CAR_Public/061106.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 6, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 220

                            Headlines

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Seeks to Block Adverse Ruling
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Ky. Court Refuses to Certify Hager Lawsuit
ARKANSAS: Settlement Reached With Owners in CSST Litigation
AVON PRODUCTS: Court Denies Motion to Strike "Blakemore" Class
AVON PRODUCTS: Fla. Court Denies Class Status for "Roqueta" Suit

AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Presents Arguments Against $284M "Miller" Award
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Product Liability Suit in New Jersey
CALIFORNIA: Suit Targets Merced County's Political Jurisdictions

CONSIGNMENT COLLECTION: Conn. Store Owner Faces Customers' Suit
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Train Derailment Settlement Checks Out Soon
CYBERSOURCE CORP: Plaintiff Opposes Dismissal of Ill. Litigation
ELI LILLY: Lawyer Gathers Data for Ind. Race Discrimination Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls "Creepy Cape" Due to Flammability Hazard

HILTON HOTELS: "Resort Fees" Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 14
HORIZON BLUE: Doctors' Lawyers Get $6.5M in N.J. Suit Settlement
ICOS CORP: Shareholders File Ill. Suits Over Sale to Eli Lilly
JARDEN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal

KSL RECREATION: Jan. 16 Hearing Set for Calif. Resort Fee Deal
MARYLAND: Faces Rights Violation Suit by Low-Risk Sex Offenders
MERCK & CO: Bernstein Litowitz Wants Client Named Lead Plaintiff
MICROSOFT CORP: Chairman, CEO to Testify in Iowa Antitrust Suit
NEW MEXICO: Judge Denies Certification to Title-Insurance Suit

NORTHERN MARIANAS: Judge Wants Checks Sent Back to Gilardi & Co.
OHIO: Massillon Attorney Sues MWCD Over $270M Assessment Plan
PHARMA COS: Dismissal Motion in Price Overcharging Suit Denied
QUINCY COLLEGE: Surgical Technicians' Litigation Deadlocked
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Study Validates Request for CT Screening

UNITED STATES: High Court Sends Mutual Fund Suits to State Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Finkelstein Thompson Files Calif. Stock Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT: Brodsky Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Seeks to Block Adverse Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney for Lanny Darr of Alton, Illinois, who filed a
class action claiming damages against Affirmative Insurance Co.,
asked Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack to deny a
defense motion for summary judgment against his client,
according to The Madison County Record.

Evan Schaeffer of Schaeffer and Lamere in Godfrey filed the suit
on behalf of Mr. Darr in Madison County alleging that
Affirmative Insurance would only reimburse him $18.90 per day
for a rental vehicle (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2005).  

Mr. Darr claims he was involved in an auto accident February 14
with Affirmative client.  While he could not drive his Ford
Explorer for several days while it was being repaired, he rented
a Jeep Grand Cherokee for $222.44.  He asked and received
reimbursement from Affirmative, but refused to withdraw the
suit.  Mr. Schaeffer wrote in an Oct. 26 brief that Affirmative
sent the check as an offer of settlement.  Mr. Darr did not cash
the check.

Mr. Darr amended his complaint twice last year, accusing
Affirmative of common law fraud by misrepresentation.  The
complaint accused the defendant of lying about how much a rental
car cost and how much it would ultimately be willing to
reimburse.

The suit sought orders:

     (i) certifying the class of all Illinois residents involved
         in a traffic accident with Affirmative's customers in  
         the past 10 years;

    (ii) declaring Affirmative's conduct unlawful

   (iii) requiring Affirmative to cease and desist all  
         deceptive, unjust and unreasonable practices;

    (iv) requiring Affirmative to notify and properly disclose  
         to whose they have overcharged; and

     (v) an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the  
         suit, including fees of experts and an award of factual  
         and compensatory damages in an amount less that $75,000  
         per class member.

Schaeffer and Lamere on the Net: http://www.riverbendlaw.com/.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Ky. Court Refuses to Certify Hager Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Thomas overruled Geneva Hager's request to
represent thousands of Kentucky injury victims in an $800
million class action against Allstate Insurance Co., The Herald-
Leader reports.

The Fayette Circuit judge ruled that the circumstances of Ms.
Hager's case are too unique for her to represent a class of
plaintiffs.

"Allstate agrees with the court's decision that it was not
appropriate for this case to be certified as a class action,"
spokesman Mike Siemienas said.

The judge's ruling did not address the merits of Hager's claim,
and he left open the possibility that another accident victim
could lead a class-action lawsuit challenging Allstate's
handling of claims that involve minimal property damage and
soft-tissue injuries, which vary in severity.

Ms. Hager got $25,000 from the insurer after her vehicle was
rear-ended by a truck insured by Allstate in 1997.  The $25,000
was the policy limit for the truck's driver more than five years
ago (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).

However, Ms. Hager's attorneys argue the payout was only offered
days after Fayette Circuit Court Judge Thomas Clark set a trial
date over her claim.  

The attorneys further argue that Allstate did not act in good
faith and they question whether Allstate's protocol for handling
what the company calls "minor impact, soft tissue" claims
violates Kentucky's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.  Ms.
Hager suffered neck and lower back injuries during the accident.

The plaintiff's lawyers say Allstate illegally singles out cases
with about $1,000 in property damage, trains adjusters to assume
such wrecks can't result in severe injuries and drags out those
cases so claimants will give up.   

Ms. Hager's portion of the lawsuit, which alleges that
Allstate's claims handling procedures violate the Kentucky
Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, will be allowed to
proceed. She is asking for $6 million.

J. Dale Golden of Lexington, one of Ms. Hager's lawyers, said he
would ask the judge to schedule a trial.  He has said he will
present evidence that corporate executives plotted to cheat
injury victims across the country.

Allstate's lawyers have said the company's claims handling
procedures root out fraud, examine each claim on its merits and
offer fair payments.  They added that upsets greedy trial
lawyers who once viewed minor car accidents as a quick payout.

The suit is "Geneva Hager and others v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
Allstate Indemnity Co. and Northbrook Property and Casualty
Insurance Co., Case No. 98-CI-2482," filed in Fayette Circuit
Court Civil Branch 8th Division.

Representing the plaintiff are Paul Kaplan, 157 North Broadway  
Lexington, Kentucky 40507, (859) 254-2900; and J. Dale Golden of
Golden & Walters P.S.C., 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 905,
Lexington, KY 40503, Phone: (859) 219-9090, Fax: (859) 219-9292.


ARKANSAS: Settlement Reached With Owners in CSST Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Clark County Arkansas preliminarily
approved a proposed settlement with a class of consumers that
had corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) used to transmit
fuel gas installed in their residential or commercial buildings.

CSST consists of continuous, flexible, stainless steel tubing
and typically is covered with a yellow exterior plastic jacket.
CSST typically is routed beneath, through and alongside floor
joists, inside interior wall cavities and on top of ceiling
joists in attic space from a gas source to an appliance. CSST is
not used for gas-appliance connectors (e.g., a connector that
runs from a gas outlet to an appliance).

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit (CIV No. 04-211), against defendant
CSST manufacturers, Titeflex Corp., Ward Manufacturing, Inc.,
OmegaFlex, Inc. and Parker Hannifin Corp., alleging that CSST
increased the likelihood of fire from a lightning strike.  

Defendants deny the allegations in the lawsuit. They maintain
that CSST is safe when properly installed in accordance with
local codes and manufacturer's instructions and that CSST has
many advantages over traditional iron, steel or copper pipe.

To avoid the expense of litigation, the four defendants agreed
to settle the case.  The proposed settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims.  

Defendants will continue to manufacture and sell CSST after the
proposed settlement.  No product recall or product modification
is required or contemplated under the proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement provides payment vouchers for class
members who qualify.  The payment vouchers will help settlement
class members defray the costs of buying and installing a
lightning protection system or bonding and grounding certain
systems in their structures.

Settlement class members who have CSST manufactured by the
defendants will be entitled to a payment voucher that can be
used either toward the installation of a lightning protection
system (including bonding and grounding) or for bonding and
grounding of the systems in their property.

Payment voucher values range from $200 to $2,000 for the
installation of a lightning protection system and from $75 to
$160 for bonding and grounding only.

Class members include any and all persons and/or entities that
own structures in the U.S. in which CSST manufactured by
settling defendants was installed as of Sept. 5.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves and retain their
right to sue independently must do so by Jan. 8, 2007.  Those
who stay in the class and wish to file a claim must do so by
Sept. 5, 2007.  

The court will hold a final approval hearing on Feb. 1, 2007 at
1 p.m. CST to consider whether to approve the proposed
settlement, award attorneys' fees and allow reimbursement of
expenses.

For more details, call 1-800-420-2916 or visit
http://www.csstsettlement.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Court Denies Motion to Strike "Blakemore" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California Court of Appeal denied Avon Products, Inc.'s motion
to strike the plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class in the
lawsuit, "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.,"
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County.

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on
behalf of Avon sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999,
received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.  

The Superior Court sustained the company demurrers and dismissed
plaintiffs' causes of action except for the unjust enrichment
claim of one plaintiff.

The court also struck plaintiffs' class allegations.  Plaintiffs
sought review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the
State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal
reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings, according to its Oct. 27,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Blakemore et al v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,
B175973" filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Huron of the Huron Law
Group, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA
90067, Phone: 310-284-3400, Fax: 310-772-0037, Web site:
http://www.huronlaw.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Fla. Court Denies Class Status for "Roqueta" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
denied class-action status to the lawsuit, "Roqueta v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al.," which was filed against Avon Products,
Inc. and alleges deceptive trade practices.

The suit was originally commenced in April 2005 in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

It seeks general damages, special damages and punitive damages
for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act and Florida statutes regarding misleading
advertisements, and for negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation.

The purported class includes "all persons who have purchased
skin care products from the defendant that have been falsely
advertised to have an 'anti-cellulite' or cellulite reducing
effect."  

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

In August 2005 the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for
negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, with prejudice.  The
court also dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims but granted
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, which she has done.

In July 2006, the court issued an order denying a motion by the
plaintiff to certify this action as a class action.  Plaintiff
has not yet indicated whether she will seek to appeal the
court's order, according to its Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Roqueta v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-21315-PAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz with
referral to Judge Chris M. McAliley.

Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin Raul Alvarez of Alvarez
Eljaiek & Rodriguez, PL, 2601 S Bayshore Drive, Suite 700,
Miami, FL 33133, Phone: 305-444-5885, Fax: 444-8986.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jude Christopher Cooper of Wasserstrom Weinreb &
         Wealcatch, Wachovia Center - Penthouse, 1909 Tayler
         Street, Hollywood, FL 33021, Phone: 954-922-3240, Fax:
         922-3431, E-mail: jude@hollywoodcounsel.com; and

     (2) Christopher Rebel Jude Pace of Weil Gotshal & Manges,
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200, Miami, FL 33131,
         Phone: 305-577-3100, Fax: 374-7159, E-mail:
         christopher.pace@weil.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey Clark Schneider of Tew Cardenas, LLP, Four
         Seasons Tower, 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor,
         Miami, FL 33131-3407, Phone: 305-536-1112, Fax: 536-
         1116, E-mail: jcs@tewlaw.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of New York to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it and certain other defendants,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class
actions for alleged violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated
complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption: "In re
Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV-
06803," naming the company, certain officers, its Retirement
Board and others.

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004 to the
present."

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion, according to its Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046; and

     (2) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Peter C. Hein Wachtell of Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West
         52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-403-1237,
         Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com; and

    (ii) Melissa C. Rodriguez of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
         (New York), 101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, NY
         10178, Phone: 212 309-6394, Fax: 212 309-6273, E-mail:
         mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated class
securities action field against the company, a company officer
and two officer/directors.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action
complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
in actions, "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al." and
"Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," respectively,
which subsequently have been consolidated.  

A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption, "In re
Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05-
CV-06803."

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004 and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."  It also asserts that during the class period
certain officers and directors sold shares of the company's
common stock.

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, according to its Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com; and

     (2) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046.

Representing the defendants is Peter C. Hein of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: 212-403-1237, Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail:
PCHein@wlrk.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Presents Arguments Against $284M "Miller" Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Bank of America argued before the 1st District Court
of Appeal on Oct. 25 against the $284 million compensatory
damages and restitution awarded to the class represented in the
suit, "Miller v. Bank of America, Case No. A110137."

On August 13, 1998, a predecessor of Bank of America N.A. was
named as a defendant in the purported class action, which is
challenging the company's practice of debiting accounts that
received, by direct deposit, governmental benefits to repay fees
incurred in those accounts.  

Disabled photojournalist Paul Miller filed the suit six years
ago in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.  Mr. Miller's income of roughly $640 per month came
from Social Security and Supplemental Security Income.  

A mix-up started when the bank improperly credited Mr. Miller
with $1,800, then deducted it later, threw Miller's life into
turmoil.  The action alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and violations of certain California laws.

On Oct. 16, 2001, a class was certified consisting of more than
one million California residents who have, had or will have, at
any time after Aug. 13, 1994, a deposit account with BANA into
which payments of public benefits are or have been directly
deposited by the government.  The case proceeded to trial on
Jan. 20, 2004.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne Bouliane ruled the
bank's actions were improper, after finding that the lender
charged overdraft fees on customer accounts containing Social
Security deposits.

The judge awarded $284 million in compensatory damages and
restitution to Mr. Miller, plus statutory damages likely to
surpass $1 billion, and another $12 million or so in interest.

On May 13, 2005, Bank of America filed with the California Court
of Appeal, First Appellate District, a notice of appeal and, on
May 16, 2005, a writ of supersedeas, seeking a stay of the trial
court's judgment pending appeal.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Court of Appeal granted Bank of America's
writ, staying the judgment, including the injunction, pending
appeal.

According to the report, one Bank of America's most central
argument is that the Miller case is factually distinct from a
1974 case against Wells Fargo that was eventually dismissed.  

Judge Bouliane dismissed the case saying Wells Fargo couldn't
seize unemployment and disability money from a customer's
account to cover her debt on a Wells Fargo credit card.  Bank of
America said the seizing in the Miller case is done to make up
for money owed under the same account.

Walter Dellinger, head of O'Melveny & Myers' appellate practice
and a lawyer for Bank of America added arguments suggesting
Judge Bouliane's damage calculations were inaccurate, because,
for once, it overstated the class members.

The plaintiff lawyers have also cross-appealed, arguing that the
$12 million in interest Bouliane awarded them was too low.
They're seeking more than $100 million more, Mr. Sturdevant
said.

The Sturdevant Law Firm and the Brandi Law Firm has filed a
second suit in San Francisco against Bank of America on behalf
of a later class, and yet another one in San Diego against Wells
Fargo, according to class counsel James Sturdevant.

O'Melveny & Myers' on the Net: http://www.omm.com/. Sturdevant  
Law Firm on the Net: http://www.sturdevantlaw.com. The Brandi  
Law Firm on the Net: http://www.brandilaw.com/.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Product Liability Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
BMW of North America, LLC is named defendant in a lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging that the rear axle of the 1999 to 2006 models of the
BMW 3 Series, Model E46, has an unfortunate tendency to fall
off, The Courthouse News Service reports.

The class consists of all consumers who currently own or lease
an E46 vehicle manufactured between 1999 and 2006, or who paid
for repair of the defect regardless of whether they currently
own or lease an E46 vehicle.

Excluded from the class are:

     -- defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, officers,
        directors and employees;

     -- persons who have suffered physical injury; and

     -- persons who have settled with and validly released
        defendants from separate, nonclass legal actions against
        defendants based on the conduct alleged.

The suit claims BMW falsely advertises the cars as "The Ultimate
Driving Machine," by emphasizing their supposed safety. It cites
a BMW ad that states, "Those in the know have two other words
for BMW: smart investment."

Court documents added, "given that the vehicles have a defect
which causes the vehicles to necessitate (sic) expensive repairs
upon exceeding approximately 50,000 miles, the vehicle does not
represent a smart investment".

The suit further claims the defect stems from a weak floor panel
that cracks the floor pan, causing cracking and partial or
complete failure of the rear subframe.

It alleges BMW knew of the defect and tried to fix it, but
failed, and has the gall to charge owners $9,000 to fix it.

The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate
over the questions that may affect individual class members,
including but are not limited to the following:

     -- whether defendants are obligated to inform class members    
        of their right to seek reimbursement for having paid for
        repairs to the defect;

     -- whether defendants have adequately informed dealers of
        the secret repair of the damage caused by the defect
        and/or replacement warranties;

     -- whether E46 vehicles are flawed in that the parts
        affected by the defect are substantially certain under
        ordinary use conditions well in advance of their
        expected useful life;

     -- whether and when defendants knew of the flawed nature of
        the vehicles;

     -- whether defendants actively concealed or intentionally
        failed to disclose information regarding the defect in
        connection with the sale and advertising of the E46
        vehicles;

     -- whether defendants have actively concealed the fact that
        the defect begins during the warranty period, but only
        becomes easily apparent outside warranty;

     -- whether the information defendants concealed or failed
        to disclose was material;

     -- whether defendants were under a duty to inform plaintiff
        and the class about the defect;

     -- whether defendants were under a duty to inform plaintiff
        and the class about the existence of the defect prior to
        the expiration of the express warranty;

     -- whether defendants have been unjustly enriched such that
        it would be inequitable for defendants to retain the
        benefits conferred upon it by plaintiff and the class;

     -- whether defendants should be declared responsible for
        notifying all class members of the defect;

     -- whether defendants should be required to monitor the
        subject vehicles in order to determine whether the
        defect has occurred and/or needs to be repaired;

     -- whether defendant knowingly concealed the danger of
        driving the E46 vehicles in light of the defect;

     -- whether defendants used or employed any unconscionable
        commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
        false promise, misrepresentation, or knowingly
        concealed, suppressed, or omitted any material fact with
        the intent that others rely upon such concealment,
        suppression or omission;

     -- whether defendants should be declared financially
        responsible for the costs and expenses of correcting the
        defect and or repairing damage caused by the defect; and

     -- whether other relief is appropriate and what that relief
        should be.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendants as follows:

    -- an order certifying the class and any appropriate sub-
       class thereof, and appointing plaintiffs and their
       counsel, to represent the class;

    -- an award of general damages according to proof;

    -- an award of special damages according to proof;

    -- an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to
       deter and make an example of defendants;

    -- an ward of restitution in an amount according to proof;

    -- a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to
       provide free monitoring services to the subject vehicle
       to determine the existence of damage from the defect and
       its need for repair;

    -- a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction
       and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, and
       their agents, servants, employees and all persons acting
       under or in concert with them, to cease and desist from
       the following acts:

       (1) selling, marketing or advertising the E46 vehicles
           without a detailed warning advising the consumer as
           to the defect;
       (2) selling and implementing the repair design by
           defendants to address the defect without advising the  
           consumer that the repair will only remedy the damage
           caused by the defect, and will not correct the defect
           so as to prevent further damage from occurring; and
       (3) failing and refusing to make full restitution of all
           moneys wrongfully obtained as a result of its
           violations of the law;

    -- for reasonable attorneys' fees;

    -- for costs incurred therein;

    -- for prejudgment interest;

    -- an order requiring defendants to disgorge to plaintiffs
       and the class members all ill-gotten revenues and/or
       profits earned or retained as a result of defendants'
       violations of law; and

    -- for all general, special, and equitable relief to which
       the plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled
       by law.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?146c

The suit is "Alpert v. BMW of North America, LLC et. al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-05198-PGS-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Peter G. Sheridan, with
referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are Mark Lanier and Richard D.
Meadow both of The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, 126 East 56th Street,
6th Fl., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 421-2800.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Targets Merced County's Political Jurisdictions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merced County, California faces a purported federal class action
over claims that multiple political jurisdictions in the county
have undertaken more than 200 annexations and other related
changes without federal approval, violating the Voting Rights
Act (VRA), The Fresno Bee reports.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, names as defendants, Merced County, the Local
Agency Formation Commission, the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos,
Gustine, Livingston and Los Banos, as well as 17 other
irrigation, water, resource conservation and community service
districts throughout the county.

Joaquin Avila, an attorney and Seattle University law professor,
filed the suit on behalf of county residents Felix Lopez and
Elizabeth Ruiz.

Mr. Avila said that the suit, filed on Oct. 27, 2006, does not
seek to stop an upcoming election in the affected jurisdictions.  
Instead, it asks that certification of the results be delayed
until approval for the changes is given by federal authorities.

In addition, according to him, the suit also seeks class-action
status for U.S. citizens of Spanish heritage who are registered
to vote and are affected by the changes.

Basically, the suit claims that the Local Agency Formation
Commission and the named jurisdictions have approved 172
annexations, 35 detachments, four formations and one
consolidation without federal approval since Nov. 1, 1972, when
Merced County became a VRA county.

First approved in 1965, VRA targeted Southern states that had
long used poll taxes and literacy tests to impede minority
voting.

Under the act, the California counties must get federal
permission for every change that affects voting.  Examples
include changes as small as moving a polling location or
redrawing voting precincts, or as large as altering county
supervisorial districts.

The suit is "Lopez, et al. v. County of Merced, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01526-OWW-DLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court of California under Judge Oliver W.
Wanger with referral to Judge Dennis L. Beck.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joaquin Guadalupe Avila of Law
Office of Joaquin G. Avila, 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90014, Phone: (206) 398-4117, Fax: (206) 398-
4036, E-mail: avilaj@seattleu.edu.

Representing the defendants are:

      (1) Marguerite Mary Leoni of Nielsen Merksamer Hodgson
          Parrinello and Mueller, 591 Redwood Highway, Suite
          4000, Mill Valley, CA 94941, Phone: 415-389-6800, Fax:
          415-388-6874, E-mail: mleoni@nmgovlaw.com;

      (2) Gene Tanaka of Best Best & Krieger, LLP, 3750
          University Avenue, Suite 400, P.O. Box 1028,
          Riverside, CA 92502, Phone: (951) 826-8234, Fax: (951)
          686-3083, E-mail: gene.tanaka@bbklaw.com; and

      (3) Thomas E. Ebersole of Berliner Cohen, 2844 Park Avenue
          Merced, CA 95348, US, Phone: 209-385-0700, Fax: 209-
          385-3789, E-mail: thomas.ebersole@berliner.com.


CONSIGNMENT COLLECTION: Conn. Store Owner Faces Customers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of people who brought dresses to a consignment shop on
Beach Street, Wolcott, Connecticut, is organizing a suit against
the owner of the store, The Waterbury Republican American
reports.

Jackie Ciarlelli is leading an effort to bring a class action
against Cherie Winters, owner of Consignment Collection, which
reportedly closed in August without warning its customers.

Eleven people, including customer MaryLee Pedro filed complaints
with the local police against the store, alleging that Ms.
Winters violated their trust and ran off with their belongings.  
However, she was told, that the complaint is a civil matter,
which is beyond the police's jurisdiction.

Wolcott police spokesman Capt. Domenic Angiolillo said
authorities investigated the case, where Ms. Winters told them
that her store went bankrupt and that she gave all the clothes
to charity.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Train Derailment Settlement Checks Out Soon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amite, Louisiana attorney Joseph Simpson said checks from the
Canadian National Railroad train derailment class action
settlement might be mailed to the 5,600 claimants on Dec. 1, the
Hammond Daily Star reports.

The checks will range from $1,150 to as much as $6,850,
depending on the claimants' location at the time of the Oct. 12,
2002, derailment and their approved expenses for lodging, food
and clothing.

According to Mr. Simpson, originally, the checks would have been
mailed by Oct. 1, but they were delayed when a Baton Rouge
attorney filed an appeal on behalf about 20 people seeking more
money.

The information is not official, he said, but it comes via a 14-
member committee appointed by the federal judge on the case.

Provisions will have to be made to notify any claimants who have
not informed the attorneys or the court of changes in their
addresses, he said.

On Oct. 12, 2002, hundreds of Amite residents fled their homes
when 22 freight cars left the tracks and one spilled
hydrochloric acid just a few blocks south of Amite's downtown
area.

Famed trial attorney Johnny Cochran and more than a dozen
attorneys filed at least four separate class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
representing claimants in the resulting lawsuits filed against
Canadian National Railroad (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23,
2006).
  
According to Mr. Simpson, the claimants were divided into three
zones:

     Zone A - People within half a mile of the derailment. They
     are to receive $2,300 plus amounts they paid for certain
     expenses.

     Zone B - Those anywhere inside the zone from the Tangipahoa
     River to Interstate 55 from Velma to somewhere north of the
     Franklinton Highway. They are to get $1,150.

     Zone C - Claimants who purported to be shopping or visiting
     friends and relatives in Amite that day. They are to get  
     $150 each. For example, some 650 of the claimants are from
     St. Helena Parish.

The total amount of the settlement is $8.25 million, plus
$300,000 for administrative fees.

"The railroad never regarded this as a major catastrophe," Mr.
Simpson said.  "Only one car emitted the chemical.  As to
whether it covered the territory is suspect.  The federal judge
ruled the only effect of this chemical was to the nose and the
eyes.  It was a good settlement.  The people who worked on this
did well.  And it came through relatively fast.  A lot of money
will be spent in Hammond and Amite before Christmas."

The suit is "In Re: Train Derailment near Amite, LA October 12,
2002, Case No. 2:03-md-01531-JCZ-SS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Jay C.
Zainey, with referral to Judge Sally Shushan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph H. Simpson of Simpson & Simpson, P. O. Box 1017,
         Amite, LA 70422, Phone: 985-748-8362, E-mail:
         wpaulsimpson@yahoo.com;

     (2) Frederick A. Stolzle, Jr. of the Stolzle Law Firm, 619
         Jefferson Hwy., Suite 1A, Baton Rouge, LA 70806, Phone:
         225-924-2588, E-mail: rick@stolzlelawfirm.com;

     (3) Rick A. Caballero, Attorney at Law, 17405 Perkins Rd.,
         Baton Rouge, LA 70810, 225-752-5959;

     (4) Robert Johnston Carter of Robert J. Carter, PLC, P. O.
         Box 27, Greensburg, LA 70441, Phone: 225-222-4191;

     (5) Donald G. Cave of the Cave Law Firm, 3909 Plaza Tower
         Dr., Baton Rouge, LA 70816-4356, Phone: 225-292-3194,
         E-mail: don@cavelaw.com;

     (6) Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, 510 N. Jefferson St.,
         Covington, LA 70433, Phone: 985-809-8093, E-mail:
         hdart@dartlaw.com; and

     (7) Frank Charles Dudenhefer, Jr. of the Dudenhefer Law
         Firm, LLC, 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655, New Orleans,
         LA 70130, Phone: 504-523-2553, E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Timothy Farrow Daniels, Nicole M. Duarte and David
         Stuart Kelly all of Lemle & Kelleher, LLP, Pan American
         Life Center, 601 Poydras St., Suite 2100, New Orleans,   
         LA 70130-6097, Phone: (504) 586-1241, E-mail:
         tdaniels@lemle.com or nduarte@lemle.com or
         dkelly@lemle.com; and

    (ii) Robert S. Emmett of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
         Berkowitz, PC, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600, New
         Orleans, LA 70170, Phone: 504-566-5200, E-mail:
         remmett@bakerdonelson.com.


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Plaintiff Opposes Dismissal of Ill. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Wilgus, who is involved a class action suit over stock
options against Cybersource Corp., asked the Madison County
Circuit Court not to throw out his case just because he did not
exercise the options, Steve Korris of The Madison County Record
reports.

Previously, Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit
Court set an Oct. 25, 2006 hearing on a request by the company
for summary judgment in the purported class action (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).

At the hearing, plaintiff's attorney Howard Becker of Korein
Tillery in St. Louis wrote to Judge Stack that, "an option
holder does not need to attempt to exercise options when an
attempt to do so would be futile."

He added that when a defendant causes a plaintiff's failure to
exercise options, "that defendant cannot benefit from its own
wrongdoing."

In 2000, PaylinX agreed to merge into Cybersource, a public
company that helps businesses process payment transactions over
the Internet.  Under the merger, PaylinX share options would
turn into an option to buy shares of Cybersource.  Half the
Cybersource shares would accelerate or vest when the merger
closed.  It closed Sept. 18, 2000, with company stock at $10.75.  
But, at the stock conversion in November, it had dwindled to
$1.85.

In 2002, John Hoffman of Korein Tillery filed a lawsuit on
behalf of Mr. Wilgus, a test engineer for PaylinX, claiming that
a delay in converting stock prevented Mr. Wilgus and others from
immediately exercising their options.  

Also, Mr. Hoffman claims that the company failed to establish
necessary E-trade accounts.  The suit proposed a class action on
behalf of about 75 former PaylinX employees at Cybersource.

Judge Phillip Kardis certified the suit in 2004.  He retired
last year and this year the case was assigned to Judge Stack.

On Aug. 31, 2006, Cybersource attorney Alan Goldstein of St.
Louis moved for summary judgment.  Mr. Goldstein questions
whether Mr. Wilgus did in fact exercises his option, and if he
did, he did not suffer from the share price drop between Sept.
18 and Oct. 20, 2000 because a "blackout" on that period to
prevent illegal insider trading was in place.  

"Because of the blackout, no one at Cybersource who owned
company stock could sell shares, while the share price was
dropping from $10.75 to less than $6.50 between Sept. 18 and
Oct. 20, 2000," Mr. Goldstein wrote.

However, in October 2005, Mr. Becker delivered a 783-page
response wherein he began with 31 pages of argument and attached
six depositions, five e-mails, a CyberSource personnel summary,
a school schedule, option records and a Yahoo stock price
history.

Essentially, Mr. Becker argued that the trading blackout should
not have applied to former PaylinX employees because they
possessed no inside information.  He wrote that former PaylinX
employees could have bought shares at $7.50 and sold them at
$12.88.

Assuming that Mr. Wilgus would have sold 7,500 shares, Mr.
Becker pointed out that the delay cost him a profit of $40,350.
"The unrealized profit which was clearly available to plaintiffs
are the damages alleged," Mr. Becker wrote.  Judge Stack has set
a hearing Nov. 29.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] John Hoffman of Korein Tillery, LLC,
         Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300, St.
         Louis, MO 63101, Phone: (314) 241-4844, Fax: (314) 588-
         7036; and

     (2) [Defendant] Alan K. Goldstein of Goldstein and Price,
         L.C., One Memorial Drive, Suite 1000, St. Louis, MO
         63102-2449, Phone: (314) 421-0710, Fax: (314) 421-2832
         and (314) 421-6150.


ELI LILLY: Lawyer Gathers Data for Ind. Race Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Rose, attorney with the Rose and Rose law firm, was at
the Hyte Community Center, in Terre Haute to take statements as
part of a race discrimination lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Co.,
the Terre Haute Tribune-Star reports.

Mr. Rose took statements from "African Americans who believe
they suffered discrimination at Lilly.  We're collecting
information." Statements though will not be used during trial
without prior permission.

In April, several workers of drug Company Eli Lilly & Co. filed
a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana for alleged racial discrimination (Class Action
Reporter, April 26, 2006).

Three former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged the
company paid black employees less than their white counterparts,
passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.     

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.   

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A.
Davis of Memphis, Tennessee, and two former sales reps, Jarmaine
Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

The suit "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-cv-
00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard L. Young, with
referral to Judge V. Sue Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joshua Rose, Terri N. Marcus and
David L. Rose all of Rose & Rose, P.C., 1320 19TH ST., N.W.,
Suite 601, Washington, DC 20036 U.S., Phone: (202) 331-8555,
Fax: (202) 331-0996, E-mail: daver@roselawyers.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls "Creepy Cape" Due to Flammability Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Inc., of Matthews, North Carolina, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 120,000 units of "Creepy Cape" Halloween Costumes imported
by TONY Development & Manufacturing (USA), of Montclair, New
Jersey.

The company said these vinyl capes fail to meet the standard for
the flammability of vinyl plastic film, posing fire and burn
hazards to consumers.  No injuries were reported.

The recall involves 40-inch black vinyl capes with a stand-up
collar.  A white sticker on the collar of the cape reads, "FLAME
RETARDANT PVC" and "MADE IN CHINA." The packaging shows a green-
skinned vampire wearing a black cape.  Writing on the packaging
includes "CREEPY CAPE," "Ages 6 To 60," and "NO. 53600."

Pictures of the recalled "Creepy Capes":
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07021a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07021b.jpg

The recalled "Creepy Capes" are manufactured in China and are
being sold at Family Dollar stores nationwide from August 2005
through October 2006 for about $2.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled capes and
return them to any Family Dollar store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Family Dollar toll-free at
(800) 547-0359 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.familydollar.com


HILTON HOTELS: "Resort Fees" Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit in St. Clair
County, Illinois will hold on Nov. 14, 2006 at 10 a.m. a final
approval hearing in the settlement of the class action, "Thomas
L. Maulding et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., Case No. 02-L-0645."

The class consists of all persons who:

      -- stayed at one of the participating hotels prior to Jan.
         14, 2004;

      -- paid to the hotel property a resort fee; and

      -- (a) did not receive notice of that additional charge at
             the time the reservation was made by the class
             member, and/or

         (b) believe the were misinformed or misled about the
             nature, purpose, scope, amount, or ultimate
             recipient of the resort fee.

The participating Hilton Hotels are:

     -- The Doubletree Golf Resort in San Diego, California;

     -- The Doubletree Surfcomber in Miami, Florida;

     -- The Doubletree Guest Suites Walt Disney World Resort in
        Orlando, Florida;

     -- The Embassy Suites Deerfield Beach in Deerfield Beach,
        Florida;

     -- The Hilton Sedona Resort & Spa, previously operated as
        the Doubletree Sedona, in Sedona, Arizona;

     -- The Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, Arizona;

     -- The Pointe Hilton Tapatio Cliffs Resort in Phoenix,
        Arizona;

     -- The Hilton Waikoloa Village Resort in Waikoloa, Hawaii;

     -- The Hilton Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida;

     -- The Hilton Myrtle Beach in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina;  
        and

     -- The Hilton Palm Springs in Palm Springs, California.

The hearing will be at the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois in the courtroom
of the Honorable Michael O'Malley.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 16, 2006.

In 2002, Thomas Maulding, sued Hilton Hotels in a class action
regarding Hilton's charging of resort fees to its hotel guest.

The suit alleges breach of contract and fraud.  It claimed the
Beverly Hills-based company quoted a certain room rate to
customers, only to add on extra non-tax charges when it came
time to pay the bill.

The lawsuit alleges a single cause of action arising from the
claims of customers who reserved a room at a Hilton Resort
Hotel, who were promised certain room rates by Hilton, and who
incurred additional charges, including but not limited to a
"Resort Fee," that were not optional and that were not disclosed
by Hilton at the time the reservations were made or at the time
of check-in.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Hilton participated in a
scheme to deceive guests about the actual room rate by failing
to provide advance notice of the Resort Fee at the time of
reservation and misrepresented the nature of the Resort Fee, all
in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act and the similar consumer fraud statutes of the
other states in which Hilton operates resort hotels.

Further, the suit contends that the charges are unlawful and
actionable.

Hilton denies these allegations, and asserts that its policy and
practice was and is to provide notice of the existence and
nature of Resort Fees to guests at the time of check-in as an
optional package that would not be charged unless and until a
guest agreed to the purchase.  Hilton further asserts that it
took diligent and reasonable steps to enforce that policy and
practice.

In August, Hilton reached a preliminary settlement under which
each of the participating hotels will discount its Resort Fees
on an ongoing basis by 75% until it has foregone a total of
22.5% of the Total Resort Fee collected by it prior to Jan. 1,
2004.

This benefit applies to any hotel guest incurring Resort Fees
after the Settlement Effective Date and prior to the discount of
22.5% of the Total Resort Fee, regardless of whether they are a
class member or not.

Class members who present themselves to Hilton with
documentation verifying their membership in the class, and incur
Resort Fees after the Settlement Effective Date, and prior to
the discount of 22.5% of the Total Resort Fee, will be
reimbursed the full amount of the Resort Fees then incurred.

To the extent possible, each of the participating hotels will
either:

      -- offer substantially identical amenities and services
         previously offered for the non-discounted Resort Fee,  
         or

      -- to the extent those amenities or services are
         unavailable, substitute amenities or services of equal
         value.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available for free at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?12ff

Hilton Hotels Resort Fees Settlement on the net:
http://www.hiltonresortfeesettlement.com./index.php3

The suit is "Thomas L. Maulding et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
Case No. 02-L-0645," filed in the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois under
Judge Michael O'Malley.

Plaintiffs' Counsel is The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue,
P.O. Box 229, Wood River, IL 62095-0229.


HORIZON BLUE: Doctors' Lawyers Get $6.5M in N.J. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Essex County Superior Judge Stephen Bernstein opened arguments
on Oct. 31 regarding an award of $6.5 million to attorneys of
doctors who pursued a case against Horizon Blue Cross Blue
Shield of New Jersey (Horizon BCBSNJ), the New Jersey Law
Journal reports.

The suit claims the carrier denied legitimate reimbursement
claims, sent payments too slowly and cost medical professionals
nightmarish administrative costs.

Under a settlement announced in October, Horizon BCBSNJ
committed to continue significant business practice improvements
related to physicians to increase transparency in payment of
claims, reduce administrative overhead, and improve interactions
between the health plan and physicians (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 24, 2006).  These improvements will help enhance the
efficiency and quality of the health care delivery system in New
Jersey.

The settlement does not say how the parties arrived at the $6.5
million fee, according to the report.  It represents one-sixth
of the $39 million estimated minimum value of the deal to
doctors, compared with the typical one-third fee in contingency
cases.

Key settlement agreement points include:

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will make fee schedules for commonly used
        procedures available to participating physicians by CD-
        ROM or electronically;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will disclose the significant automated
        edits it uses to process physician claims;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will provide 90 days notice to
        participating physicians of material changes to its
        contracts, policies, and procedures;

     -- Participating primary care physicians will be allowed to
        close their practices to new patients covered by Horizon
        BCBSNJ;

     -- Most fees shall not be reduced for participating
        physicians, if at all, more than once a year and Horizon
        BCBSNJ shall maintain standard fee schedules within
        geographic regions;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ agrees not to recover for overpayments to
        physicians after more than 18 months of the original
        payment and to provide more notice and information
        regarding any overpayments;

     -- A determination of medical necessity by Horizon BCBSNJ
        shall not subsequently be revoked absent evidence of
        fraud, material error, or material change in the
        condition of a patient prior to service;

     -- Horizon will provide detailed monthly capitation reports
        and a dedicated liaison to address physician inquiries
        concerning capitation payments.

If approved by a state judge, the settlement will end Horizon
Blue's involvement in a lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of at
least 40,000 New Jersey doctors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18,
2006).

Other defendants named in the suit were:

     -- Cigna Healthcare of New Jersey, a part of Cigna Corp.,  
        of Philadelphia;  

     -- United Healthcare of New Jersey, a unit of UnitedHealth  
        Group of Minneapolis; and  

     -- Oxford Health Plans of Trumbull, Conn.

Since then, the Cigna and United Healthcare cases have become
part of other national class actions in Florida.  The case
against Oxford, whose parent company merged with UnitedHealth in
2004, is in arbitration, according to class action attorney Eric
Katz, who is representing the plaintiff physician class.

As is the standard in such a deal, Horizon Blue, which insures
more than 3.2 million people in New Jersey, did not admit any
wrongdoing, according to company spokesman Thomas Rubino.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey on the Net:  
http://www.bcbsnj.com/.

The suit is "John Ivan Sutter, M.D. et al. v. Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield of New Jersey, Case No. L-3685-02."

For more details, contact Eric D. Katz of Nagel Rice Dreifuss &  
Mazie, LLP, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey 07068,  
Phone: 973-618-0400, Fax: 973-618-9194, Web site:
http://nrdm-law.com/.


ICOS CORP: Shareholders File Ill. Suits Over Sale to Eli Lilly
--------------------------------------------------------------
ICOS Corp. faces purported shareholder class actions in
Snohomish County Superior Court that seeks to block the Bothell
biotechnology company's planned sale to pharmaceutical maker Eli
Lilly & Co., The King County Journal reports.

Shareholders Max Kaiser and Michael Boteler named as defendants
the two companies and some of ICOS' executives and board
members.

Plaintiffs accuse ICOS' board members of having "breached their
fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement" and approving
it.  

Thus, they are seeking an injunction to prevent completion of
the sale of ICOS and to recover "unspecified damages."

Bothell, Washington-based ICOS Corp. (NASDAQ: ICOS) --
http://www.icos.com/-- is a biotechnology company that provides  
therapeutic products to patients.  Through Lilly ICOS LLC (Lilly
ICOS), its joint venture with Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly), the
Company is marketing Cialis (tadalafil) for the treatment of
erectile dysfunction.  Lilly ICOS is also evaluating tadalafil
as a potential treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH),
hypertension and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).  ICOS is
working to develop and commercialize potential treatments for
other serious unmet medical conditions, such as cancer and
inflammatory diseases.


JARDEN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jarden Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a complaint in the
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to its Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain company officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions purport to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 (the
date the company announced the signing of the agreement to
acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.) through Jan. 12, 2006.

Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006.  No class
has been certified in the actions.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the
company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and certain officers of the
company.  

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.

The first identified complaint is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v.
Jarden Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;

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

     (3) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 60 Park
         Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212.838.3221, E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
         Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, Fax:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

     (6) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (7) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com;

     (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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

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


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $38.25 million settlement in the matter, "In Re:
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-cv-00077."

The court will hold the hearing before the Honorabe Thomas W.
Philips at the U.S. District Court for the Easetrn District of
Tennessee, Howard H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, 800 Market
St., Knoxville, Tenn.

Any exclusion or objections to and from the settlement must be
made by Dec. 26, 2006.  Proofs of claim must be filed by Feb. 8,
2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., common stock between Feb. 16, 1999
and March 10, 2003.  

Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class action complaints
were filed by securities holders against the company, certain of
its directors, former directors, its executive officers, former
executive officers, a subsidiary, and a former director of the
subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2006).

The suits alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933
and/or the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid and other
governmental pricing programs, and certain transactions between
the company and the Benevolent Fund.

The 22 complaints were later consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On Aug. 12, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss.
The court dismissed all claims as to Jones Pharma Inc., a
predecessor to one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries,
King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc., and as to
defendants Dennis Jones and Henry Richards.  

The court also dismissed certain claims as to five other
individual defendants.  The court denied the motions to dismiss
in all other respects.

Following the court's ruling, on Sept. 20, 2004, the company and
the other remaining defendants filed answers to plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.  Discovery in this action has
commenced.  The court has set a trial date of April 10, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-00077," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas
W. Phillips with referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) K. Kidwell King, Jr. of King & King, 125 South Main
         Street, Greeneville, TN 37743, Phone: 423-639-6881, E-
         mail: kking2@aol.com; and

     (2) John C. Browne of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10019-6028, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-
         554-1441, E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Andrew L. Colocotronis of Baker, Donelson, Bearman &
         Caldwell, P.O. Box 1792, Knoxville, TN 37901-1792,
         Phone: 865-549-7000, E-mail:
         acolocotronis@bakerdonelson.com; and

    (ii) Scott Dodson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 1050
         Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036-5303,
         Phone: 202-887-3772, Fax: 202-530-9654, E-mail:
         sdodson@gibsondunn.com.


KSL RECREATION: Jan. 16 Hearing Set for Calif. Resort Fee Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Riverside will hold
a fairness hearing on Jan. 16, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "Gray v. KSL Recreation
Group, Inc., KSL Desert Resorts, Inc., and KSL Recreation
Corporation, Case No. INC040908."

The hearing will take place in the courtroom of the Honorable H.
Morgan Dougherty, Judge of the Superior Court of California,
Dept. 2H, Riverside County, Indio Larson Justice, 46-200 Oasis
Street, Indio, California 92201.

Any exclusion or objections to and from the settlement must be
made by Dec. 15, 2006.

The class action alleges that defendants failed to inform guests
sufficiently about the resort fee that certain Resorts imposed.  
The amount of the resort fee varied by hotel and over time, and
the services and facilities covered by the fee also varied by
hotel; and, for purposes of the proposed settlement, the amount
of the resort fee has ranged on average from $7.50 to $20.00.

It specifically alleges that defendants breached the contract
with guests and engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices by not providing adequate notice of and information
about the resort fee.  

Defendants deny each and every allegation and believe that they
have strong factual and legal defenses to the claims.  

Lead class counsel recently informed the court that, after a
thorough investigation and analysis of the facts and the law and
after consideration of the substantial and certain benefits
provided by the settlement and the risks and delays of class
action litigation, the class representative and lead class
counsel have reached a settlement with hotel companies that they
believe is fair, reasonable, and adequate, is in the best
interests of the Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged.  

Defined as a class members in the case are:

      -- those that stayed at one of the resorts listed below
         between class period for each hotel;
     
      -- those who paid to that hotel a resort fee in addition
         to the nightly room rate and any governmentally imposed
         fees or taxes; and

      -- believe in good faith that: he or she did not
         receive notice of the resort fee at the time the
         reservation was made, or, if no advance reservation was
         made, at the time of check-in at the hotel, and/or; he
         or she believes in good faith that they were
         misinformed or misled about the nature, purpose, scope,
         amount, or ultimate recipient of the resort fee due to
         information received at or about the time of
         reservation, check-in and/or check-out.  

The Resorts and the applicable class period for each is May 9,
1999, through Jan. 31, 2005, for La Quinta Resort & Club, Grand
Wailea Resort Hotel & Spa, Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa, La
Costa Resort & Spa, Hotel del Coronado, Claremont Resort & Spa
and Emerald Pointe Resort & Conference Center; May 9, 1999,
through Aug. 18, 2004, for the Doral Golf Resort & Spa; and May
9, 1999, through March 4, 2003, for the Grand Traverse Resort
and Spa.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Peter D. Morgenstern, Esq., of Morgenstern Jacobs &
         Blue, LLC, 885 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022,        
         Phone: (212) 750-6776; and

     (2) Rust Consulting, Inc., Phone: 866-722-3520, Web site:
         http://www.kslsettlement.com.


MARYLAND: Faces Rights Violation Suit by Low-Risk Sex Offenders
---------------------------------------------------------------
A "John Doe" filed a class action complaint accusing Maryland of
violating the civil rights of tier-one sex offenders by
prohibiting them from participating in Halloween trick or treat,
Courthouse News reports.

The state's Division of Parole and Probation required them to
stay in their homes during Halloween trick or treating hours,
not answer their doors, and post signs on the doors stating, "No
Candy at This Residence," the complaint states, according to the
report.  They were also prevented from putting up Halloween
decorations on the outside of their homes or windows," or they
will be arrested.

The plaintiff claims that that class was not given an
opportunity to challenge the order.  He seeks an emergency
hearing and an injunction.

For more details, contact Office of Victim Services, Division of
Parole and Probation, 6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 305,
Baltimore, MD 21215, Phone: (410) 585-3517, (877) 227-8031 or
(800) 735-2258, Fax: (410) 764-4091, E-mail:
dpppio@dpscs.state.md.us, Web site:
http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/victimservs/vs_dpp.shtml.


MERCK & CO: Bernstein Litowitz Wants Client Named Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has filed a motion to
name its client as the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud suit
against Merck & Co., replacing that of law firm Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, according to a report by the Wall Street
Journal.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger claims that two Milberg Weiss clients
was dropped by clients in the case and failed to inform a New
Jersey District Court.  

Steve Le Van, of Whittier, California, says he informed Milberg
in August through a letter that he wanted to be represented by
David Brower, a former Milberg partner who left the firm in June
to form Brower Piven.  

Richard Reynolds, a pharmacist in Marco Island, Florida, and
another Merck lead plaintiff, says his attorney is now Bruce
Bernstein, a former Milberg partner who left in August to join
Dreier LLP of New York.

                        Case Background

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against Merck and certain of its present and former
executive officers during 2004.

The complaint filed alleges that defendant violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market during the class period.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants engaged in a marketing campaign which
included false and misleading statements concerning the safety
profile of Merck's painkilling drug, Vioxx, and Vioxx's
superiority to its rival drug, Celebrex, manufactured by Merck's
competitor, Pfizer.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the
price of Merck's securities was allegedly artificially inflated
during the class period, enabling company insiders to sell their
personally held shares of Merck for over $175 million in
proceeds, and causing injury to plaintiff and other members of
the class.

               Pennsylvania and New Jersey Lawsuits

In October and November 2004, similar lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The Pennsylvania lawsuits were filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Merck between Oct. 23, 2003 and Sept. 30, 2004.  

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.

One of the New Jersey lawsuits was filed on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Merck &
Co., Inc. securities, including common stock, between Oct. 30,
2003 and Sept. 29, 2004.  

The other New Jersey lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Merck & Co., Inc. on the open market and/or through
Merck's Stock Investment Plan between Oct. 22, 2003 and Sept.
29, 2004.

The Pennsylvania and the New Jersey actions allege that
defendants failed to disclose material information concerning
the safety profile of its arthritis drug Vioxx, and that a
growing body of evidence demonstrated that patients who used the
drug for more than 18 months were exposed to an increased risk
of heart attack.

More specifically, the complaints allege that on Sept. 30, 2004,
the company announced that it was immediately withdrawing Vioxx
from world markets after a data safety monitoring board,
overseeing a long-term study of the drug, recommended that the
study be halted because of an increased risk of serious
cardiovascular events among members of the study group.

The company's sudden decision to withdraw Vioxx was in stark
contrast to its prior public announcements during the Class
Period touting the safety of Vioxx and other public disclosures
by the Company and its representatives that specifically refuted
criticism of the drug lodged by respected clinicians.

Milberg Weiss was appointed co-lead counsel in 2004.  Stull,
Stull & Brody, a New York firm, was named co-lead counsel.

According to the Order entered on March 14, 2005, 14 actions,
eight in the Eastern District of Louisiana and six actions in
the District of New Jersey, are now centralized in the District
of New Jersey, under MDL 1658.

According to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal dated November
23, 2004, the action, "Arnoff, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et
al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey was voluntarily dismissed.

The plaintiff intends to refile the action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with the
consolidated action, "Pringle, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et
al."

In 2005, Merck moved to dismiss the securities class action,
denying that it made public misstatements about Vioxx.  The
court hasn't yet ruled on the motion.

In May, Milberg Weiss was indicted on fraud charges based on
allegations it improperly shared legal fees with clients.  
Bernstein Litowitz is now asking to represent the class on
behalf of the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi, a Merck shareholder claiming $38 million in losses.


MICROSOFT CORP: Chairman, CEO to Testify in Iowa Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg in Polk County ordered
Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer to
testify in person at a trial for a lawsuit filed against
Microsoft that alleges it violated the Iowa's competition laws,
the AP Worldstream reports.

Although the two executives were already on the witness list to
appear at the trial, the ruling means they'll likely travel to
Iowa earlier in the trial to face direct questioning by the
plaintiffs' attorney.  Without the ruling, they may have
appeared later to answer cross-examination questions by the
plaintiffs, the report said.

The earliest they likely will be called is January or February.

Last week, Judge Rosenberg dismissed the portion of the case
that claimed Microsoft's actions stifled many innovations that
never reached consumers, causing them to pay more for software
products (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006).

Earlier, the judge denied Microsoft Corp.'s motion to decertify
the consumer antitrust class action after finding that no
significant changes have been made in the case to warrant
dismissal of the class (Class Action Reporter, Oct 31, 2006).

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

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

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

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

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

      -- personal computer operating system software, and   

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

The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed Class Members by:   

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;   

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

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security   
         breaches.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The counsels representing the Class Members are:   

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

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500   
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN   
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, Email:   
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
  
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &   
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,   
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:   
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


NEW MEXICO: Judge Denies Certification to Title-Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Judicial District Judge James Hall denied a request to
certify a lawsuit filed by Richard and Patricia Arens over title
insurance rates, The New Mexican reports.

Albuquerque lawyer Victor Marshall filed two suits on behalf of
consumers who accused former State Superintendent of Insurance
Eric Serna of setting high title-insurance rates at the urging
of title-insurance companies that made donations to Con Alma
Health Foundation Inc., the non-profit organization Mr. Serna
previously headed.  

Mr. Serna resigned as board president of Con Alma following
allegations of a conflict of interest between his dual roles as
regulator and president.

The Arenses are plaintiffs in the suits together with former
state Representative Max Coll, D-Santa Fe, and his wife,
Catherine Joyce-Coll; Charles and Barbara Murphy of Cedar Crest;
and Haydock Miller Jr. of Santa Fe.

Mr. Marshall said his suit differs from the others because it
includes information that Mr. Serna used for his personal
benefit one the credit cards of Con Alma.  He paid nearly
$15,000 back to the non-profit organization.

Mr. Serna is also facing one purported class action filed on
April 27, 2006 in Santa Fe's 1st Judicial District Court (Class
Action Reporter, May 31, 2006).   

Tax documents filed by Con Alma do not list a specific person or
business as a donor.  However, the lawsuit says the 2003
donation lists an address occupied by LandAmerica Albuquerque  
Title Co., which is a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group  
Inc., the parent company of three companies named as defendants.  

The suit alleges "[the] primary purpose of these contributions
was to influence defendant, Mr. Serna, in his capacity as
superintendent of insurance, to set unreasonably high rates for
title insurance, and to restrain competition as to the price and
terms of title insurance in New Mexico."  

In 2001, Mr. Serna helped found Con Alma with money generated
from the sale of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico.  The
non-profit foundation has given millions of dollars to New
Mexico health-care providers.  

Charles and Barbara Murphy of Cedar Crest and Haydock Miller,  
Jr. of Santa Fe, filed the suit on behalf of themselves and
thousands of other New Mexicans who bought title insurance.  

Defendants in the lawsuit include the 10 largest title-insurance
companies operating in New Mexico, Mr. Serna, the state Public  
Regulation Commission, and the PRC's Insurance Division.
  
Mr. Marshall is member of Victor R. Marshall & Associates, P.C.
12509 Oakland North East, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122
(Bernalillo Co.), Phone: 505-332-9400, Fax: 505-332-3793.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Judge Wants Checks Sent Back to Gilardi & Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Alex R. Munson of the U.S. District Court of the
Northern Mariana Islands ordered the garment manufacturers to
just send back to claims administrator Gilardi and Co. the
undistributable checks that are part of the over $5 million
being sent to 29,700 workers in connection with the settlement
of the class action against the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands' (CNMI) garment factories, the Saipan Tribune
reports.

In an order issued last week, Judge Munson, noted that under the
settlement agreement it is the task of the plaintiffs to see
that the checks are delivered.

But Attorney Richard W. Pierce told the court that his clients -
- United International Corp. and Rifu Apparel Corp.-- have 1,500
checks in their possession.  L&T has over $1,000 checks,
according to attorney Steven Pixley.

Attorney Joseph Horey said an undetermined number of checks are
also in possession of his clients -- Hansae (Saipan) Inc.,
Marianas Garment Manufacturing Inc., Michigan Inc., Mirage
(Saipan) Inc., Onwel Manufacturing Saipan Inc., and Top Fashion
Corp.

Earlier, former Superior Judge Timothy H. Bellas, chairman of
the Garment Oversight Board, said the U.S. Postal Service
returned about 337 checks that are part of the over $5 million
being sent to 29,700 workers in connection with the settlement
of the class action against the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands' (CNMI) garment factories (Class Action
Reporter, Oct 19, 2006).

This prompted the federal court to conduct a hearing to guide
the garment manufacturers on how they should handle settlement
letters/checks delivered to them and addressed to former workers
who have already left the Commonwealth, the report said.

Mr. Pierce suggested that friends or relatives remaining in the
CNMI be given written authorization to cash the checks locally
and the proceeds remitted to the current addresses of the former
employees.  He also suggested simply returning the letters to
plaintiffs or just delivering the letters to the GOB.

Mr. Horey, who joined Mr. Pierce's request on behalf of his
clients, said these employees have left their jobs either to go
back to their home countries or for another job in Saipan
without giving the manufacturer their forwarding addresses.

However, the judge said, if UIC and Rifu have current mailing
addresses of former employees for whom they have received these
checks, then they are duty-bound to apprise plaintiffs of those
addresses.

UIC and Rifu should return the checks to plaintiffs so that
plaintiffs may again mail them out, the judge pointed out.

Gilardi reportedly said that they would contact the garment
firms to get more information about the workers who had
repatriated and those who are still on the island, according to
the report.

At a status conference on Sept. 29 in federal court, lawyer
Pamela Parker told the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands that a total of over $5 million in checks have
been mailed to about 29,700 workers for the settlement of the
class action against the Commonwealth's garment factories (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2006).

Mr. Bellas underscored the need for the board to be notified
about the checks when the 120 days expire so that they could
monitor the money.   

He pointed out that he asked for the Garment Oversight to be
notified upon the expiration of 120 days because, under the
settlement agreement, any money that can't be given out to the
workers will go to the Garment Oversight.   

He said that, when the money goes to the GOB, the board has the
option to either send another payment out to the same people who
responded or use it for additional monitoring purposes.  

GOB has been receiving between 50 to 60 people a day, inquiring
about their checks and whether they can also avail of the funds.

Under the $20-million settlement, some $4 million would go to
the GOB's monitoring program.  Out of $4 million, GOB was
initially supposed to get $400,000 or 10 percent for the
repatriation fund.   

Instead, the Garment Oversight got over $350,000 because they
did not get the full money that they were supposed to get in the
beginning since two garment factories did not contribute into
the settlement funds.   

The board was created pursuant to the settlement to oversee the
monitoring program of the garment industry.   

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions (Class Action
Reporter, May 29, 2006).   

A settlement reached five years after, provides an award close
to $20 million.  The money is to be distributed as:    

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million    
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000    
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000    
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million    
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80    
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million   

For more details, contact:  

     (1) Pamela M. Parker of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway Suite 1900, San Diego,  
         CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-7423;
         and  

     (2) Steven P. Pixley, 2nd Floor, CIC Centre, Beach Rd.,
         Garapan, P.O. Box 7757 SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950, Phone:  
         (670) 233-2898/5175, Fax: (670) 233-4716, E-mail:
         sppixley@aol.com.


OHIO: Massillon Attorney Sues MWCD Over $270M Assessment Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) and its
Conservancy Court faces a purported class action in Tuscarawas
County Common Pleas Court at New Philadelphia claiming that the
action they have taken regarding the proposed 20-year, $270-
million assessment plan should be thrown out, Renee Brown of The
New Philadelphia Times Reporter reports.

William E. Walker, an attorney from Massillon filed the suit on
Wednesday.  He claims the conservancy court violated Ohio's Open
Meetings Act, commonly known as the Sunshine Law.  

The suit was filed on behalf of Mr. Walker's mother, N. Kathryn
Walker of Massillon, who owns property in Stark County.  It asks
that the conservancy court stop violating the Sunshine Law and
pay a civil forfeiture of $500 for each violation.

At issue in the case is whether the conservancy court misused
the "executive session" provision of the open meetings law at
its June 11, 2005, Jan. 21, 2006, and Feb. 25, 2006, meetings in
which the district's official plan, the formation of a three-
judge panel and methodology of the assessment, were discussed.

Mr. Walker claims the conservancy court heard comments from
various individuals and then "retired to chambers for private
deliberations."

He pointed out though that they are required to announce the
purpose of an executive session and adding that the
deliberations should take place in the public meeting.

Mr. Walker argues that the only reasons a public body is allowed
to go into executive session are as follows:
       
      -- personnel matters;
      -- sale or purchase of property;
      -- imminent court action;
      -- union negotiations with public employees;
      -- security arrangements for a public body;
      -- matters involving a county hospital; and
      -- matters which either federal or state law require to be
         confidential.

In essence, according to Mr. Walker, the district's official
plan and assessment are not any of those things.  He thus argues
that all of the meetings are illegal, and everything that
happened is contrary to law.

Mr. Walker also took issue with the scheduling of the
conservancy court stating that the court failed to establish a
reasonable method by which any person can determine the time and
place of all scheduled meetings and failed to provide notice of
the meetings.

In his filing, Mr. Walker requested the suit be certified as a
class action, since the district consists of about 5 million
acres belonging to not less than 500,000 individual parcel
owners.

The case was assigned randomly to Judge Edward O'Farrell, who
serves on the conservancy court.


PHARMA COS: Dismissal Motion in Price Overcharging Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts denied a group of pharmaceutical companies'
motion to dismiss a nationwide class action alleging they
defrauded consumers by illegally inflating the cost of
prescription drugs.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN);
     -- Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ);
     -- Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP) and
     -- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY).

According to the judge's ruling, "determining the plain language
meaning of the regulatory and statutory term 'average wholesale
price' is a straightforward exercise that begins with the
dictionary."

Judge Saris goes on to cite Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language entries for the words
'average,' 'wholesale,' and 'price.'

The ruling roundly rejects the defendants' assertions that while
the data was termed "average wholesale price," Congress and
others responsible for setting reimbursements inherently
understood that the figures were not accurate, and had little
reflection on the actual average wholesale price, but rather was
a benchmark used for negotiation purposes.

"In essence, the court found that average wholesale price means
just that: the average price at which wholesalers sell drugs to
their customers, and not a fictitious figure made up by
defendants to game the system," plaintiffs' attorney Steve W.
Berman added.

"This was the last big hurdle we faced before trial," Mr. Berman
said. "The defendants have been trying to hide behind a miasma
of misinformation and deceit, and we are happy the judge saw
through it. "

The key ruling was issued just days before the trial is set to
begin today (Nov. 6) in Boston.

Earlier this year, Judge Saris certified a nationwide class
action against four big drugs company for defying pricing rules
set out by the Average Wholesale Price formula (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 23, 2006).

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro also recently announced a settlement
with First Data Bank (FDB), a primary publisher of the Average
Wholesale Price list for pharmaceutical products.

In that settlement, FDB will adjust the Wholesale Acquisition
Cost to AWP mark-up on 95 percent of pharmaceuticals sold in the
U.S. United States drug savings from this settlement are
estimated to reach $4 billion in 2007 alone.

The suit is "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No.
1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the United States District  
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris with referral
to Marianne B. Bowler.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
         1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101-1090,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Gary L. Azorsky of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000;
         and

     (3) Terrianne Benedetto of Kline & Specter, 1525 Locust
         Street, 19th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jon Steven Baughman of Ropes & Gray LLP, 700 Twelfth
         Street, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005-3948,
         Phone: 202-508-4606, Fax: 202-508-4650, E-mail:
         sbaughman@ropesgray.com;

     (2) Aimee E. Bierman of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson
         Graham LLP, State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln
         Boston, MA 02111, Phone: 617-261-3100, Fax: 617-261-
         3175, E-mail: abierman@klng.com;

     (3) Joseph G. Adams of Snell & Wilmer LLP, 1 Arizona
         Center, 400 E Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202, Phone:
         602-382-6207, Fax: 602-382-6070;

     (4) Neil Alden of Bowman and Brooke LLP, 2901 North Central
         Avenue, Suite 1600, Phoenix, AZ 85012;

     (5) Martin A. Aronson of Morrill & Aronson, 1 East
         Camelback Road, Suite 340, Phoenix, AZ 85012-1648; and

     (6) Stacy D. Belf of Ropes & Gray LLP, 1 Metro Center, 700
         12th St. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20016.


QUINCY COLLEGE: Surgical Technicians' Litigation Deadlocked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a $1.3 million class action against Quincy College
say that settlement talks are at a standstill and the case
appears headed for court, The Patriot Ledger reports.

Filed by former Quincy College students, the case alleges that
students cannot get jobs and in some cases have been fired
because of the reputation of the once-troubled surgical
technology program from which they graduated.

According to Daniel J. Cardinal, attorney for the plaintiffs,
city-hired auditor John Sullivan concluded in 2005 that
administrative neglect and other lapses created an environment
that fostered fraud.  Mr. Cardinal of the Heavey, Houlihan,
Kraft & Cardinal adds that Mr. Sullivan has given a deposition
in the case.

Former students criticized the college for spending thousands of
dollars to revamp the surgical technology program with new
equipment and instructors rather than paying them the requested
$1.3 million for emotional distress and lost wages.

In 2004, the surgical technology program was suspended following
allegations of serious lapses in training.  It was reinstated
this fall.

In 2005, the investigators concluded that the college never gave
some students the hands-on hospital training that is a key
requirement of completing the one-year surgical technology
certificate program.

Investigators found that falsified records placed students in
clinical training at Quincy Medical Center and other hospitals
that they never set foot in.

The roughly 50 students enrolled in surgical technology in 2004
were allowed to earn their certificates or withdraw and receive
a full tuition refund.

Plaintiffs in the suit include:
      
      -- Christine Larsen,
      -- Morgan E. Gramz,
      -- Iris Barreto,
      -- Nicole Smith,
      -- Shelly Lloyd,
      -- Dawn Spencer-Gammons,
      -- Pamela St. Clair,
      -- Sonja Fernandes,
      -- Paula Charbonneau, and
      -- Michael White.

The program was supposed to train the students to become
surgical technicians.  Often called "scrubs," they are
responsible for maintaining a sterile area, passing instruments
to surgeons and preparing equipment and supplies.

For more details, contact Daniel J. Cardinal, 229 Harvard St.,
Brookline, MA 02446, Phone: (617) 277-3477.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Study Validates Request for CT Screening
------------------------------------------------------------
A study released on Oct. 27 by The New England Journal of
Medicine regarding lung cancer detections further validates a
significant class action filed by New York City product
liability lawyers, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg.  

The suit asks Phillip Morris to accept tobacco corporate
responsibility and provide annual low-dose CT Screening for a
class of residents in New York State who are 50 years of age or
older and have smoked a pack a day of Marlboro cigarettes for at
least 20 years.

The New England Journal of Medicine reports the results of a
study demonstrating that annual low-dose CT screening offers
early lung cancer detections (Stage 1) in 85% of the cases in
which lung cancer is detected by this break-through technology.

The study shows that annual screening would significantly
decrease the number of deaths from lung cancer -- the No. 1
cause of cancer deaths.  In fact, the study finds that if lung
cancer is detected early and promptly surgically removed, then
the 10-year survival rate in patients rises to 92 %.

"Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United
States and the State of New York.  Over 160,000 people die
annually in the U.S. from this awful disease," said Jerome Block
of the New York City law firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg.

"Lung cancer deaths can be prevented since lung cancer is
usually curable when diagnosed in its early stage.  Philip
Morris seeks to blame addicted smokers for what it calls
'personal responsibility'.  We are asking Phillip Morris to
accept 'tobacco corporate responsibility' and save their
customers' lives by provide low-dose CT Screening of the chest
for early detection of lung cancer," says Mr. Block, one of the
leading New York City product liability lawyers.

Levy Phillips & Konigsberg filed Civil Action No. 06-0224 (CBA)
(SMG) in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of a class of residents of the
state of New York who are 50 years of age or older and have
cigarette smoking histories of 20 years or more using Marlboro
cigarettes.  

The suit is styled, "Caronia et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,  
Case No. 1:06-cv-00224-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Jack B.
Weinstein with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steven J. Phillips of Levy,
Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP -- http://www.lpklaw.com/-- 800  
Third Ave., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 605-
6200, E-mail: sphillips@lpklaw.com.


UNITED STATES: High Court Sends Mutual Fund Suits to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that 10 class actions against
mutual funds belong in Madison County Circuit Court even though
defendants claimed that federal law precluded the claims Steve
Korris of The Madison County Record reports.

In June, the justices unanimously agreed that all the suits
belonged in the Illinois state court.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that the mutual funds timed their
transactions to create revenue for themselves at the expense of
investors.

In their decision, the U.S. Supreme Court betrayed exasperation
over a jurisdiction battle that delayed for three years a
decision on the facts of the matter.

Though federal law precludes state or federal class actions over
sales and purchases of securities, the high court did not apply
the law to the 10 cases.

Instead the left it to the Madison County Circuit Court to
decide whether the plaintiffs can sue as holders of securities,
outside the coverage of the law for buyers and sellers.

David Frederick of Washington represented plaintiffs before the
high court, along with Robert King of Korein Tillery in St.
Louis.

After the opinion was issued, Christine Moody of Korein Tillery
moved in Madison County Circuit Court to administratively reopen
all 10 cases.

Three suits seek damages from Putnam Funds, two seek damages
from Pacific Life, and the rest seek damages from Van Kampen
Funds, Artisan Funds, T. Rowe Price International, Janus Fund
and Columbia Acorn Trust.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Finkelstein Thompson Files Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Marvell Technology
Group, LTD.  FTL welcomes inquiries from investors concerning
their rights and interests in this matter.

The putative class action alleges that Marvell and certain
officers and directors committed certain violations of the
federal securities laws related to the backdating of stock
options.

Specifically, the complaint asserts that Marvell violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements regarding its financial results, and that the company
omitted to disclose that it was engaging in the backdating of
stock option grants to executives and other employees.

On Oct. 2, 2006, Marvell filed a form 8-K with the SEC, which
set forth the conclusion of its special committee that Marvell's
financial statements for a number of years were false and could
not be relied upon.  

This report stated that based on the report of the special
committee, and upon the recommendation of management and the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, the Board of
Directors concluded on Oct. 2, 2006 that the company will need
to restate historical financial statements to record additional
non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expenses related
to past option grants.

The company had not yet been able to determine the amount of
these charges, the resulting tax and accounting impact of these
actions, or which specific reporting periods require
restatement.

Accordingly, the Board of Directors concluded that the financial
statements and all earnings press releases and similar
communications issued by the company relating to periods
beginning on or after its initial public offering in June 2000
should no longer be relied upon.

On Oct. 3, 2006, based in substantial part on these revelations,
Marvell stock plummeted, closing at only $ 16.80 per share.
Thus, after investigations began and information began to be
disclosed to the public on May 22, 2006, Marvell's stock price
dropped by approximately 40%.

Interested parties may no later than Dec 5, 2006, request for
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran,
Phone: +1-877-337-1050, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ftllaw.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Brodsky Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, announces that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Warner
Chilcott Limited pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
initial public offering that took place on Sept. 20, 2006 and
relating to purchases of its common stock on the open market
between Sept. 20, 2006 through Sept. 26, 2006.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market relating to the IPO, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Warner Chilcott.  No class
has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.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  * * *