CAR_Public/061108.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 8, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 222

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Plaintiff to Dismiss Suit Over Valuation Software
21ST CENTURY: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Certify Consumer Suit
21ST CENTURY: Motion to Strike Calif. Reimbursement Suit Denied
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Underage Drinking Suits' Claims, Status Vary
AUTONATION INC: Tex. Court Gives Final OK for Suit Settlements

CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Suit Certification Hearing Set for 2007
CNA FINANCIAL: Faces Several Voluntary Market Premium Lawsuits
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Continues in Ala. Uninsured's Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in Pa.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Uninsured Patients' Suits Continue in Illinois

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: N.J. Court Dismisses Claims in "Himmelman"
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Status Mulled in Calif. Gender Bias Suit
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Penn. Securities Fraud Suits Dismissed
EASTMAN KODAK: Court Dismisses New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

GANNETT CO: ERISA Violations Suit Remains Pending in Colo. Court
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: $445M Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 8
ILLINOIS: Rider Challenges CTA's Policy on Expired Fare Cards
JERSEY CENTRAL: Nov. Hearing Set in N.J. Power Outages Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Time to Block Ariz. Stock Suit Dismissal Lapses

NEW JERSEY: Hearing in Photocopy Fee Suit Settlement Set Nov. 15
NORTHERN MARIANAS: $1.6M Cashed in Garment Firms Suit Settlement
OHIO EDISON: Lawsuit Over W.H. Sammis Plant Sent to Tuscarawas
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeals Court Restores Savings Plan Lawsuit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in N.J. Securities Lawsuit

SEALED AIR: Motion to Certify Class in N.J. Stock Lawsuit Filed
SEMPRA ENERGY: Nev. Court Okays $30M Antitrust Suit Settlement
UNITED LIFE: Ill. Judge Yet to Fix Discovery Span in "Booher"
UNITED PARCEL: "Marlo" Calif. Wage Suit Granted Summary Judgment
UNITED PARCEL: Settles Calif. Overtime Wage Lawsuit for $87M

UNITED STATES: Mexican Mother Claims Child Abuse in Deportation
UNITED STATES: Nun Who Blamed Ground Zero Air for Disease Dies
VIRGINIA MASON: Settles Wash. Suit Over "Facility Fee" Charges
WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: N.Mex. Judge Refuses to Stop Merger Vote


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APOLLO GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing
IKANOS COMMS: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Plaintiff to Dismiss Suit Over Valuation Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action filed against 21st
Century Insurance Co., 21st Century Casualty Co., and 21st
Century Insurance Group in California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles has offered to dismiss his case.
  
Bryan Speck originally filed the suit on June 20, 2002.  It
seeks California class-action certification, injunctive relief,
and unspecified actual and punitive damages.   

The complaint contends that the company uses "biased" software
to determine the value of total-loss automobiles.  It alleges
that database providers use improper methodology to establish
comparable auto values and populate their databases with biased
figures and that the company and other carriers allegedly
subscribe to the programs to unfairly reduce claims costs.  The
case is consolidated with similar actions against other insurers
for discovery and pre-trial motions.

A court-ordered appraisal of Mr. Speck's vehicle was favorable
to the company and Ramona Goldenberg was substituted as a
plaintiff, replacing Mr. Speck.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, plaintiff's counsel offered to dismiss this
case, with prejudice, in exchange for the company waiving its
costs.  The company has accepted plaintiff's counsel's offer to
dismiss the matter and will support a motion, containing the
agreed terms, for the court to dismiss the action.

21st Century Insurance Group (NYSE:TW) -- http://www.21st.com--  
is an insurance holding company, which is a direct-to-consumer
provider of personal auto insurance.  Its private passenger auto
insurance contract generally covers bodily injury liability,
property damage, medical payments, personal injury protection,
uninsured and underinsured motorist, rental reimbursement,
uninsured motorist property damage, towing, comprehensive and
collision.


21ST CENTURY: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Certify Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court has yet to rule on a motion to
certify a class in a suit filed by Thomas Theis, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against
21st Century Insurance Co.

The suit was filed on June 17, 2002 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  Plaintiff seeks California class action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.

The complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the company used a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area and the adjusted amount is "predetermined" and
"biased."

The case is consolidated with similar actions against other
insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.  Depositions have
recently been taken in the suit.   

The case is in the discovery stage of litigation and no
reasonable estimate of potential losses in the event of a
negative outcome can be made at this time.  A motion for
certification of a class in this action is currently pending.

21st Century Insurance Group (NYSE:TW) -- http://www.21st.com--  
is an insurance holding company, which is a direct-to-consumer
provider of personal auto insurance.  Its private passenger auto
insurance contract generally covers bodily injury liability,
property damage, medical payments, personal injury protection,
uninsured and underinsured motorist, rental reimbursement,
uninsured motorist property damage, towing, comprehensive and
collision.


21ST CENTURY: Motion to Strike Calif. Reimbursement Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court denied 21st Century Insurance Co.'s demurrer and
motion to strike a suit filed by Silvia Quintana over medical
payments in relation to her insurance contract.

The case was filed on Nov. 16, 2005 in San Diego as a purported
class action.  It names the company in four causes of action:

     -- violation of B&P Section 17200,
     -- conversion,
     -- unjust enrichment and,
     -- declaratory relief.

Mr. Quintana alleges that the company's demand for reimbursement
of the medical payments it made to her pursuant to her insurance
contract violates the "made-whole rule."

The company anticipates that if the matter survives the initial
pleading stage, it will be consolidated, for discovery and pre-
trial motions, with actions alleging similar facts against other
insurers.

The case is in the pleading stage and the company said it could
make, at this time, a reasonable estimate of potential losses in
the event of a negative outcome.  

In July 2006, the trial court denied the company's demurrer and
motion to strike.  The company has filed a writ to the court of
Appeal for review of this decision.

21st Century Insurance Group (NYSE:TW) -- http://www.21st.com--  
is an insurance holding company, which is a direct-to-consumer
provider of personal auto insurance.  Its private passenger auto
insurance contract generally covers bodily injury liability,
property damage, medical payments, personal injury protection,
uninsured and underinsured motorist, rental reimbursement,
uninsured motorist property damage, towing, comprehensive and
collision.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Underage Drinking Suits' Claims, Status Vary   
------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. is a defendant in several class
actions in both state and federal courts over underage drinking.

                     California Litigation

In 2004, the company and another defendant were served a
complaint brought by two individuals seeking to bring a class
action on behalf of all California residents who, while they
were under 21 years of age, purchased alcohol beverages
manufactured during the last four years.

The suit sought disgorgement of unspecified profits earned by
the Company in the past and other unspecified damages and
equitable relief.  

By order dated Jan. 28, 2005, the California state court granted
the defendants judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case
in its entirety.  The plaintiffs in that action have appealed.

                       Other Litigation

Additionally, the company was served with similar complaints in
putative class actions in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and West
Virginia.  

In these suits, which name a large number of other brewers and
distillers, the parents of illegal underage drinkers are suing
to recover the sums that their offspring purportedly spent
illegally buying alcohol from persons or entities other than the
defendants.  

The claims asserted against the company vary depending on the
suit, but include negligence, unjust enrichment, violation of
the state's Sales Practice Act or other statutory provisions,
nuisance, fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy.

The suit filed in Michigan includes a claim under the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act.  Each suit seeks money damages,
punitive damages and injunctive and equitable relief, including
so-called disgorgement of profits allegedly attributable to
illegal underage drinking.

The company removed the Ohio case to federal court in the
Northern District of Ohio in June 2004, removed the West
Virginia case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia in May 2005 and removed the Michigan
case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in July 2005.  

The company filed motions to dismiss the Ohio and Wisconsin
cases, and the Ohio federal court and the Wisconsin state court
dismissed the entire cases with prejudice.

A motion to dismiss is pending in Michigan.  Similar actions
were filed in New York and Florida, but the company was not
served in either case, and the plaintiffs in the Florida case
have voluntarily dismissed it.

St. Louis, Missouri-baseed Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (NYSE:
BUD) -- http://www.anheuser-busch.com/-- is the holding company  
parent of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., a beer brewer.  The company is
also the parent corporation to a number of subsidiaries that
conduct various other business operations.  The company's
operations are comprised of four segments: domestic beer,
international beer, packaging and entertainment, which
contributed 75.8%, 6.4%, 10.4% and 7.4%, respectively, of the
company's net sales, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.  


AUTONATION INC: Tex. Court Gives Final OK for Suit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
AutoNation, Inc. reports that final court approval has been
given to the settlements of state court class actions filed
against certain of its Texas dealerships, the Texas Automobile
Dealers Association (TADA), and certain new vehicle dealerships
in Texas that are members of TADA.

Many of the company's Texas dealership subsidiaries had been
named in three class actions brought against the (TADA) and
approximately 700 new vehicle stores in Texas that are members
of TADA.

The three actions allege that, since January 1994, Texas dealers
deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and
violated federal antitrust and other laws as well.

In February 2005, the company and the plaintiffs in all three of
the cases agreed to settlement terms.  The state court granted
final approval of the settlement on Aug. 14, 2006.  

The company has been dismissed from the state court actions and
is currently going through the procedures to obtain a dismissal
from the federal action.  

Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based AutoNation, Inc., (NYSE: AN) --
http://www.autonation.com-- through its subsidiaries, is an  
automotive retailer in the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the
company owned and operated 346 new vehicle franchises from 269
stores located in metropolitan markets in 17 states,
predominantly in the Sunbelt region of the U.S.  It operates in
a single operating segment, automotive retailing. The company
offers a range of automotive products and services, including
new vehicles, used vehicles, vehicle maintenance and repair
services, vehicle parts, extended service contracts, vehicle
protection products and other aftermarket products.  It also
arranges financing for vehicle purchases through third-party
finance sources.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Suit Certification Hearing Set for 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will
hold a hearing on the class certification motion in the
consolidated securities suit against Cardinal Health, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors in January or February
2007.

Beginning July 2, 2004, 15 purported class action complaints
have been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health
Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively
referred to as the Cardinal Health ERISA actions.  These cases
include:  

      -- "David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,  
         Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 643,"

      -- "Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,       
         Case No. 04 CV 668,"  

      -- "James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 684,"  

      -- "Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,  
         Case No. 04 CV 722,"  

      -- "Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 725,"  

      -- "Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,  
         Case No. 04 CV 736,"  

      -- "Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,  
         et al., Case No. 04 CV 745,"  

      -- "Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 746,"  

      -- "Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 778,"  

      -- "Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         04 CV 789,"

      -- "Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 790,"  

      -- "Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04 CV 803,"  

      -- "Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case  
         No. 04 CV 815,"

      -- "Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,  
         Case No. (04 CV 828), and"  

      -- "Gint Baukus v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         05 C2 101."  

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor
Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan, and also on behalf
of the Plans themselves.  

The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the
Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the
detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that
company stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative for the Plans' participants.  

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions.  

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.  

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health,
Inc. ERISA Litigation."  

On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison
counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action.   

On Apr. 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended ERISA complaint naming the company, certain current and
former directors, officers and employees, the company's Employee  
Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. as
defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.   

On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The parties agreed to leave the motion for class
certification pending while the court considered a motion to
dismiss.  

On Mar. 31, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. and with respect to
plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief.  The court denied the
remainder of the motion to dismiss filed by the company and
certain defendants.  Discovery is now proceeding (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006).

The parties are conducting discovery and briefing with respect
to the class certification motion.  It is presently anticipated
that the court will hold a hearing on the class certification
motion in January or February 2007.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) James Edward Arnold, Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2,  
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,  
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and   

     (2) George E. Barrett of Barrett Johnston & Parsley - 1,  
         217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) J. Kevin Cogan, Jones Day, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd.,  
         PO Box 165017, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-
         3939, Fax: 614-461-4198, Email: jcogan@jonesday.com;
         and

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


CNA FINANCIAL: Faces Several Voluntary Market Premium Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp., along with dozens of other insurance
companies, is currently a defendant in nine cases, including
eight purported class actions, brought by large policyholders,
according to the company's Nov. 2 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The complaints differ in some respects, but generally allege
that the defendants, as part of an industry-wide conspiracy,
included improper charges in their retrospectively rated and
other loss-sensitive insurance programs.

Among the claims asserted are violations of state antitrust
laws, breach of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment.  The
company has denied the material allegations made in these cases
and has entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Continues in Ala. Uninsured's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a class action filed against
Community Health Systems, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Barbour
County, Alabama, Eufaula Division.  

The suit is "Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols vs. Eufaula
Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc., South
Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporation."

The class action, previously, captioned, "Arleana Lawrence and
Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community
Health Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview
Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that we use unconscionable
methods to collect bills.  

They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other
allowable damages and injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of
the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management
company subsidiary as a defendant.  

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another
plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, the company's
hospital in Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical
Center.  Discovery has commenced in this case.  

Brentwood, Tennessee-based Community Health Systems, Inc.,
(NYSE: CYH) -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries,  
owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the
principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban
communities.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company owned, leased or
operated 70 hospitals, spread across 21 states, with an
aggregate of 7,974 beds, which excludes one hospital held for
sale.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. and its management company
subsidiary remain as defendants in a class action, "James Monroe
v. Pottstown Memorial Hospital and Community Health Systems,
Inc.," which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania.

The class action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of
himself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's
Pottstown Memorial Hospital or any of its other Pennsylvania
hospitals.  

Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company use
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

The plaintiff seeks recovery under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, restitution of
overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and
injunctive relief.  

The case was recently dismissed and re-filed, adding Community
Health's management company subsidiary as a defendant.

Brentwood, Tennessee-based Community Health Systems, Inc.,
(NYSE: CYH) -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries,  
owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the
principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban
communities.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company owned, leased or
operated 70 hospitals, spread across 21 states, with an
aggregate of 7,974 beds, which excludes one hospital held for
sale.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Uninsured Patients' Suits Continue in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
are defendants in purported class actions pending in Illinois
state courts.

On of these suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Williamson
County, Illinois under the caption, "Sheri Rix v. Heartland
Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems, Inc."

This class action, served against the company on March 3, 2005,
was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the
representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who
were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center.

Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

Plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of
overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  It also seeks
compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The Circuit Court Judge recently granted company's motion to
dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her
case.

In addition the company is also a defendant in a purported class
action in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, styled,
"Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company,
LLC d/b/a Gateway Regional Medical Center."

The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,
2005, seeks class action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Brentwood, Tennessee-based Community Health Systems, Inc.,
(NYSE: CYH) -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries,  
owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the
principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban
communities.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company owned, leased or
operated 70 hospitals, spread across 21 states, with an
aggregate of 7,974 beds, which excludes one hospital held for
sale.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: N.J. Court Dismisses Claims in "Himmelman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
plaintiff's state law claims in the wage and hour suit,
"Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Co."

W. Curtis Himmelman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on Jan. 12, 2006 against
Continental Casualty Co., a subsidiary of CNA Financial Corp.

The case is a purported class action and representative action
brought on behalf of present and former CNA Financial
environmental claims analysts and workers' compensation claims
analysts asserting they worked hours for which they should have
been compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their base
hourly wage.

The claims were originally brought under both federal and New
Jersey state wage and hour laws on the basis that the relevant
jobs are not exempt from overtime pay because the duties
performed are not exempt duties.

On August 11, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff's New Jersey
state law claims.  Under federal law, plaintiff seeks to
represent others similarly situated who opt in to the action and
who also allege they are owed overtime pay for hours worked over
eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek for the period
Jan. 5, 2003 to the entry of judgment.

Plaintiff seeks "overtime compensation," "compensatory, punitive
and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys' fees" without specifying any particular amounts, as
well as an injunction.

The suit is "Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No.  
3:06-cv-00166-GEB-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.  

Representing the plaintiff is Seth R. Lesser of Locks Law Firm,
LLC, 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002,
Phone: (856) 663-8200, E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com.   

Representing the defendants is Christopher H. Lowe of Sevfarth  
Shaw, LLP, 1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 2500, New York, NY  
10020, Phone: (212) 218-5523, E-mail: clowe@ny.seyfarth.com.   


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Status Mulled in Calif. Gender Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn Patel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California is scheduled to hear arguments for the
class certification of a lawsuit filed against Costco Wholesale
Corp. over alleged denial of promotion based on gender in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CBS
reports.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Brad Seligman said that if certified, the
class would include an estimated 700 present and former
employees allegedly denied promotions since 2002.

Filed in 2004, the suit, "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,"
claims that women are denied equal opportunities for promotion
to the positions of assistant warehouse manager and general
warehouse manager (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2006).

The lawsuit contends that Costco lacks an application process,
job posting system or written standards for assistant and
general manager promotions.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, according to
the company's June 16, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 7,
2006.  

At the time the lawsuit was filed, company officials said they
"strongly disagree with any claim that Costco has discriminated
against any individual or group of employees."
   
The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James M. Finberg, Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq. and Bill Lann
         Lee all of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275
         Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-
         3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail:
         JFinberg@lchb.com or lhazam@lchb.com or blee@lchb.com;

     (2) Jocelyn Dion Larkin and Brad Seligman both of The
         Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710,
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail:
         jlarkin@impactfund.org or bs@impactfund.org; and

     (3) Elizabeth A. Lawrence and Steve Stemerman both of Davis
         Cowell & Bowe, 595 Market Street, Suite 1400, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-597-7200, Fax: 415-597-
         7201, E-mail: eal@dcbsf.com or stemdcb@aol.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) David D. Kadue and William Owen Kampf both of Seyfarth
         Shaw LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-5211 or 310-277-7200
         x1515, Fax: 310-201-5219, E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
         or wkampf@la.seyfarth.com;

     (2) Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 55 East
         Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803,
         Phone: 312-346-8000, Fax: 312-269-8869;

     (3) David B. Ross of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 1270 Avenue of the
         Americas, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10020, Phone: (212)
         218-5511, Fax: (212) 218-5526; and

     (4) Thomas J. Wybenga, 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027,
         Phone: (425) 313-6794.


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Penn. Securities Fraud Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissed, without prejudice, the consolidated amended class
action complaint filed against Discovery Laboratories, Inc. and
two of its executive officers.

The court's decision to dismiss the complaint is based on
several grounds, including plaintiffs' failure to set forth
particularized facts giving rise to a strong inference that
defendants acted with a conscious disregard of the truth or
recklessness.

In the court's dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended Consolidated Amended Complaint
within 30 days.

Mary B. Templeton, Esq., Deputy General Counsel of Discovery
commented, "Discovery Labs is committed to full and prompt
disclosure of all material information about our business,
financial results and events surrounding our efforts to develop
our portfolio of Surfactant Replacement Therapies.  We are
pleased that our external counsel on this matter, Pepper
Hamilton, LP has effectively presented our arguments and that
the court has recognized the quality of our disclosures and
granted our Motion to Dismiss. We have no information as to
whether the plaintiffs plan further filings."

On May 1, 2006, Hal Unschuld, filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company's investors who purchased its publicly traded securities
between Dec. 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
June 15, 2006).

The suit was filed against the company and the company's Chief
Executive Officer, Robert J. Capetola.  This action alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with various public statements
made by the company.   

Plaintiff seeks an order wherein the suit may proceed as a class
action and an award of compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified amount,
together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of the litigation and other equitable or injunctive relief.
   
The company was notified that two additional class actions
seeking the same relief have since been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
although the company has not been served with a complaint in
these actions.

The first identified complaint is "Hal Unschuld, et al. v.
Discovery Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01820,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart Dalzell.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
  
     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:  
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
  
     (2) Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, 361 West Lancaster Avenue,  
         Haverford, PA, 19041, Phone: 888.805.7848, Fax:
         610.649.3633, E-mail: mail@chimicles.com;
  
     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,  
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;
  
     (4) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,  
         Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,  
         Fax: (215) 638-4867;

     (5) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,  
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;
  
     (6) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade  
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,  
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (7) 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;
   
     (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:  
         sn06106@AOL.com; and
  
     (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.


EASTMAN KODAK: Court Dismisses New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Eastman Kodak Co. and two of its former executives.

The court dismissed the suit against Kodak, concluding that the
allegations were insufficient to support the claims. The court
ruled that Kodak had accurately disclosed the state of its
business and had clearly informed potential investors that the
company's plans were subject to risk and the nature of those
risks.

"We take our financial disclosure obligations very seriously,"
said Joyce P. Haag, General Counsel and Senior Vice President,
Eastman Kodak Company. "We strive to ensure that investors --
current and potential -- fully understand the characteristics of
our business, and we believe that the court's decision reflects
that effort."

On Jun. 13, 2005, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.   

On Jun. 20, 2005 and Aug. 10, 2005, similar lawsuits were filed
against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the  
Western District of New York.  The cases have been consolidated
in the Western District of New York and the lead plaintiffs are
John Dudek and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund.   

The complaints filed in each of these actions seek to allege
claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a
proposed class of persons who purchased securities of the
company between Apr. 23, 2003 and Sept. 25, 2003, inclusive.   

The substance of the complaints is that various press releases
and other public statements made by the company during the
proposed class period allegedly misrepresented the company's
financial condition and omitted material information regarding,
among other things, the state of the company's film and paper
business.   

An amended complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2006, containing
essentially the same allegations as the original complaint but
adding an additional named defendant.

Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on Apr. 21, 2006.
Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was filed on June 23, 2006
and the company's reply was filed on July 24, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006).

The suit is "McClain v. Eastman, Case No. 6:05-cv-06326-MAT,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York under Judge Michael A. Telesca.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Stuart Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of  
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, US, Phone: 610-667-
         7706;  

     (2) Eugene Welch of Harris, Chesworth, O'Brien, Johnstone,  
         Welch & Leone, 300 Linden Oaks, Ste. 100, Rochester, NY  
         14625, Phone: 585-899-1400, Fax: 585-899-1426, E-mail:  
         ewelch@rochester.rr.com; and  

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,  
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton  
         Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone:  
         (585) 263-1558, Fax: 866-947-0625, E-mail:  
         cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; and  

    (ii) John C. Millian of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 1050  
         Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036, Phone:  
         (202) 955-8213.


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freescale Semiconductor Inc. agreed in principle to settle six
purported class action petitions filed in the District Court of
Travis County, Texas, alleging, among other things, that the
company's directors benefited substantially from the sale of the
company, and therefore didn't take the proper steps to maximize
shareholder value, a report from the Dow Jones Newswires said.

The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing.  The
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to members of the proposed
settlement class and consummation of the merger, a regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission stated.

If finally approved by the court, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought on behalf
of the proposed settlement class in the action being settled,
including all claims relating to the merger, the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will petition the court for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
Freescale.

As part of the proposed settlement, the company agreed to pay up
to $975,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and
expenses, subject to approval by the court.

The merger may be consummated prior to final court approval of
the settlement.  The settlement will not affect the amount of
merger consideration to be paid in the merger.

The suits are:

     -- "Merger Gerber v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al.,  
        Cause No.D-1-GN-06-003501;"  

     -- "Lifshitz v. Michel Mayer, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-06-
        003585;"

     -- "Warner v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Cause  
        No. D-1-GN-06-003673;"

     -- "Tansey v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al., Cause  
        No. D-1-GN-06-003685;"  

     -- "Hockstein v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et al.,  
        Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003717;" and  

     -- "International Union of Operating Engineers Local No.
        825 Pension Fund v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et  
        al., Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003918."

All of the petitions name Freescale and the current members of
the board of directors as defendants.  The Gerber and Lifshitz
petitions also name The Blackstone Group, The Carlyle Group,
funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC, and Texas Pacific Group
as defendants.  The Lifshitz and Hockstein petitions also name
B. Kenneth West, a former member of our board of directors, as a
defendant (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006).

Plaintiffs purport to represent stockholders of Freescale who
are similarly situated with them.  Among other things, the
petitions allege that directors, in approving the proposed
merger breached fiduciary duties owed to stockholders because
they failed to take steps to maximize the value to public
stockholders.

The petitions further allege that The Blackstone Group, The
Carlyle Group, funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC, and Texas
Pacific Group aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The petitions allege that the company's directors will receive
substantial benefits from the acquisition that would not be
shared with other stockholders.  

The petitions further allege that the directors who approved the
transaction were not sufficiently independent and disinterested,
and did not conduct a competitive auction.  

The petitions also allege that the company took impermissible
steps to hinder other potential acquirers, including a buyout
group led by Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts Co.  

Some of the petitions also allege that the company failed to
disclose certain details regarding the proposed Merger and the
process leading up to the merger.

The petitions seek class certification, damages, and certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the merger.  

On Oct. 12, 2006, the company and the current members of the
board of directors filed answers to five petitions in which the
company generally denied the allegations.  The company moved to
consolidate the actions that same day.

The company intends to take similar actions with respect to the
petition filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by the International Union of
Operating Engineers Local No. 825 Pension Fund.  

Austin, Texas-based Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (NYSE: FSL.B)  
-- http://www.freescale.com/-- designs and manufactures  
embedded semiconductors for the automotive, consumer,
industrial, networking and wireless markets in more than 30
countries.  Freescale offers families of embedded processors,
which include microcontrollers, digital signal processors and
communications processors.  The company also offers a portfolio
of complementary devices that facilitate connectivity between
products, across networks and to real-world signals, such as
sound, vibration and pressure.  Its complementary products
include sensors, radio frequency semiconductors, power
management and other analog and mixed-signal integrated
circuits.  Freescale is organized into three primary business
groups: Transportation and Standard Products Group, Networking
and Computing Systems Group, and Wireless and Mobile Solutions
Group.


GANNETT CO: ERISA Violations Suit Remains Pending in Colo. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. continues to face a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Dec. 31, 2003, two employees of the company's television
station KUSA in Denver filed the suit against the company and
the Gannett Retirement Plan on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals who participated in the Plan
after Jan. 1, 1998, the date that certain amendments to the Plan
took effect.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the current pension
plan formula adopted in that amendment violated the age
discrimination accrual provisions of the ERISA.  They seek to
have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek other
equitable relief.

The court has granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class,
according to its Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
24, 2006.

The suit is "Wells, et al. v. Gannett Retire Plan, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Hathaway Evans, Jr. and Robert F. Hill of Hill &
         Robbins, P.C., 1441 - 18th Street #100, Denver, CO
         80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-296-8100, Fax: 303-296-2388,
         E-mail: johnevans@hillandrobbins.com and
         roberthill@hillandrobbins.com; and

     (2) Douglas R. Sprong of Korein Tillery, LLC, 701 Market
         Street #300, St. Louis, MO 63101, U.S.A, Phone: 314-
         241-4844, Fax: 314-588-7036, E-mail:
         dsprong@koreintillery.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kerri Atencio, Michael S. Beaver and Parker Whitfield
         Dragovich of Holland & Hart, LLP, Phone: 719-475-6474
         and 303-290-1600, Fax: 303-290-1606, E-mail:
         kjatencio@hollandhart.com, mbeaver@hollandhart.com and
         pdragovich@hollandhart.com; and
  
    (ii) Margaret A. Clemens of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton
         Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, U.S.A,
         Phone: 585-263-1453, Fax: 585-263-1600, E-mail:
         MClemens@nixonpeabody.com.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: $445M Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
will hold on January 8, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. an approval hearing
for the $445 million partial settlement of the class action "In
re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation, Consolidated
File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S."

The class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the stock or options of HealthSouth Corp. including
HealthSouth securities received in exchange for the stock or
options of certain other companies acquired by HealthSouth
between April 24, 1997 and March 18, 2003 (stockholder class)
and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired HealthSouth
bonds, notes or other debt instruments during the period between
March 31, 1998 and March 18, 2003 (bondholder class).

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama in the courtroom of the Honorable Karon Owen
Bowdre.

Deadline to file for execution and objection is on Dec. 8, 2006.

                         Case Background

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama consolidated a number of separate securities
lawsuits filed against the company.

The Consolidated Securities Action included two prior
consolidated cases:  

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, CV-98-J-
         2634-S," and  

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation,  
        Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S,"  

     -- as well as six other lawsuits filed in 2003.  

Including the cases previously consolidated, the Consolidated
Securities Action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the Consolidated Securities Action into two
subclasses:  

     (1) complaints based on purchases of the company's common  
         stock were grouped under the caption, "In re  
         HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated  
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," (the Stockholder Securities  
         Action), which was further divided into complaints  
         based on:

         (a) purchases of the company's common stock in the open  
             market (grouped under the caption, "In re  
             HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation,  
             Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," and  
          
         (b) claims based on the receipt of the company's common  
             stock in mergers (grouped under the caption,  
             "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case No.  
             CV-98-2777-S)."   

         Although the plaintiffs in the HealthSouth Merger Cases  
         have separate counsel and have filed separate claims,  
         the HealthSouth Merger Cases are otherwise consolidated  
         with the Stockholder Securities Action for all  
         purposes.

     (2) complaints based on purchases of the company's debt  
         securities were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1502-S," (the Bondholder Securities
         Action).  

On Jan. 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities  
Action filed a consolidated class action complaint.  

The complaint names the company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor.  

The complaint alleges, among other things:  

     (i) that the company misrepresented or failed to disclose  
         certain material facts concerning its business and  
         financial condition and the impact of the Balanced  
         Budget Act of 1997 on its operations in order to  
         artificially inflate the price of the company's common  
         stock;

    (ii) that from Jan. 14, 2002 through Aug. 27, 2002, the  
         company misrepresented or failed to disclose certain  
         material facts concerning its business and financial  
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare  
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on the  
         company's operations in order to artificially inflate  
         the price of its common stock, and that some of the  
         individual defendants sold shares of such stock during  
         the purported class period; and  

   (iii) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former  
         senior officers and accounting personnel to materially  
         inflate the company's earnings to match Wall Street  
         analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of  
         HealthSouth and other members of a self-described   
         "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which  
         the company's earnings could be inflated and that some  
         of the individual defendants sold shares of the common  
         stock during the purported class period.  

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, and
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934
Act.  

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company reached a global, preliminary
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Securities Action, the Bondholder Securities Action, and the
derivative litigation, as well as with the company's insurance
carriers, to settle claims filed in those actions against the
company and many of its former directors and officers.

In September, a partial settlement has been reached between
HealthSouth Corporation and certain individuals, the Stockholder
Class and the Bondholder Class in a litigation, which alleged
that the Defendants violated federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability relating to any
claims asserted by the Stockholder Class and the Bondholder
Class, but they have agreed to a settlement in the amount of
$445 million in cash, HealthSouth common stock and warrants.

Under the settlement agreements, federal securities and fraud
claims brought in the class action against HealthSouth and
certain of its former directors and officers will be settled for
consideration consisting of HealthSouth common stock and
warrants valued at $215 million and cash payments by
HealthSouth's insurance carriers of $230 million, or aggregate
consideration of $445 million.  

In addition, the federal securities class action plaintiffs will
receive 25% of any net recoveries from future judgments obtained
by or on behalf of HealthSouth with respect to certain claims
against Richard Scrushy, the company's former chief executive
officer, Ernst & Young, the company's former auditors, and UBS,
the company's former primary investment bank, each of which
remains a defendant in the derivative actions as well as the
federal securities class actions.

The settlement agreement also requires HealthSouth to indemnify
the settling insurance carriers for any amounts that they are
legally obligated to pay to any non-settling defendants.

The settlement does not contain any admission of wrongdoing by
HealthSouth or any other settling defendant.

Securities to be issued by HealthSouth in connection with the
settlement will consist of an aggregate of 25,118,656 shares of
its common stock and eleven-year warrants to purchase an
aggregate of 40,756,326 additional shares of HealthSouth common
stock at an exercise price of $8.28 per share, in each case, as
the same will be adjusted by the proposed 1-for-5 reverse stock
split of HealthSouth's common stock, which, subject to
stockholder approval, is expected to become effective before the
end of October.

             Settlement Excludes Ernst & Young, UBS

The settlement does not include Ernst & Young, UBS, Mr. Scrushy
or any former HealthSouth officer who entered a guilty plea or
was convicted of a crime in connection with the company's former
financial reporting activities.

HealthSouth Corporation Securities Litigation on the net:
http://www.HealthSouthCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com.

A copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Partial Settlement
is available free of charge at:
                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1496

The suit is "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master Consolidation File No. 2:03-cv-03-BE-1500-S," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard Bemporad of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Selinger, One North Lexington Avenue, Floor 11, White
         Plains, NY 10601-1714, Phone: 1-914-997-0500, E-mail:
         rbemporad@ldbs.com; and

     (2) Max W. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman,
         LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: 1-212-554-1400, Fax: 1-212-554-1444, E-mail:
         mwb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) W. Michael Atchison of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, P.O.
         Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512, Phone: 868-6000,
         E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com; and

    (ii) Patrick J. Ballard of Ballard Law Office, 2214 2nd
         Avenue North, Suite 100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:
         321-9600, Fax: 323-9805, E-mail:
         pjballard@ballardlawoffice.com.


ILLINOIS: Rider Challenges CTA's Policy on Expired Fare Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Transit Authority is facing a class action filed by
a rider challenging its no-refund policy on expired fare cards,
reports say.

Kecia Jones filed the suit on Nov. 2 claiming the practice is a
violation of federal and state constitutional rights.  She is
asking for damages in the amount of the money on the card, with
interest.

The backs of most CTA transit cards say that they must be used
by the stated expiration date, and that purchasers cannot have
their cards refunded, notes a report by Monifa Thomas of the
Chicago Sun-Times.

Ms. Jones tried to use her transit card after its expiration
date.  She was denied even though she had more than $10 on the
card.  The CTA also refused to return her money.


JERSEY CENTRAL: Nov. Hearing Set in N.J. Power Outages Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing of an appeal against the decertification of a suit
filed against Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L), a
New Jersey electric utility operating subsidiary of FirstEnergy
Corp., is scheduled for late November 2006.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic states experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including the territory
of JCP&L.

In an investigation into the causes of the outages and the
reliability of the transmission and distribution systems of all
four of New Jersey's electric utilities, the New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities concluded that there was not a prima facie case
demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe, inadequate
or improper service to its customers.

Two class actions -- which were subsequently consolidated into a
single proceeding -- were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in
July 1999 against:

     -- JCP&L,
     -- GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L, and
     -- other GPU companies.

The suits sought compensatory and punitive damages arising from
the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment
to JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer
fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict
product liability.  

In November 2003, the trial court granted JCP&L's motion to
decertify the class and denied plaintiffs' motion to permit into
evidence their class-wide damage model indicating damages in
excess of $50 million.

These class decertification and damage rulings were appealed to
the Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division issued a
decision on July 8, 2004, affirming the decertification of the
originally certified class, but remanding for certification of a
class limited to those customers directly impacted by the
outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, New Jersey.

In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based
on a very limited number of class members who incurred damages
and also filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining
plaintiffs' claims for negligence, breach of contract and
punitive damages.  

In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the
punitive damage claim and again decertified the class based on
the fact that a vast majority of the class members did not
suffer damages and those that did would be more appropriately
addressed in individual actions.  

Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the New Jersey Appellate
Division because it effectively terminates this class action.  
Briefs are being prepared and filed, and legal argument is
scheduled for late November 2006.  

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) --
http://www.firstenergycorp.com-- is principally a holding  
company and holds, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its eight principal electric utility
operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co.,
American Transmission Systems, Inc., Jersey Central Power &
Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co. and Pennsylvania Electric Co.
FirstEnergy's consolidated revenues are primarily derived from
electric service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries
and the revenues of its other principal subsidiaries:
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.; FirstEnergy Facilities Services
Group, LLC; FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., and MYR Group,
Inc.  The companies' combined service areas encompass
approximately 36,100 square miles in Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Time to Block Ariz. Stock Suit Dismissal Lapses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of a
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona against Nationwide Life Insurance Co. stands.

The deadline for plaintiffs to file reconsideration for the
dismissal of the suit, "Robert Helman, et al. v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Co., et al.," has already lapsed, according the
company's Nov. 3 form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.  

The suit challenges the sale of deferred annuity products for
use as investments in tax-deferred contributory retirement
plans.  

On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased an individual
variable deferred annuity contract or a certificate to a group
variable annuity contract issued by the company or Nationwide
Life Annuity and Insurance Co. (NLAIC) which were allegedly used
to fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.  The amended
class-action complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.  

The company and NLAIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on  
May 24, 2004.  On July 27, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

On June 7, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal order by the District Court.  The time for the
plaintiff to seek reconsideration by the appellate court or
petition the United States Supreme Court for review has expired.

The suit is "Helman v. Nationwide Life Ins, et al., Case No.  
2:03-cv-02138-FJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Frederick J. Martone.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &  
         Balint, PC, 2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix,  
         AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-776-5903, Fax: 602-274-1199,
         E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com; and  

     (2) Brian C. Kerr, Janine L. Pollack, Michael C. Spencer  
         and Lee A. Weiss, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,  
         LLP, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY  
         10119-0165, Phone: (202) 783-6091.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Arlo Devlin-Brown, Charles C. Platt, Susan Schroeder,  
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, 399 Park  
         Ave., 31st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-
         8800; and  

    (ii) Teresita Angela Tan Mercado and Donald A. Wall, Squire  
         Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 2 Renaissance Sq., 40 N. Central  
         Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4441, Phone: 602-528-4000, Fax:  
         602-253-8129, E-mail: tmercado@ssd.com and
         dwall@ssd.com.  


NEW JERSEY: Hearing in Photocopy Fee Suit Settlement Set Nov. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held on Nov. 2, 2006 in New Jersey Superior Court
to approve the settlements of class actions over photocopy
services fees at Camden and Burlington counties, Associated
Press reports.  A hearing in Gloucester County on a similar suit
is scheduled for Nov. 15.

In October, the counties reached a  $2 million settlement for
all litigation that were filed on behalf of people who were
excessively charged for copy services at their clerks' offices
starting 1997 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

One these suits was filed by Joseph Dugan against Camden County
Clerk James Beach and Burlington County Clerk Philip Haines back
in 2003.  It alleges that the fees for self-service copies at
the counties are in violation of the state Open Public Records  
Act.  Sander Friedman and Donald M. Doherty of Friedman Doherty,  
LLC, represented Mr. Dugan in the case (Class Action Reporter,  
March 10, 2006).

Ernest Bozzi filed the other lawsuit on Feb. 15, 2006 against
the Gloucester County Clerk's Office.  He alleged that the
county violates the state's public-records laws by overcharging
for photocopies from its self-service copy machines.  Friedman  
Doherty, LLC also represented Mr. Bozzi in the case.

Under the Open Public Records Act, public agencies can charge a
sliding scale of 75 cents per page for the first 10 pages, 50
cents per page for the next 10 pages and 25 cents each for any
additional pages (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).

Under the settlement, Camden county will pay $900,000,
Burlington will pay $700,000 and Gloucester $400,000.  The
amount represents the excess money the class paid over the
actual cost of the photocopy, which is 10 cents a page.  The
counties also agreed to bring the future copying costs way down
for the next five years.   

For more details, contact Sander D. Friedman and Donald M.  
Doherty of Friedman Doherty, LLC, 125 North Route 73, West  
Berlin, New Jersey 08091, Phone: 856-417-6940 and 856-988-7777,  
Fax: 856-988-7744, Web site: http://www.friedmandoherty.com/.   


NORTHERN MARIANAS: $1.6M Cashed in Garment Firms Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in the class action against the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' (CNMI) garment
factories said only 3,790 of the 29,700 in settlement checks
that had been mailed have been cashed, for a total cash
distribution of $1.6 million to garment workers, the Saipan
Tribune reports.

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).  

In court papers filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, plaintiffs' lawyer Joyce C. H. Tang stated that
as of last week, only about 40 percent of the total amount
distributed to workers in the $5 million settlement have been
cashed.

According to Ms. Tang that of the 3,790 cashed checks, 2,268
were cashed in China; 1,213 on Saipan; and the remainder in the
Philippines, Thailand, Bangladeshi, and North America.

"Although it is too early to draw any firm conclusions from
these initial data, it would appear that about a quarter of the
checks mailed are now accounted for, and that the mail
distribution system appears to be working fairly well, including
in foreign countries," she said.

Ms. Tang said the process of creating a database and ensuring
its accuracy and thoroughness was far more complex than what
they contemplated, and they have been beset by a number of
unforeseen difficulties.

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 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).  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    

Ms. Tang, however, said that they needed more money to
distribute all the checks as they already exceeded by over
$250,000 the $500,000 that was provided for expenses related to
providing notice to class members in the lawsuit and in
administering the settlement.

She said the settlement negotiated by the parties in the lawsuit
and approved by the court provided for only $500,000 for
expenses related to sending notices to class members and in
administering the settlement.

Ms. Tang said the sum already has been exceeded by over $250,000
and that they anticipate that the expenses will continue to grow
as they and Gilardi attempt to resolve check distribution and
verify claims of persons not currently on the database.

Last week, 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 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).

Ms. Tang proposed to the court to permit reimbursement of
administrative expenses over and above the original settlement
allocation from undistributable funds intended originally for
the workers.

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;  
         
     (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; and

     (3) Joyce C. H. Tang of Civille & Tang, PLLC, 330 Hernan
         Cortez Avenue, Suite 200, Hagatna 96910, Guam, Phone:
         671-472-8868, Fax: 671-477-2511.


OHIO EDISON: Lawsuit Over W.H. Sammis Plant Sent to Tuscarawas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court transferred a case filed against Ohio
Edison Co., an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary of
FirstEnergy Corp., to a Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court.

On Aug. 22, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against
Ohio Edison in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at
trial based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts
alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.

The two named plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief to
eliminate harmful emissions and repair property damage and the
institution of a medical monitoring program for class members.  

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court transferred this case
to a Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court judge due to concerns
over potential class membership by the Jefferson County Common
Pleas Court.

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) --
http://www.firstenergycorp.com-- is principally a holding  
company and holds, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its eight principal electric utility
operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co.,
American Transmission Systems, Inc., Jersey Central Power &
Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co. and Pennsylvania Electric Co.
FirstEnergy's consolidated revenues are primarily derived from
electric service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries
and the revenues of its other principal subsidiaries:
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.; FirstEnergy Facilities Services
Group, LLC; FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., and MYR Group,
Inc.  The companies' combined service areas encompass
approximately 36,100 square miles in Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeals Court Restores Savings Plan Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey of the class action filed against:

      -- Schering-Plough Corp., and

      -- Richard Jay Kogan, former Chairman of the Board, Chief
         Executive Officer, President and Director of the
         company.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging that the company,
Mr. Kogan (who resigned as Chairman of the Board Nov. 13, 2002,
and retired as Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
of the company April 20, 2003) and the company's Employee
Savings Plan (Plan) administrator breached their fiduciary
obligations to certain participants in the Plan.

In May 2003, the company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed in the same court with allegations nearly
identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.  

On Oct. 6, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
which names as additional defendants' seven current and former
directors and other corporate officers.  

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly
suffered by the Plan.  The court dismissed this complaint on
June 29, 2004.  On July 16, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal.

On Aug. 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the dismissal by the district court and the matter was
remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

Kenilworth, New Jersey-based Schering-Plough Corp. (NYSE: SGP) -
- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-based  
healthcare company with prescription, consumer and animal health
products.  Through internal research and collaborations with
business partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets advanced drug therapies to meet
important medical needs.  Schering-Plough has three segments:
Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Consumer Health Care and Animal
Health.  The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical
products.  The Consumer Health Care segment develops,
manufactures and markets over the counter (OTC), foot care and
sun care products.  The Animal Health segment discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in N.J. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities class
action against Schering-Plough Corp. in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

Following the company's announcement that the FDA had been
conducting inspections of the company's manufacturing facilities
in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing
deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good
Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were filed against the
company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that the company failed to disclose an
alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX
would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and
they allege that the company failed to disclose the alleged
depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of company stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.
The court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.
Discovery is ongoing.

The suit is "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:01cv829," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with
referral under Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024,
         Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
         Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com;

     (3) Andrew Robert Jacobs Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com; and

     (4) Justin F. Johnson of Lunga, Evers & Johnson, Esqs., 710
         Route 46E, Suite 100, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone: (973)
         227-4200, E-mail: jfj.lejlaw@attglobal.net.

Representing the defendant is Douglas Scott Eakeley, Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791,
Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com.


SEALED AIR: Motion to Certify Class in N.J. Stock Lawsuit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities fraud suit filed against Sealed
Air Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey filed a motion to certify a class in the suit.

The suit was filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action
status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of the company from March 27, 2000 through
July 30, 2002.   

It names the company and five current and former officers and
directors of the company as defendants.  The company is required
to provide indemnification to the other defendants, and
accordingly, the company's counsel is also defending them.  

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his
choice of lead counsel.   

The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations
against the defendants.  The principal allegations are that
during the above period, the defendants materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace & Co.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.  The
company is vigorously defending the lawsuit, since the company
believes that it properly disclosed its contingent liability for
Grace's asbestos claims and properly accounted for its
contingent liability for such claims under U.S. GAAP.

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in "Senn" for
failure to state a claim.  

On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court determined that the
complaint failed adequately to allege scienter as to the four
individual defendants other than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and
therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect to these four
individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to Mr.
Dunphy and the company.   

Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the company and was formerly
chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the
company.  

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative and that
the court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.  

On April 7, 2006, the court heard oral argument on this motion,
and on July 10, 2006, the court denied the motion on the ground
that issues of fact prevent the court from granting a motion to
dismiss based on the company's arguments other than scienter.

On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of the company during the period from March 27, 2000 through
July 30, 2002.  Defendants' response to that motion is due on
December 1, 2006.  Discovery is in the initial stages.  

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under  
Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Olimpio Lee Squitieri of  
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202,  
Marlton, NJ 08053, Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612,  
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Gregory B. Reilly of Lowenstein  
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791,  
Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com.  


SEMPRA ENERGY: Nev. Court Okays $30M Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Clark County District Court entered an order
approving the Nevada class action settlement in the Continental
Forge litigation against Sempra Energy.

The litigation that is the subject of the January 2006
settlements is frequently referred to as the Continental Forge
litigation, although the settlements also include other cases.

The Continental Forge class action and individual antitrust and
unfair competition lawsuits alleging that Sempra Energy and the
Sempra Utilities unlawfully sought to control natural gas and
electricity markets, claimed damages of $23 billion after
applicable trebling.  

A second settlement resolves class action brought by the Nevada
Attorney General in Nevada Clark County District Court involving
virtually identical allegations to those in the Continental
Forge litigation.  

On June 14, 2006, the San Diego County Superior Court approved
the settlement of the Continental Forge class action as
reasonable and a final order was entered on July 20, 2006.  The
California Attorney General, the Department of Water Resources
(DWR), the Utility Consumers Action Network and two class
members have filed notices of appeal of the final order.

With respect to the individual Continental Forge lawsuits, the
Los Angeles City Council has not yet voted to approve the City
of Los Angeles' participation in the settlement and it may elect
to continue pursuing its individual case against Sempra Energy
and the Sempra Utilities.

The Nevada Clark County District Court entered an order
approving the Nevada class action settlement on Sept. 8, 2006.  
Both the California and Nevada settlements must be approved for
either settlement to take effect, but the company is permitted
to waive this condition.  

The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the DWR, or any
other governmental or regulatory agency to be effective.

               California, Nevada Suit Settlement

To settle the California and Nevada litigation, the company
would make cash payments in installments aggregating $377
million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge
and California class action price reporting litigation and $30
million relates to the Nevada antitrust litigation.  Of the $377
million, the company paid $83 million in August 2006.

Additional consideration for the California settlement includes
an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the Sempra Utilities,
subject to CPUC approval, regasified LNG from its LNG terminal
being constructed in Baja California, Mexico at the California
border index price minus $0.02.  

The Sempra Utilities agreed to seek approval from the CPUC to
integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to
develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for
access to their combined intrastate transmission system and
SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system and filed for
approval at the CPUC on July 25, 2006.

In addition, Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce the
price that it charges for power and limit the places at which it
would deliver power under its contract with the DWR.  

The price reductions would be reduced by any amounts that exceed
a $150 million threshold up to the full amount of the price
reduction that Sempra Generation is ordered to pay or incurs as
a monetary award, any reduction in future revenues or profits,
or any increase in future costs in connection with arbitration
proceedings involving the DWR contract.


UNITED LIFE: Ill. Judge Yet to Fix Discovery Span in "Booher"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber has not reset a hearing
to determine to what extent discovery must proceed in a suit
against United Life Insurance, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.  Judge Weber had earlier cancelled an Oct. 19 hearing.

Illinois Circuit Judge Don Weber amended on March 24 the
certification of the class action "Booher v. United Life  
Insurance."  He decided that the case, filed in Madison County,
should be a purely-Illinois case (Class Action Reporter, May 29,
2006).

Judge Weber reversed a 2003 decision by former judge Phil Kardis
in light of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling decertifying a
nationwide class in the "Avery v. State Farm" case, and
remanding the Gridley case back to the trial court.

The United Life suit was filed in 2001 by Christopher Booher,
who claims the company cheated him when he bought credit
insurance on an auto loan at Four Flags Motors.  According to
him, the firm secretly paid a portion of the insurance payment
to Four Flags.   

In April 2003, then Judge Kardis certified Mr. Booher as
representative of plaintiffs in Illinois and 17 other states.  
When he retired before the case came to trial, all his cases
passed to Judge Weber.

In his order Judge Weber wrote: "Contrary to the position of the
plaintiff, the court believes that the Supreme Court did modify  
Illinois class action law when it announced its Avery decision."

Daniel Cohen of the Lakin Law Firm, representing Mr. Booher,
asked United Life to:

     -- identify class members from 1991 through 2000, with
        current addresses, social security numbers, sales prices
        and dealer costs;

     -- identify all Illinois dealers authorized to sell United
        Life insurance from 1991 through 2000; and

     -- provide all documents relating to marketing and
        advertising directed to dealers and the public from 1991
        to the present.

United Life attorney James Garrison of St. Louis did not answer.  
Mr. Cohen moved Sept. 20 to compel answers contending that Judge
Kardis expressly allowed discovery "on all issues for the period
of 1991 through to the present."

Mr. Garrison objected saying the time frame is longer than the
limitations period for the Illinois claims in this case.  He
told Judge Weber that when he confined the case to Illinois he
automatically applied the state's three-year statute of
limitations.

Mr. Booher originally filed the case against General Motors,  
Four Flags -- which sells General Motors vehicles -- and United
Life Insurance Four Flags.  Four Flags was dismissed from the
complaint.

Representing Mr. Booher is Daniel Cohen of The Lakin Law Firm,  
P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois  
62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-
254-0193.

Representing United Life is James Garrison, Associate at
Gundlach, Lee, Eggmann, Boyle & Roessler LLC, 5000 West Main
Street, P.O. Box 23560, Belleville, Illinois 62223-0560
(St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-277-9000; East St. Louis: 271-8000
Telecopier: 618-277-4594.


UNITED PARCEL: "Marlo" Calif. Wage Suit Granted Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregersont of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted summary judgment on all
claims alleged in the case, "Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Svc,
et al."

Filed in 2005, plaintiffs allege that they improperly were
denied overtime, and seek penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys' fees (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 15, 2005).  Plaintiffs purport to represent a
class of 1,200 full-time supervisors.

The suit is "Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Svc, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-04336-DDP-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Dean D.
Pregerson, with referral to Judge Ralph Zarefsky.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) George W. Abele, Jennifer S. Baldocchi, Heather G.
         Havette and Robert F. Walker all of Paul Hastings
         Janofsky & Walker, 515 S Flower St, 25th Fl, Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-2228, Phone: 213-683-6000, Fax: 213-
         627-0705; and

     (2) Kirby Collette Wilcox of Paul Hastings Janofsky &
         Walker, 55 Second Street, 24th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94105-3441, Phone: 415-856-7000, E-mail:
         kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com.

Representing plaintiffs are John A. Furutani and Mark C. Peters
both of Furutani and Peters, 911 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite
310, Pasadena, CA 91106, Phone: 626-844-2437, E-mail:
jafurutani@furutani-peters.com or mcpeters@furutani-peters.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Settles Calif. Overtime Wage Lawsuit for $87M
------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service Inc. agreed to settle for $87 million a
wage-and-hour class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, the Dow Jones Newswires
reported.

The suit "Cornn et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al,"
which has been certified as a class action, alleges that
plaintiffs were improperly denied wages and/or overtime and meal
and rest periods.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of approximately 20,000
drivers and seek back wages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

UPS has agreed in principle to settle this matter in full for a
total payment of $87 million.  The parties are now working to
secure court approval of that settlement.

The suit is "Cornn et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-02001-THE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Thelton E.
Henderson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Curtis Brooks Cutter of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP,
         980 9th Street, 19th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814,
         Phone: 916 448-9800, Fax: 916 669 4499, E-mail:
         brooks@cutterlaw.com; and

     (2) Wendy C. York of York Law Corporation, 2295 Gateway
         Oaks Drive, Suite 165, Sacramento, CA 95833, Phone: 916
         643 2200, Fax: 916-643-4680, E-mail:
         wyork@yorklawcorp.com.

Representing defendants are E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq., Katherine L.
Kettler, Annette Marie Rittmuller and Daniel E. Waldman all of
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 55 Second Street, 24th
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441, Phone: 415-856-7000 or 415-
856-7204, Fax: 415-856-7100, E-mail: jeffgrube@paulhastings.com
or katherinekettler@paulhastings.com or
annettegammon@paulhastings.com or danwaldman@paulhastings.com.


UNITED STATES: Mexican Mother Claims Child Abuse in Deportation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, filed a class
action against the government on behalf of millions of U.S.
citizen children, CBS2 reports.

She filed the suit after a federal judge ruled on her
deportation.  U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said on
Sept. 29 that the question before the court is whether the
hardship that the child would undeniably suffer without his
mother is of constitutional magnitude.  She concluded that under
any construction of the alleged facts, it is not.

In her subsequent lawsuit, Ms. Arellano said that such
deportations are essentially child abuse.  The suit was brought
against:

     -- the U.S. government,
     -- President George Bush,
     -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and
     -- Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertof.

Ms. Arellano and her son have been living at the Adalberto
United Methodist Church since mid-August after failing to
surrender to federal authorities for deportation on Aug. 15.  
She has already been arrested twice, one in 1997 after crossing
into the U.S., and again in 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5,
2006).


UNITED STATES: Nun Who Blamed Ground Zero Air for Disease Dies
--------------------------------------------------------------
A nun who offered the results of her eventual autopsy as
evidence in a suit claiming that toxic air at Ground Zero made
volunteers ill has died, Associated Press reports.

Sister Cynthia Mahoney, who worked at Ground Zero after Sept.
11, 2001, died on Nov. 1, the Shellhouse Funeral Home said,
according to the report.  No cause of death was given, but she
had claimed in several interviews that her lungs were
permanently damaged after working as a volunteer to clean up the
site for several months.

Sister Mahoney had asked attorney David Worby, who is heading a
class action by volunteers, to be her guardian (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006).

Two class actions have been filed on behalf of individuals
exposed to Ground Zero toxins, according to the Web site of 9-11
Research http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html.Berger &  
Montague filed one of the suits on March 2004 by, naming as
defendants:

     -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

     -- Christine Todd Whitmann, former administrator of EPA,

     -- Marianne L. Horinko, former assistant administrator and    
        then administrator of EPA,

     -- Michael Leavitt, administrator of EPA since November
        2003.

The lawsuit asked the court to establish and fund a program for
medical monitoring for conditions resulting from toxic
exposures.

In February, Judge Deborah A. Batts of U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, ruled that a class action
brought on behalf of residents, workers and office workers in
Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn can proceed with respect to the
plaintiffs' allegations that Ms. violated the proposed class'
Fifth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from bodily harm
when she made materially misleading statements regarding the
safety of the air quality in Lower Manhattan shortly after Sept.
11, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).

The Berger firm is working on this matter with Bert A. Blitz of
the New York law firm Shandell, Blitz, Blitz & Bookson, LLP.

In September 2004, the law firm of Worby, Groner, Edelman, &
Napoli, Bern, LLP initiated the first major class action on
behalf of Ground Zero cleanup workers and others against
managers, owners, controllers and leasors of the World Trade
Center complex (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2004.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for victims and to establish
funding for medical testing for all those exposed to these
poisons.

The second suit is "Aalbue et al. v. 1 World Trade Center LLC et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-04702-AKH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K.  
Hellerstein.  

Representing the plaintiffs is David E. Worby of Worby Groner  
Edelman LLP, 11 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10606,
Phone: 914-686-3700 or 212-732-3410, Fax: 914-686-8080.

Representing the defendants is James E. Tyrrell of Patton Boggs
LLP, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 868-
5600, Fax: (973) 639-7298.


VIRGINIA MASON: Settles Wash. Suit Over "Facility Fee" Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Mason Medical Center has agreed to refund hospital
"facility fee" charges to patients who received outpatient
procedures at its downtown Seattle clinics, reports say.  

The settlement requires Virginia Mason to begin providing
estimates of outpatient services to patients in advance.   The
financial details of the agreement were undisclosed.

The class consists of all Virginia Mason patients who, since  
Jan. 1, 1999, have received medical services at a Virginia Mason  
clinic in downtown Seattle and were charged more than they would  
have been charged for the same services at one of Virginia  
Mason's satellite clinics and were obligated to pay all or any  
portion of that excess cost.

The suit, was brought in January 2005 by DeLois Gibson on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated patients of Virginia
Mason, alleges that the company has unfairly and deceptively
failed to disclose to its patients that it charges hospital
facility fees at its outpatient clinics in downtown Seattle for
the same services it provides at its satellite clinics without
any facility fees.

Further, plaintiffs claim that Virginia Mason's practice of  
charging these undisclosed facility fees at its downtown clinics  
is unfair and deceptive because these fees are not required and  
are imposed by Virginia Mason solely to increase its revenues  
and they bear no relationship to the cost of the facilities  
actually used.

Plaintiffs, further contend that Virginia Mason is liable for  
all damages suffered as a result of Virginia Mason's alleged  
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the Washington  
Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, and is also liable for  
treble damages up to $10,000 per class member, costs and  
attorney's fees.

Virginia Mason has denied these claims.  Although Virginia Mason  
admits charging the facility fee for services provided at its  
downtown outpatient clinics, it denies that this practice is  
unfair or deceptive.  

Virginia Mason also denies that it has unfairly or deceptively  
failed to disclose this facility fee to its patients.  

The company also claims that federal law permits its practice of  
charging this facility fee at its downtown outpatient clinics.

On Sept. 6, 2005, the court ruled that this lawsuit may be  
maintained as a claim for damages, not only for the individual  
plaintiff named above, but on behalf of the class of all other  
Virginia Mason patients who have been charged hospital facility  
fees for services provided at Virginia Mason's downtown  
outpatient clinics as described above.

The King County Superior Court of the State of Washington has
set a Feb. 5, 2007, trial date for the suit (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 7, 2006).

A copy of the Notice of Class Action and Privacy Rights, and  
Written Authorization to Disclose Health Care Information is  
available at:  
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1134

The suit is "Gibson et al. v. Virginia Medical Center, Case No.  
05-2-02198-5 SEA," filed in the King County Superior Court of  
the State of Washington under Honorable Gregory P. Canova.

Representing the plaintiffs are John W. Phillips and Matthew  
Geyman both of Phillips Law Group, PLLC, 315 Fifth Avenue South,  
Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: (206) 382-1060.  On the  
Net: http://www.gilardi.com/virginiamason/.

Patients who have questions regarding the settlement can call
Virginia Mason's Patient Account Services Department at 206-223-
6601.


WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: N.Mex. Judge Refuses to Stop Merger Vote
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Browning of the U.S. District Court, District of New
Mexico refused a request to halt a vote by Westland Development
Co. shareholders on a $250 million merger with California's
SunCal Cos. Group, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

On Nov. 3, Lawrence Lane, a Westland shareholder, filed a class
action and a request for a preliminary injunction on the sale in
federal court.  The suit names as defendants: Westland, some of
its senior officers and directors and SunCal Cos.

The case claims Westland and its board of directors, violated
Securities and Exchange Commission rules by issuing false and
misleading information at its proxy statement regarding the
proposed sale.  

It states that while the company declares that the merger is
"advisable and fair to, and in the best interest of Westland and
Westland shareholders," it actually does not represent the true
value of Westland's holdings.

But Judge Browning said that, while there were concerns raised
by Lane, the case did not meet the burden of proof required to
take such an extraodinary measure.

A preliminary proxy vote count for ballots received Nov. 4
showed that 69.3 percent Westland shareholders of the Class A
shares voted in favor of the $315 per share deal, while 97
percent of the Class B share owners approved the SunCal offer,
according to New Mexico Business Weekly.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

November 9, 2006
SILICA & ASBESTOS CLAIMS CONFERENCE: WHAT EFFECT WILL
INVESTIGATIONS INTO FRAUDULENT SUITS HAVE ON THE LITIGATION?
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9-10, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 13-14, 2006
CORPORATE LIABILITY & COMPLIANCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 4-5, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 4-5, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
MTBE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7-8, 2006
COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealeys Seminars
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7-8, 2006
SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8, 2006
NITA'S COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT: ARGUING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Mealeys Seminars
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2006
CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Key Biscayne, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13-15, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 22-23, 2007
MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP
10 ISSUES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1, 2006
KATRINA - WATER DAMAGE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 2, 2006
AVIAN FLU - INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8, 2006
ASBESTOS INSURANCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2006
CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 13, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 14, 2006
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 15, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS - THE BIG DIG
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 15, 2006
ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 16, 2006
PATENT REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERIC DRUGS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 16, 2006
STRESS, DEPRESSION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17, 2006
AVIAN FLU - INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS (UK)
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 21, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #1 - HUMAN TISSUE LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 28, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #2 - FOSAMAX
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 28, 2006
WHITE COLLAR CRIME
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 29, 2006
RETAIL IN-HOUSE PERSPECTIVES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 4, 2006
IMMIGRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #3 - SSRI's
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6, 2006
CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #4 - CONTACT LENS SOLUTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2006
E-DISCOVERY - HOW TO CREATE AN E-DISCOVERY PRACTICE TEAM AT YOUR
FIRM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13, 2006
ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2006
DETERMINING WHAT EXPENSES MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTINGENT FEE
CLIENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org  


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APOLLO GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announces that a class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock and other securities of Apollo Group
Inc. (APOL) between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.

The action against Apollo and certain of the company's executive
officers charges violations of federal securities laws.  On Oct.
18, 2006, Apollo shocked investors when it disclosed that it had
engaged in the illegal backdating of stock options, which it
warned might ultimately result in a restatement of earnings
extending back to 2000.

The market reacted quickly to this announcement, as Apollo's
stock price plummeted to $37.55 per share from its prior day
close of $48.68 per share, a 22.86% drop in one day, on massive
volume of 28,738,800 shares, more than fifteen times more than
the prior day's volume.

Options pricing backdating occurs when options grants to senior
officers or directors of public companies are made at prices
lower than the trading price of the stock on the date such
options are granted.  The undisclosed backdating of options
violates generally accepted accounting principles.

Interested parties have only until Jan. 2, 2006, to move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn, Phone: 1-866-467-1400,
ext. 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


IKANOS COMMS: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors of Ikanos
Communications, Inc. who purchased the common stock of Ikanos
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus for its initial public offering (IPO)
on Sept. 22, 2005, or its secondary public offering on March 8,
2006, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaint charges Ikanos and certain of its officers,
directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The complaint further alleges that the Registration Statements
and Prospectuses issued in connection with the IPO and Secondary
Offering were negligently prepared and, as a result:

     -- contained untrue statements of material facts;

     -- omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
        statements made therein not misleading; and

     -- were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
        regulations governing their preparation.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Registration Statements and Prospectuses included
representations that the Company's business had grown due to
successful deployments in Japan.

In fact, according to the complaint, the deployments in Japan
had grown because Ikanos had shipped excessive product to
Japanese customers in excess of those customers' needs and the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses failed to disclose that
the company's future results would be adversely affected by this
practice.

On Oct. 4, 2006, Ikanos issued a press release announcing
preliminary third quarter revenue results and stated that the
revenue expectations were $4-6 million lower than expected, and
the fourth quarter revenue results would be adversely affected
due to, among other things, "carriers in Japan () currently
working through their existing equipment levels."

On this news, the stock collapsed to as low as $7.23 per share,
before closing at $7.76 per share on volume of 9.5 million
shares traded.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of Ikanos pursuant and/or traceable
to the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for its
IPO on Sept. 22, 2005, or its Secondary Offering on March 8,
2006.

Ikanos Communications Inc. -- http://www.ikanos.com/-- engages  
in the development and provision of programmable semiconductors
that enable fiber-fast broadband services over telephone
companies' existing copper lines.  The Company offers very-high-
bit-rate digital subscriber lines that are designed to address
different segments of the broadband semiconductor market for
carrier networks and subscriber premises equipment.

Plaintiffs are represented by William Lerach, Samuel H. Rudman
and David A. Rosenfeld all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Warner Chilcott Limited pursuant
and or traceable to the company's initial public offering on or
about Sept. 20, 2006 through Sept. 26, 2006.  The lawsuit was
filed against Warner Chilcott and certain officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933.  In particular, the complaint alleges the company's
registration statement, in connection with its initial public
offering, contained untrue statements of material facts and or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
not misleading.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company's
registration statement failed to disclose that at the time of
the IPO, Warner Chilcott had stopped shipments of Ovcon 35,
eliminating a valuable revenue stream for the company.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the company announced developments in a
lawsuit brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission.
Additionally, the company also filed a supplement to its initial
registration statement, in which it disclosed that it had
stopped shipments of Ovcon 35 in September.  

In reaction to this news, shares of Warner Chilcott fell from
$15.00 per share to $12.60 per share, a one-day decline of 16%
on very heavy volume.

Interested parties can move the court no later that Jan. 2, 2007
for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Brian Penny, Esq. of The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.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  * * *