled that UNITE violated the federal Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act of 1994 by illegally obtaining access to their
confidential motor vehicle information (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 5, 2006).

Further, the court ordered UNITE to pay $2,500 to each of the
Cintas employees who brought the original lawsuit.  The court
will also determine whether to award punitive damages and
compensation to approximately 2,000 additional Cintas employees
at future proceedings.  The total amount that UNITE will be
ordered to pay may run into the millions of dollars.

Several Cintas Corp. employees filed the DPPA case in 2004.  The
employees became concerned after they -- or their family and
friends -- began receiving unannounced, uninvited visits at home
from union representatives who obtained their personal contact
information by using license plate numbers to access DMV
records.

The union though is objecting to the recent motions filed by the
plaintiffs.  It is arguing that the implications reach beyond
the case.

Thomas Kennedy, of Kennedy, Jennick & Murray, the Manhattan law
firm representing the union, said that the motion would
represent a vehicle to force disclosure of information about
union-organizing campaigns in the midst of the campaigns.  
Unions are currently depending on public opinion to win support
for union organizing.  For the past four years, a campaign is
out to unionize Cintas Corp.

A peculiarity in the case, though, according to the report, is
that the plaintiffs are Cintas Corp. employees, who are mostly
anti-union.  Their attorney was hired by Cintas Corp., which is
paying the legal bills.

Mr. Kennedy pointed that if depositions and documents were made
public, Cintas Corp. could learn, which of its locations the
union considered easy to organize, or the names of inside union
sympathizers.

He contends that it would be devastating to those workers, since
employers can always drum up some reason to sue a union.  But
with this, according to Mr. Kennedy, they could wander through a
union's records.

However, Paul Rosen, a partner in the Philadelphia law firm of
Spector Gadon & Rosen, which is representing the Cintas Corp.
employees, disagreed with that argument, saying the information
is old and currently irrelevant, that it's in the public
interest to have an open courtroom.  For instance, an insight
into how unions run their organizing campaigns would be useful
for scholars and historians.

In addition, Mr. Rosen also said that he would argue that
current strategic information, such as the name of a current
Cintas Corp. employee working on the union's behalf, should
remain confidential.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Elizabeth "Penny" Pichler.

The suit is "Pichler et al. v. UNITE (Union of Needlestrades,
Industrial & Textil Employees AFL-CIO) et al., Case No.2:04-cv-
02841-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart Dalzell, with
referral to Judge Jacob P. Hart.

Representing the plaintiffs Bruce Bellingham, Joyce B. Link,
David B. Picker and Paul R. Rosen all of Spector Gadon & Rosen
PC, Seven Penn Center, 1635 Market St., 7th Fl, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-241-8872 or 215-241-8870 or 215-241-8888, Fax:
215-241-8844, E-mail: jlink@lawsgr.com or prosen@lawsgr.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark Featherman and Laurence M. Goodman both of Willig
         Williams & Davidson, 1845 Walnut St., 24th FL,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-656-3600, E-mail:
         mfeatherman@wwdlaw.com or lgoodman@wwdlaw.com;

     (2) Susan M. Jennik and Thomas M. Kennedy both of Kennedy,
         Jennik & Murray, PC, 113 University Place, 7th Floor,
         New York, NY 10003, Phone: sjennik@kjmlabor.com or
         tkennedy@kjmlabor.com;

     (3) Irwin Rochman of Rochman Platzer Fallick Sternheim Luca
         & Pearl, LLP, 666 Third Avenue, 17th FL, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-697-4090; and

     (4) Dennis Torreggiani, 113 University Place, 7th FL, New
         York, NY 10003, Phone: 212-358-1500.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Lawyer Plans Suit Over Anthrax Vaccinations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Mark Zaid of Washington, D.C.-based law firm Krieger &
Zaid, PLLC, plans to file a purported class action challenging
the mandatory anthrax vaccination program for servicemembers and
military contractors.

Mr. Zaid, who represents about six servicemembers and
contractors who have refused to be vaccinated for anthrax, was
one of many who attended a symposium in Oct. 29 over the
vaccination program.

He is seeking to make the vaccination program voluntary again
and reverse any disciplinary action taken against servicemembers
who have refused to take the vaccine.

Hosted by a Washington, D.C., law firm, the symposium was about
the resumption of mandatory anthrax vaccinations for
servicemembers and some contractors on the Korean peninsula and
in countries under the responsibility of U.S. Central Command,
according a report by Jeff Schogol of Stars and Stripes.

For more details, contact Mark S. Zaid, Esq., DC Bar #440532,
Krieger & Zaid, PLLC, 1920 N St., N.W., Suite 300, Washington,
D.C. 20006, Phone: (202) 454-2809 and (202) 371-6626, Fax: (202)
371-6643, E-mail: zaidms@aol.com.


UNITED STATES: Legal Curbs Proposed to Limit Corporate Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proposals have been drafted by two influential industry groups
that seek to protect corporations and accounting firms from
criminal cases brought by prosecutors and civil lawsuits brought
by shareholders, reports say.

The proposals aim:

      -- to limit the liability of accounting firms for work
         they do on behalf of clients,
   
      -- to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers
         instead of companies, and

      -- to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

Essentially, the proposals are attempts to scale back some of
the requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, according to
Reuters.  

One of the groups that made the proposals is a committee formed
by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The other group was formed by:

      -- Harvard Law professor Hal Scott;

      -- R. Glenn Hubbard, a former chairman of the Council of
         Economic Advisors for President George W. Bush; and

      -- John Thornton, a former president of Goldman Sachs,
         where he worked with current Treasury Secretary Henry
         Paulson, Jr.

Reportedly, some members of the groups said that they expect
that the administration will use many of their recommendations
to limit what they see as overzealous state prosecutions by
figures such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
and abusive class actions by investors.

                           Proposals

Among proposals now being considered by the groups is the
possible elimination of shareholder securities fraud lawsuits
under an anti-fraud rule, known as Rule 10b-5, and permitting
only the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring these
cases.

Yet another proposal would require some investor suits to be
handled by arbitration panels, which typically close their
sessions to the public.  These panels have traditionally been
seen as friendlier to defendants than trial courts.

                           Reactions

Critics see the effort as part of a plan to cater to Bush
Administration constituents.  In addition they see it as a way
to insulate politically connected companies from prosecution at
the expense of investors.

Additionally, prominent plaintiffs' attorneys have lashed out at
the proposals especially the ones that would make it harder to
bring shareholder lawsuits against corporations.

Bill Lerach, a prominent class action attorney from Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, L.L.P., pointed out that
securities lawsuits have fallen off sharply in the last few
years, according to Business Insurance.

But, the groups want to further cripple these cases, because,
according to him, "it's the one effective weapon that
shareholders have."

Class action attorney Stanley Grossman of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross L.L.P. in New York thinks that the proposals
are outrageous.

According to Sean Coffey of the law firm Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman, another prominent class action attorney that
helped win a $6.15-billion settlement for investors in WorldCom
Inc., the proposed curbs on shareholder litigation suggest that
corporate America has already forgotten the string of business
scandals that took place in recent years.

Many of the proposals are written to bypass Congressional
approval, and thus would need only to be adopted by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and enforcement policy
changes at the Justice Department.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CONNETICS CORP: Zimmerman Levi Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announced that a class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Connetics Corp. between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws.  The complaint charges that each of the
defendants knew, yet concealed from the investing public, a
significant finding regarding the company's key new acne drug,
Velac, which would likely bar U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approval and reported false financial results by understating
its rebate reserves.

More specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts:

      -- the carcinogenicity study of Velac had indicated that a
         high incidence of mice treated with Velac developed
         tumors;

      -- Velac would be deemed unsafe by the FDA and would not
         provide the revenue and income promised by the company;
         and

      -- the company falsified its financial reports for at
         least 2005 and likely earlier by improperly accounting
         for its rebates.

As a result of defendants' issuance of materially false and
misleading statements, Connetics publicly traded securities
traded at inflated levels during the class period, which
permitted defendants to profit millions of dollars in insider
trading proceeds.

On July 10, 2006, Connetics announced that the company's
revenues and earnings for the second quarter and for the full
year 2006 to be materially below the projected amounts announced
May 3, 2006.  On this news, shares of Connetics declined 33.6%
to $7.76.

Interested parties may file a motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff with the court no later than Nov. 17, 2006.

For more details, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. of Zimmerman,
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY
10006, Phone: (212) 363-7500 and (800) 835-4950, E-mail:
ek@zlk.com.  


DELL INC: Stock Suit Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
of Dell Inc. that Nov. 13 is the deadline for shareholders to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, against the
company and certain officers.  

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company during the period from Feb. 13, 2003
through Sept. 8, 2006, inclusive.   The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

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

In August 2005, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
began investigating the company's revenue recognition and
accounting practices, but Dell concealed the investigation from
investors.

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

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

On Aug. 16, 2006, Dell announced it would be forced to recall
over 4 million laptop batteries citing a high combustion risk.
On Aug. 17, 2006 the company announced its fifth consecutive
quarter of disappointing results.  Dell's profits fell 51% from
the same quarter one year earlier.

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

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S.
Moskowitz, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.  


WARNER CHILCOTT: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of Warner Chilcott, Ltd., pursuant and/or traceable
to the company's initial public offering on or about Sept. 20,
2006 through Sept. 26, 2006, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933.  

This action concerns the initial public offering of Warner
Chilcott common stock, which took place on or about Sept. 20,
2006.

The complaint charges Warner Chilcott and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.  

The company is engaged in the development, manufacture, sale,
and marketing of branded prescription pharmaceutical products in
women's healthcare and dermatology primarily in the U.S.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO, Warner
Chilcott had ceased shipments of Ovcon 35, its top selling birth
control pill, thereby eliminating a primary revenue stream for
the company.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Warner Chilcott announced developments in a
lawsuit brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission and
filed a supplement to the Registration Statement in which it
disclosed that, among other things, it had ceased shipments of
Ovcon 35 in September 2006 when it launched Ovcon Chewable.  

In response to these disclosures the price of Warner Chilcott
common stock dropped from $15.00 per share to $12.60 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web Site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/warnerchilcott/.  


WARNER CHILCOTT: Bernard M. Gross Announces N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Warner Chilcott, Limited on the company's
Initial Public Offering effective September 20, 2006 and on the
open market between September 20, 2006 and September 25, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Warner, Roger Boissonneault and Paul
Herendeen with violations of Section 11,12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during the class period
concerning Ovcon 35 pill.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the prospectus for
the IPO, defendants made false and misleading statements about
the company's determination, made prior to the date of the
prospectus, to discontinue immediately shipments of Ovcon 35
when it commenced shipments and sale, in September 2006, prior
to the date of the prospectus, of its generic chewable version
of Ovcon 35 (the Ovcon Chewable) and the negative impact that
determination would have on the company's sales revenues for the
remainder of 2006 and thereafter.

When the company disclosed on Sept. 26, 2006 that it would not
be shipping the Ovcon 35 pill anymore since it started selling
the Ovcon Chewable, the market price for Warner's newly issued
common stock dropped $1.90 per share, 12.7%, to close $13.06.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., which
has significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class
actions.

Interested parties may no later than Jan. 2, 2007, request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class.

The case is pending before the Honorable William H. Pauley, III.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. and Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. both of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The
Wanamaker Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


XETHANOL CORP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a class action against Xethanol Corp.
and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  

The action is on behalf of Xethanol securities purchasers during
the period Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2006, for securities law
violations.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial statements.  As a result, the price of the company's
securities was inflated during the class period, thereby harming
investors.

According to the complaint, Xethanol engages in the production
of ethanol and its co-products in the U.S.  During the class
period, the complaint alleges that defendants concealed that:

      -- the integrity and ethical credibility of defendants was
         in question;

      -- defendants were unjustifiably optimistic and aggressive
         in the description of Xethanol's ethanol business,
         including the management and utility of its facilities,
         notably the Permeate facility in Hopkinton, Iowa;

      -- defendants employed flawed and defective accounting
         practices and internal controls which served to conceal
         highly suspect related-party transactions during the
         company's formative stages; and

      -- the fraudulent nature of defendants' efforts to develop
         viable processes and commercialize "biomass ethanol"
         would make it difficult for analysts and investors to
         evaluate the company's future prospects, earnings and
         income for present and future quarters.

Interested parties may file a motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff with the court no later than Dec. 26, 2006

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: (800) 404-
7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.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  * * *