CAR_Public/061109.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 9, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 223

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Reaches Settlements in Transparent Tape Litigation
ADOLOR CORP: Penn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
AQUILA INC: August 2007 Trial Slated for ERISA Litigation in Mo.
ARKANSAS: Carroll County Officials Face Suit Over Expenditures
ARKANSAS: Class Status Mulled for Suit Over Springdale CO Leak

AT&T CORP: Still Faces Calif. Suits Over Intelligence Activities
AT&T INC: Sept. Trial Set for Tex. Retiree Phone Concession Suit
AT&T WIRELESS: Reaches $150M Securities Suit Settlement in N.Y.
CENTERS AND GENERAL: Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Kans.
CONVERIUM HOLDING: N.Y. Stock Suit Status Conference Set Nov. 16

CREDIT CARD COS: Neb. Court Junks Suit Against Visa, MasterCard
ENOGEX INC: Seeks Dismissal of Farris Buser Litigation in Okla.
GOOGLE INC: Asks Penn. Court to Dismiss Click Fraud Lawsuit
H&R BLOCK: Plans Changes to RAL Program, After $39M Settlement
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Seeks Dismissal of Md. Securities Complaint

HOT TOPIC: Faces Lawsuit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
MERRILL LYNCH: Racial Bias Suit Names 16 Additional Plaintiffs
MOTOROLA INC: April 17 Trial Set for Consolidated Stock Suit
MOTOROLA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denied Motion in Ill. ERISA Suit
NORTHERN STATES: Minn. Court Hears Motion to Dismiss "Hoffman"

NUTRAQUEST INC: $20.4M Suit Settlement OK'd Under Reorganization
OKLAHOMA GAS: Customers File Lawsuit Over Electric Bill Charges
PDI INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Complaint
QUOVADX INC: Court Mulls Summary Judgment Motion in "Henderson"
QUOVADX INC: Awaits Final Court Approval of IPO Securities Suit

QUOVADX INC: Reaches $9M Settlement for "Heller" Suit in Colo.
RC2 BRANDS: Recalls 275T Toy Keys Over Possible Choking Hazard
SAXON CAPITAL: Settles Ill. Suit Over FCRA Violations for $0.5M
SAXON MORTGAGE: Continues to Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
SAXON MORTGAGE: La. Court Remands Suit Over Mortgage Loan Terms

SAXON MORTGAGE: Ohio Court Stays Suit Over Loans Servicing
SEITEL INC: Tex. Appeals Court Mulls Dismissal of "Villarreal"
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Facing Fraud Lawsuits in N.C., S.C., Tenn.
XCEL ENERGY: "Ever-Bloom" Suit Stayed, Awaits 9th Circuit Ruling
XCEL ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Suit in Kans., No Discovery Yet


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IKANOS COMMS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
IKANOS COMMS: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
IKANOS COMMS: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Reaches Settlements in Transparent Tape Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company reached settlements for antitrust lawsuits filed
against it in California and Pennsylvania in relation to the
sale of transparent tape, according to the firm's Oct. 27, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

As previously reported, LePage's Inc., a transparent tape
competitor of the company, filed a lawsuit against the company
in June 1997 alleging that certain marketing practices of the
company constituted unlawful monopolization under the antitrust
laws.

Following the entry of a verdict in LePage's favor and appellate
rulings sustaining that verdict, direct and indirect tape
purchasers filed a number of purported class actions and
individual actions against the company in various state and
federal courts.  

These cases alleged that the company competed unfairly and
unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for transparent tape, and
sought injunctive relief and damages in the form of price
overcharges the company allegedly charged for these products.

            Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

In April 2006, the federal court in California granted final
approval of the previously disclosed settlement agreement of
twelve tape-related class actions brought on behalf of indirect
purchasers who did not purchase tape for resale.  The appeal
from that approval was withdrawn in September 2006 and the order
approving the settlement became final.

             Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

In August 2006, the federal court in Pennsylvania granted final
approval of the previously disclosed settlement agreement of the
purported class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of
both 3M branded and private label tape.

In October 2006, the federal court in Pennsylvania granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement entered in
September 2006 to resolve the previously disclosed antitrust
class action involving direct purchasers of branded transparent
tape but not private label tape.  The final approval hearing is
scheduled for April 2007.  

Minnesota-based 3M Company (NYSE: MMM) -- http://www.mmm.com/--  
is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the businesses, including healthcare; industrial; display and
graphics; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; electronics and telecommunications, and
transportation.


ADOLOR CORP: Penn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion by Adolor Corp. to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
director and certain officers.

On April 21, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the
company, one of its directors and certain of its officers,
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased common stock between Sept. 23, 2003 and  
Jan. 14, 2004.   

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the announcement of the results of certain studies in the
company's Phase III clinical trials for Entereg(R), which
allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the company's common stock.  

This suit has been consolidated with three subsequent actions
asserting similar claims under the caption, "In re Adolor
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."   

On Dec. 29, 2004, the district court issued an order appointing
the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  The appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 28, 2005.   

The complaint purported to extend the class period, so as to
bring claims on behalf of a putative class of Adolor
shareholders who purchased stock between Sept. 23, 2003 and Dec.
22, 2004.   

The complaint also adds as defendants the board of directors,
asserting claims against them and the other defendants for
violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with the company's public offering of stock
in November 2003.   

The company and its management and director defendants moved to
dismiss the Complaint on April 29, 2005.  The plaintiffs
responded to the motion to dismiss on June 28, 2005, and the
defendants' reply was filed on Aug. 12, 2005.  

The company reported no material development in the case at its  
Oct. 31 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and  
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006.

The suit is "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v.  
Adolor Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01728-RBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.  The consolidated suit is "In re  
Adolor Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Laura Andracchio, Nicholas J. Licato,  
         Scott Saham, Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 401 B  
         St., STE. 1700, San Diego CA, 92101, Phone: 619-231-
         1058, E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com; and  

     (2) Marc S. Henzel, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273  
         Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd PA 19004,  
         Phone: 610-660-8000, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.   

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Michael S. Doluisio, Jeffrey G. Weil, Dechert, Price &  
         Rhoads, 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower,  
         Philadelphia PA 19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-2749, Fax:  
         215-994-2222, E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com; and  

    (ii) John A. Ducoff, Allan E. Kraus, Jason Rockwell, Laurie  
         B. Smilan, Latham & Watkins LLP, One Newark Center 16th  
         floor, Newark, NJ 07101-3174, Phone: 973-639-1234.


AQUILA INC: August 2007 Trial Slated for ERISA Litigation in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri set
a tentative August 2007 trial for the consolidated class action,
"In re Aquila ERISA Litigation" which is seeking recovery from
the company more than $150 million in alleged retirement losses.

On Sept. 24, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain members of the company's board of directors and
management.

The suit is alleging that defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and were responsible for losses
that participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a
result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock
held in the 401(k) plan.

A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in
violation of ERISA by concealing information and/or misleading
employees who held the company's common stock through the
company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the
company.

The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses resulting from
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On Jan. 26, 2005, the
court ordered that all of these lawsuits be consolidated into a
single case captioned, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation."

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March
2005, which largely repeats each of the allegations in the first
complaint.  

This case has been certified as a class action and set for trial
in August 2007, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Jaffe of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, US, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600; and

     (2) Bruce Keplinger of Norris & Keplinger, LLC, 6800
         College Blvd., Suite 630, Overland Park, KS 66211,
         Phone: (913) 323-3185 and Fax: (913) 663-2006, E-mail:
         bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com.

Representing the company is Stanley Daryl Davis of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax: (816) 421-4066, E-mail:
sddavis@shb.com.


ARKANSAS: Carroll County Officials Face Suit Over Expenditures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seventeen Carroll County citizens filed a class action in
Carroll County Circuit Court seeking the removal from office of
the county judge, sheriff and county clerk, according to the
Carroll County News.

The suit was filed by attorney Cindy Baker and former Public
Defender Rachel Runnels against County Judge Ulys K. Smith,
Sheriff Chuck Medford and County Clerk Shirley Doss, as well as
the individual members of the Quorum Court, and Prosecuting
Attorney Tony Rogers.

The suit alleges illegal exaction by Mr. Medford and others; and
misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance and incompetence in office
on the part of Mr. Smith, Mr. Medford and Ms. Doss.

Carroll County News notes that the suit follows the receipt of a
report by state auditors based in Harrison covering the
expenditures of the county's jail sales tax fund between Jan. 1,
2004 and May 31, 2006.  The report contains statements regarding
the miscoding of two vehicles.

In a press release issued by Ms. Baker and Ms. Runnels, they
said the suit does not seek punitive damages or other
miscellaneous damages.  The lawsuit is "to require officials to
put the money back that was wrongfully spent," they stated.


ARKANSAS: Class Status Mulled for Suit Over Springdale CO Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington County Circuit Court ordered parties to a lawsuit
over a 2004 carbon monoxide (CO) leak in Springdale, Arkansas
apartment complex to submit proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by Nov. 17, The Northwest Arkansas Times
reports

The order by Judge Mary Ann Gunn comes after hearings to
determine whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action were
held last week.  When attorneys provide the judge the findings
and conclusions, the judge is expected to render an opinion soon
after.

The case involves Juan Hernandez and other named plaintiffs, as
well as several additional unnamed people, including former and
current residents of Springdale Ridge Apartments I and II.  

The suit alleges that the Springdale Fire Department found high
levels of carbon monoxide in most of the complex's 192 units
Aug. 10, 2004, after the landlord had been notified of
residents' complaints.

Plaintiffs are suing multiple defendants over the reported leak
at the apartments.  Those defendants include:

      -- Simpson Housing Solutions,
      -- Simpson Housing Limited Partnership,
      -- Deer Run Limited Partnership,
      -- Fox Run Limited Partnership of Springdale Affordable
         Multi-Family,
      -- Walling Development,
      -- Pinnacle Realty Management Co.,
      -- apartment manager Heather Hardcastle,
      -- Atlas Construction of Arkansas,
      -- A. R. Mays Construction Inc.,
      -- L & L Plumbing & Heating Inc.,
      -- Architecture, Design & Development,
      -- Thomas O'Neil, and
      -- Jerry Verdin.


AT&T CORP: Still Faces Calif. Suits Over Intelligence Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corp faces up to 21 pending lawsuits that accuse the
company and other telecommunications carriers unlawfully
provided assistance to the National Security Agency (NSA) in
connection with intelligence activities that were initiated
following the events of Sept. 11, 2001, according to the
company's Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In the first filed case, "Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc.
and Does 1-20," plaintiffs filed the purported class action in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California on
behalf of "all individuals in the United States that are current
residential subscribers or customers of defendants' telephone
services or internet services, or that were residential
telephone or internet subscribers or customers at any time after
September 2001."

They allege that the defendants have disclosed and are currently
disclosing to the U.S. Government records concerning
communications to which plaintiffs and class members were a
party, including providing access to stored telephone and
Internet records databases and permitting interception of
telephone and Internet communications.

Plaintiffs seek damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive
relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and
other federal and California statutes.  

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In May, the U.S. requested leave to intervene in
this litigation, asserted the "state secrets privilege" and
related statutory privileges, and filed a motion asking the
court to either dismiss the complaint or issue a summary
judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that
adjudication of the claims may put at risk the disclosure of
privileged national security information.

On July 20, 2006, the court denied the Motions to Dismiss of
both parties.  Specifically, the court ruled that the state
secrets privilege does not prevent AT&T from asserting any
statutory defense it may have, as appropriate, regarding
allegations that it assisted the government in monitoring
communication content.

However, with regard to the calling records allegations, the
court noted that it would not require AT&T to disclose what
relationship, if any it has with the government.  

Both AT&T and the U.S. government filed interlocutory appeals on
July 31, 2006.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
has not yet accepted these appeals.

Since the filing of this complaint, 20 additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.  

All 21 pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court, namely the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California, before the judge
presiding over the Hepting case.  

To date, a small number of plaintiffs have objected to this
consolidation and their objections are pending before the joint
panel on multidistrict litigation.

In one of these 21 cases, "Terkel v. AT&T Corp. and Illinois
Bell," (filed with the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Illinois), a purported class action filed on behalf
of defendants' Illinois customers, the court, on July 25, 2006,
dismissed the case, acknowledging that the U.S. government's
state secrets privilege prohibited the plaintiffs' case from
proceeding.

The Terkel case involved allegations that the defendants
supplied the U.S. government with calling records data in
violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act but did
not allege interception of communications.

The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:        

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454  
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:  
         cindy@eff.org; and  

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-  
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.      

Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


AT&T INC: Sept. Trial Set for Tex. Retiree Phone Concession Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Permission to Appeal the class certification with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District was filed by
AT&T Inc. -- formerly SBC Communications, Inc. -- in a class
action over retiree phone concessions, entitled, "Stoffels v.
SBC Communications, Inc."

The suit was filed back in 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.  Plaintiffs, who are retirees of
Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Southwestern Bell, and Ameritech,
contend that the telephone concession provided by the company
is, in essence, a "defined benefit plan" within the meaning of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of persons that are either
retirees of the former subsidiaries of SBC or a predecessor
thereof, who received the telephone concession benefit after
they retired or current or former employees of the former
subsidiaries of SBC with more than 5 years of service during the
time that they had a policy to provide employees with a
telephone concession benefit upon retirement.  

They also seek reformation of the out-of-region phone concession
offered under the post-employment benefits plan (Plan) and the
documents governing it to comply with ERISA, an order requiring
the company to fund the Plan as reformed, the appointment of an
independent fiduciary to administer the Plan, an order requiring
the Plan to pay benefits to plaintiffs and other class members
consistent with the terms of the plan and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to ERISA.

The company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on Feb. 3, 2006.  

On June 23, 2006, the court heard argument on plaintiffs' motion
to certify the class.  No decision has been issued.  The case
has been set for trial on Sept. 25, 2006.  

On Oct. 3, 2006, the court certified two classes.  On Oct. 18,
2006, the company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the
class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
District.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas stayed the case pending the resolution of the
appeal, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al.,
Case No. 5:05-cv-00233-WWJ," filed in the U.S District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge William Wayne Justice.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Les Mendelsohn of Les Mendelsohn
& Associates, P.C., 110 Broadway, Suite 500, San Antonio, TX
78205-1934, Phone: (210) 222-2271, Fax: 210/230-8914.

Representing the defendants are Bruce Allen Blefeld and John L.
Carter of Vinson & Elkins, Phone: (713) 758-3610 and
(713) 758-2124, Fax: (713) 615-5307.


AT&T WIRELESS: Reaches $150M Securities Suit Settlement in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
given the final approval for the $150 million settlement in the
class action, "In re AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock Securities
Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-8754 (MGC)."

The settlement covers all investors who bought AT&T Wireless
Tracking Stock during the period April 26, 2000 through May 1,
2000.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants, AT&T Corp. and C.
Michael Armstrong, violated the federal securities laws by
failing to disclose certain material adverse trends in AT&T's
business in the prospectus for the AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock
initial public offering.  

The plaintiffs had demanded damages in excess of $2,100 related
to the offering of AT&T Wireless tracking stock.  In April 2006,
the parties agreed to settle the litigation for $150 million.
The court gave final approval of the settlement in October 2006.

The suit is "In re AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:00-cv-08754-MGC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lee S. Shalov and Ralph M. Stone of Shalov, Stone &
         Bonner, 485 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, Phone:
         (212) 686-8004;

     (2) Steven Jeffrey Toll of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen
         #500 Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600,
         Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com; and

     (3) Alan M. Unger of Sidley & Austin, 875 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)906-2000.


CENTERS AND GENERAL: Faces Overtime Wage Litigation in Kans.
------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and General Nutrition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary
of GNC Corp., faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas over unpaid overtime
wages, according to GNC Corp.'s Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Aug. 11, 2006, Michelle Most and Mark Kelso sued the company
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.  

The lawsuit purports to certify a nationwide class of GNC store
managers and assistant managers and alleges that GNC failed to
pay time and a half for working more than 40 hours per week.

Counsel for the plaintiffs contends that Centers and GNC
improperly applied fluctuating workweek calculations and
procedures for docking pay for working less than 40 hours per
week under a fluctuating workweek.

The suit is "Most, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02330-CM-GLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with
referral to Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael F. Brady of Law Offices of Michael F. Brady,
         10901 Lowell Ave., Suite #280, Overland Park, KS 66210,
         US, Phone: 913-696-0925, Fax: 913-696-0468, E-mail:
         brady@mbradylaw.com; and

     (2) Brendan J. Donelon of DONELON, P.C., 802 Broadway 7th
         Flr., Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-221-7100, Fax:
         816-472-6805, E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com.

Representing the defendants is Erin A. Webber of Littler
Mendelson, P.C., 2300 Main, Suite #900, Kansas City, MO 64108,
US, Phone: 816-448-3358, x3561, Fax: 816-817-0735, E-mail:
ewebber@littler.com.


CONVERIUM HOLDING: N.Y. Stock Suit Status Conference Set Nov. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference in a securities fraud lawsuit against
Converium Holding AG in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York is set for Nov. 16, 2006.  

Following the company's announcement on July 20, 2004 that
second quarter 2004 results would fall short of expectations due
to higher than modeled U.S. casualty loss emergence primarily
related to the underwriting years 1997 to 2001, six securities
law class action lawsuits were brought against the company and
several of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York between Oct. 4, 2004 and
Dec. 2, 2004.

On Dec. 9, 2004, another securities law class action lawsuit,
"Rubin v. Converium Holding AG, et al., Index No. 04-117332,"
was brought against the company and certain of its officers and
directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the
County of New York.  

The Rubin action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Plaintiff Rubin's request that
the court allow him to renew his motion to remand the action to
state court (which Rubin had previously withdrawn) is still
pending.

On July 14, 2005, the court signed an order in the Federal
Actions appointing Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi and Avalon Holdings Inc. lead plaintiffs.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint setting forth their claims.  The
complaint includes the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement
System as an additional named plaintiff.

Lead plaintiffs have asked the court to consolidate the Rubin
action with the other federal actions for all purposes.  The
complaint names as defendants the company, directors Terry G.
Clarke, Peter C. Colombo, Georg F. Mehl, George G.C. Parker,
Derrell J. Hendrix and Anton K. Schnyder; former officers Dirk
Lohmann, Martin Kauer and Richard Smith; former director Juergen
Forterer; ZFS; UBS AG; and Merrill Lynch International.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
alleges, among other things, that the company misrepresented and
omitted material information in various public disclosures from
Dec. 11, 2000 through Sept. 2, 2004 because:

     -- they did not establish adequate loss reserves to cover
        claims by policyholders;

     -- that the announced reserve increases prior to July 20,
        2004 were insufficient; and that,

     -- as a result of the foregoing, the earnings and assets
        were materially overstated.

The putative class of plaintiffs on whose behalf these lawsuits
have been asserted consists of all buyers of the company's stock
from Dec. 11, 2001 through and including Sept. 2, 2004.  
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
attorney's fees, witness fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 23, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
On Feb. 17, 2006 the lead plaintiffs submitted a memorandum of
law in opposition to all defendants' motions to dismiss the
Complaint.  

As a result of Converium's restatement of prior years' financial
information, on April 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, which proposes to add
certain allegations to their consolidated amended complaint
relating to Converium's restatement and which makes certain
other changes to that complaint.

On May 25, 2006, Converium and the other defendants filed papers
in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend.  Plaintiffs had
until June 16, 2006 to file reply papers in further support of
their motion to amend.  The court canceled a status conference
in the actions scheduled for June 22, 2006. It was rescheduled
for Nov. 16, 2006.

The suit is "Rubin et al v. Converium Holding, AG et al, Case
No. 1:05-cv-03871-DLC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L. Cote.

Representing the defendant is Penny Shane at Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP (NYC), 125 Broad Street, NY, N.Y. 10004, Phone:
212-558-4837, Fax: 212-558-3360, E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com.


CREDIT CARD COS: Neb. Court Junks Suit Against Visa, MasterCard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Nebraska Supreme Court upholds a ruling dismissing a class
action filed against MasterCard Inc. and Visa USA, Inc. for
allegedly violating state consumer laws, Associated Press
reports.

Todd Kanne and Jeanette Sherman filed the suit in an Omaha.  It
alleges that the bank force merchants to purchase their debit-
card processing services by tying credit-card services to debit-
card services, and using its dominant position to do so.  

Under the deal, merchants agree to pay a discount fee, which
typically ranges from 1.4 to 4.5 percent of the transaction
amount, so that they could get transactions processed and an
assurance of payment from the member bank that the merchants
will be paid when a customer uses a Visa or MasterCard.

The suit also claimed that merchants passed those costs on to
consumers in artificially inflated prices, violating Nebraska's
unlawful restraint of trade statutes and Consumer Protection
Act.

Also, the suit states that Visa and MasterCard charged the same
fees for both types of cards even though the risks associated
with credit cards are greater than for debit cards.

Douglas County District Judge Gary Randall had dismissed the
suit.  In the recent ruling, the high court stated that many of
the claims had been addressed in a $ 3 billion settlement of a
nationwide lawsuit against the companies in 2003.  

Under it, Visa and MasterCard compensated thousands of U.S.
retailers for fees they charged to process debit-card
transactions, and agreed to lower the debit-card transaction
fees they charge stores by roughly one third to one-half.


ENOGEX INC: Seeks Dismissal of Farris Buser Litigation in Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enogex Inc. filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed
against the company, Enogex Products Corp. and Enogex Gas
Gathering, L.L.C., subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp. in the
District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.

On July 22, 2005, Enogex along with certain other unaffiliated
co-defendants was served with a purported class action, which
had been filed on Feb. 7, 2005 by Farris Buser and other named
plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs' own royalty interests in certain oil and gas
producing properties and allege they have been under-compensated
by the named defendants, including the Enogex companies,
relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered during the
transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs' wells.  

Plaintiffs' assert breach of contract, implied covenants,
obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and
fraud causes of action and claim actual damages in excess of
$10,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages in
excess of $10,000.  

The Enogex companies filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on Nov. 18, 2005, subject to the plaintiffs' right to
conduct discovery and the possible re-filing of their
allegations in the petition against Enogex companies.  

On Sept. 19, 2005, the co-defendants, BP America, Inc. and BP  
America Production Co., filed a cross claim against Enogex  
Products Corp. seeking indemnification and/or contribution from  
Products based upon the 1997 sale of a third party interest in
one of Products natural gas processing plants.  

The court-established date for the refiling of the allegations
in the petition was extended until May 17, 2006, and, on such
date, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition against the  
Enogex companies.

Enogex filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on Aug. 2,
2006.  The hearing on the dismissal motion is to be scheduled in
the fourth quarter of 2006.  


GOOGLE INC: Asks Penn. Court to Dismiss Click Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Google, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against
it in August in U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Pennsylvania over alleged click fraud, eWeek
reports.

Plaintiff Samuel Lassoff, a resident of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, filed the suit as a customer of Google's
advertising services, whose account was allegedly exposed to
hundreds of dollars worth of illegitimate click fraud.

He holds Google liable for negligent handling of plaintiffs'
advertising account and for a failure to immediately warn
Plaintiff of their negligence.  It also accused Google of
receiving and retaining money paid by the plaintiff in response
to fraudulent clicks.

The action was brought as a class action on behalf of a
purported class, consisting of Pennsylvania and New Jersey
customers whose advertising accounts were allegedly negligently
handled by defendant between October 2005 through February 2006,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint claims that in December 2005, he received an
invoice regarding his Pay Per Click advertising, where it was
discovered that plaintiff was the victim of hundreds of dollars
worth of fraudulent clicks.

According to him, Google engaged in a scheme to hide its
negligent handling of plaintiffs' advertising account, and that
the company did not warn the plaintiffs of fraudulent clicks or
made any recovery efforts for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Lassoff's complaint alleges claims of breach of contract,
negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices.  
He is seeking relief and judgment:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action  
        and certifying plaintiff as class representative under  
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and  
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly  
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of  
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at  
        trial, including interest thereon;

     -- pre-judgment interest and post judgment interest from  
        the date of entry until the date of satisfaction at the  
        highest rates allowable by law;

     -- punitive and exemplary damages to the extent permitted  
        by law; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs  
        and expenses incurred in this action, including  
        attorneys fees and expert fees, among others.

In recent developments, Google filed a motion to dismiss the
class action, saying the plaintiff is required by his AdWords
contract to file suit in California.  

The motion says Mr. Lassoff's AdWords contract binds
adjudication to Santa Clara County.  It wants the case to be
dismissed without prejudice.

According to the report, if the judge grants Google's request
for dismissal, Mr. Lassoff can choose to refile in California.  
But since he's not licensed to practice in that state, he would
either contract with a lawyer in the state to file for him or
request to appear pro hac vice.

The suit is "Lassoff v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-03542-
MAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Mary A. Mclaughlin.

To contact Mr. Lassoff: Lassoff Law Associates, 1616 Walnut  
Street, Suite 1105 Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-545-4450,  
E-mail: lawfast@aol.com.


H&R BLOCK: Plans Changes to RAL Program, After $39M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc. revealed that it would instigate changes to its
refund anticipation loan program in a bid to make customers
fully understand it and realize their debts could affect their
loan, The Associated Press reports.

The changes comes just two months after a federal judge approved
a $39 million settlement in a protracted class action against
the tax-preparation company by customers who claimed they paid
too much for the loans.

Theses changes include one, where the company will show
customers a chart outlining their options for filing a tax
return, fees and the time it takes to get a refund.

According to the company, the practice would address some
concerns from critics who say the loans take advantage of
financially unsophisticated taxpayers who aren't adequately told
about the high fees.

In a news release, Chief Executive Officer Mark A. Ernst
explains that besides saving their clients money, they're doing
even more to make sure H&R Block customers receive the best
service and disclosures in the industry.

Other changes also include a new "debt-alert" service to let
clients interested in a refund anticipation loan know that
decisions about the loan could be affected by outstanding debt
from a prior tax refund loan or tax preparation fees.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed April 8, 1998.  Plaintiffs in the RAL Cases
alleged, among other things (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12,
2006):  

     -- that disclosures in the RAL applications were
        inadequate, misleading and untimely;  

     -- that the RAL interest rates were usurious and
        unconscionable;  

     -- that the company did not disclose that it would receive
        part of the finance charges paid by the customer for
        such loans;  

     -- that company breached state laws on credit service
        organizations;  

     -- that the company committed a breach of contract, unjust
        enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and
        violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
        Act; and  

     -- that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty
        to its customers in connection with the RAL program.

In Aug., Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a $39
million settlement of a class action over H&R Block's use of
refund anticipation loans (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31,
2006).

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a previous
settlement, saying it was inadequate, and Judge Bucklo rejected
a second version.

H&R Block and a co-defendant, Beneficial National Bank, now part
of London-based HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC), split the $39 million
payment.  Beneficial National funded the loans that were offered
by H&R Block.

The settlement would cover refund anticipation loans that had
been funded by Beneficial National Bank and offered through an
H&R Block office from April 8, 1994 through Dec. 31, 1996.  

Overall, the proposed nationwide settlement would make available
cash payments to approximately 1.7 million class members who
made approximately 2 million individual RAL transactions.  It
also calls for payment of an estimated $850,000 covering six
months of interest.

Representing the plaintiffs is Chicago attorney Ronald Futterman
at Futterman & Howard, Suite 1850, 122 S. Michigan Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-3600, Fax: (312) 427-1850.


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Seeks Dismissal of Md. Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. filed a motion seeking to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the consolidated securities
class action, "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Between June 22, 2004 and July 1, 2004, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the company, four in
the Eastern District of New York and one in the Eastern District
of Virginia:

     -- "Twist Partners v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et
         al., No. 1:04-cv-02585 (filed 06/22/2004, E.D.N.Y);"

     -- "Shapiro v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02681 (filed 06/28/2004, E.D.N.Y.);"

     -- "Imperato v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., No. 1:04-      
         cv-02736 (filed 06/30/2004, E.D.N.Y.);"

     -- "Walters v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02826 (filed 07/01/2004, E.D.N.Y.); and

     -- "Browne v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-715 (filed 06/23/2004, E.D. Va.)."

The complaints asserted that the company's reported revenues
were inflated through certain billing improprieties at one of
the company's facilities.  

Plaintiffs in "Browne" subsequently dismissed their complaint
without prejudice, and the four remaining cases were
consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York as, "In re Hanger Orthopedic
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:04-cv-2585."  

On Feb. 15, 2005, the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The amended complaint asserts that the company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the company's facilities.  

In addition, the amended complaint asserts that the company
violated the federal securities laws in connection with a
restatement announced by the company on Aug. 16, 2004, restating
certain of the company's financial statements during 2001
through the first quarter of 2004.  

The amended complaint purports to allege violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by certain of the company's executives as
"controlling persons" of the company.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the consolidated securities class action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.  

On June 12, 2006, a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed against the company in the District of
Maryland, "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW."

The Second Amended Complaint asserts that the company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the company's facilities.

In addition, the Second Amended Complaint asserts that the
company violated the federal securities laws in connection with
a restatement announced by the company on Aug. 16, 2004,
restating certain of the company's financial statements during
2001 through the first quarter of 2004.

The Second Amended Complaint purports to allege violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the company's
executives as "controlling persons" of the company.

On Sept. 1, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on
Oct. 20, 2006, and the company's reply is due to be filed on or
before Nov. 29, 2006.

The suit is "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00579-AW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge
Alexander Williams, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, LLP, 58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax:
         16313671173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) John Bucher Isbister of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP, 100
         E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com.  

Representing the company is James Christian Word of Latham and
Watkins, LLP, 11955 Freedom Dr., Ste. 500, Reston, VA 20190,
Phone: 17034565226, Fax: 17034591001, E-mail:
christian.word@lw.com.


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

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

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

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

For more information on the suit, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com,
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


MERRILL LYNCH: Racial Bias Suit Names 16 Additional Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit filed against Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois filed a second amended complaint, naming 16
current and former African-American employees as additional
defendants, AFX reports.

George McReynolds, who alleges that the company discriminated
against African-Americans in hiring, promoting and compensating
employees, originally filed the suit back in 2005.  

"Merrill Lynch's discriminatory treatment of African-Americans
is evidenced in part by the low representation and high
attrition rates of African-Americans," the suit states,
according to the report.  

An amended suit in July stated that Merrill had no African-
American brokers in about 25 states when the original case was
filed, and for the past seven years, 755 of Merrill's black
broker trainees were forced to leave the firm before completing
the program because of discrimination.

The additional defendants include broker trainees and financial
advisers.  They have yet to seek class-action status, but they
intend to eventually, the report said.

The suit is "McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-06583," filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District Court of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman with
referral to Judge Morton Denlow.

Representing the plaintiffs are Linda Debra Friedman and Mary
Stowell of Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., 321 South Plymouth Court,
Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 312-431-0888, E-mail:
lfriedman@sfltd.com and mstowell@sfltd.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Joseph S. Allerhand of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, US, Phone: (212) 310-
         8725; and

     (2) Kim Ann Leffert of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP, 71
         South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)
         782-0600, E-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrownrowe.com.


MOTOROLA INC: April 17 Trial Set for Consolidated Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An April 17, 2007 trial date was slated for one of the cases in
the consolidated securities fraud class action against Motorola,
Inc., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

"Barry Family LP v. Carl F. Koenemann," was filed against the
former chief financial officer of Motorola on Dec. 24, 2002 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5.  

It has been consolidated with a number of related cases as "In
re Motorola Securities Litigation" and certified as a class
action by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  

The case is currently scheduled for trial beginning April 17,
2007, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case No. 03
C 00287," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert C. Finkel, James A. Harrod and Lester Levy of
         Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 759-4600 and (877) 370-7703, Fax: (212)
         486-2093 and (877) 370-7704; and

     (2) Bruce D. Greenberg of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, &
         Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ
         07102, Phone: (973) 623-3000.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Timothy F. Haley, Ian H. Morrison and Camille Annette
         Olson of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 55 East Monroe Street,
         Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-4205, Phone: (312) 346-
         8000, E-mail: thaley@seyfarth.com,
         imorrison@seyfarth.com and colson@seyfarth.com; and

    (ii) Emily M. Pasquinelli of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202)
         942-5000.


MOTOROLA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denied Motion in Ill. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in the purported class action, "Howell v. Motorola,
Inc., et al.," is appealing a ruling that denied a motion
seeking to add a new lead plaintiff to the case.

The suit was filed against Motorola and several of its officers
and employees in the Illinois District Court on July 21, 2003,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in Motorola's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(Plan) to purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola
because the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated
by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. in connection with the sale of
telecommunications equipment by Motorola.  

Plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.

In addition, on Oct. 19, 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a
motion seeking to add a new lead plaintiff and assert the same
claims set forth in the Howell complaint.  

On Aug. 11, 2006, the court denied the motion, finding the
second purported plaintiff lacked standing to sue.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal.

The suit is styled, "Howell v. Koenemann, et al., Case No. 1:03-
cv-05044," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer with
referral to Judge Nan R. Nolan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull & Brody, Six East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, E-
         mail: ssbny@aol.com; and

     (2) Robert D. Allison of Robert D. Allison & Associates,
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850, Chicago, IL 60603,
         Phone: 427-4500, E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael A. Warner of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe
         Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312)
         346-8000; and

    (ii) Sarah Kotler of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth Street,
         N.W. Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202) 942-5000.


NORTHERN STATES: Minn. Court Hears Motion to Dismiss "Hoffman"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota state district court in Hennepin County heard on
Aug. 16, 2006, a motion to dismiss a purported consumer class
action, "Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.," which was filed
against Northern States Power Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Xcel Energy, Inc.

Filed on Mar. 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North Dakota
and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual obligation
to maintain and inspect the points of connection between NSP-
Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the meter box.

Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an increased
risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on file with
the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  

They thus seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal
to the value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was
required to perform over the past six years.  

NSP-Minnesota has filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings,
which was heard on Aug. 16, 2006, according to Xcel Energy,
Inc.'s Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. (NYSE: XEL) --
http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a holding company engaged in  
the utility business in the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries, it
is engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission,
distribution and sale of electricity.  Xcel Energy is also
involved in the purchase, transportation, distribution and sale
of natural gas.


NUTRAQUEST INC: $20.4M Suit Settlement OK'd Under Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown approved on Nov. 3
Nutraquest, Inc.'s reorganization plan that authorizes a $20.4
million settlement of two class actions against the company,
formerly known as Cytodyne Technologies, Inc.

According to The Star-Ledger, only about $9 million will be paid
because just a small number of consumers filed the necessary
claims forms.  The class action alleges false advertising
regarding the company's ephedra-based weight loss supplement.

The plan is still dependent on the approval of a settlement with
the Federal Trade Commission.

Headquartered in Manasquan, New Jersey, Nutraquest, Inc., is the
marketer of the ephedra-based weight loss supplement, Xenadrine
RFA-1.  The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on October
16, 2003 (Bankr. N.J. Case No. 03-44147).  

When the company filed for protection from its creditors, it
listed estimated assets of $10 million to $50 million and
estimated debts of $50 million to $100 million.

The suit is "Bechler v. Cytodyne Technologies, Inc. et al., Case  
No. 3:04-cv-01130-GEB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Garrett E. Brown.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Steven I. Adler Cole, Schotz,  
Meisel, Forman & Leonart, PA, 25 Main Street, PO Box 800,  
Hackensack, NJ, 07602-0800, Phone: (201) 489-3000, E-mail:  
sadler@coleschotz.com

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Anthony M. Gruspo of Gibbons, del Deo Dolan,  
         Griffinger, Vecchione, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ  
         07102-5496, Phone: (973) 596-4500, E-mail:  
         agruppuso@gibbonslaw.com;  

     (2) Thomas Kane of Dechert LLP, Princeton Pike Corporate  
         Center, P.O. Box 5218, Princeton, NJ 08543-5218, Phone:  
         (609) 620-3200, E-mail: thomas.kane@dechert.com;  

     (3) Simon Kimmelman of Sterns & Weinwroth, PC, 50 West  
         State Street, Suite 1400, P.O. BOX 1298 Trenton, NJ  
         08607-1298, Phone: (609) 392-2100, Fax: (609) 393-7956,  
         E-mail: skimmelman@sternslaw.com;  

     (4) Michelle Hart Yeary of Dechert LLP, P.O. BOX 5218  
         Princeton, NJ 08543-5218, Phone: (609) 620-3200, E-
         mail: michelle.yeary@dechert.com.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Customers File Lawsuit Over Electric Bill Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. is facing a class action filed by
customers questioning sales tax and franchise fee charges in the
company's electric bills.

On June 19, 2006, two OG&E customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on OG&E's electric bills.

The plaintiffs claim that OG&E improperly charged sales tax
based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.  The
plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges,
contending that such fees are more than is allowed under
Oklahoma law.  


PDI INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
with prejudice the third consolidated and amended class action
complaint against the PDI, Inc., its former chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer.

The court issued an opinion and order dismissing with prejudice
all claims asserted in the third amended complaint against all
defendants and denied plaintiffs request to amend the complaint.

In January and February 2002, three complaints that were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class
actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.

On May 23, 2002, the court consolidated all three lawsuits into
a single action as, "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File
No. 02-CV-0211," and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  

On or about Dec. 13, 2002, lead plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated and amended complaint, which superseded their
earlier complaints.

In February 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated and amended complaint.  On or about Aug. 22,
2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed the second consolidated and amended complaint without
prejudice to plaintiffs.

On Oct. 21, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a third consolidated and
amended complaint.  Like its predecessor, the third consolidated
and amended complaint:

     -- names the company, its former chief executive officer
        and its chief financial officer as defendants;

     -- purports to state claims against the company on behalf
        of all persons who purchased its common stock between
        May 22, 2001 and Aug. 12, 2002; and

     -- seeks money damages in unspecified amounts and
        litigation expenses including attorneys' and experts'
        fees.

The essence of the allegations in the third consolidated and
amended complaint is that the company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning the company's financial condition and
prospects with respect to it's marketing of Ceftin in connection
with:

      -- the October 2000 distribution agreement with
         GlaxoSmithKline;

      -- the company's marketing of Lotensin in connection with
         the May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis; as
         well as

      -- its marketing of Evista in connection with the October
         2001 distribution agreement with Eli Lilly and company.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
third consolidated and amended complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  

On Feb. 24, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law
in opposition of the motion to dismiss the third consolidated
and amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).

On Nov. 2, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed with prejudice the third consolidated and
amended class action complaint.

The suit is "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File No. 02-
CV-0211," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose L. Linares, with
referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph
DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg And Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway
Center, 12TH Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Alan S. Naar of Greenbaum, Rowe,
Smith & Davis, Metro Corporate Campus one, P.O. Box 5600,
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0988, Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail:
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com.


QUOVADX INC: Court Mulls Summary Judgment Motion in "Henderson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
rule on a second motion for partial summary judgment by
plaintiffs in "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc."

On May 17, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging
violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all former
shareholders of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. who acquired the
company's common stock in connection with the company's exchange
offer effective Dec. 19, 2003.  

The claims are based upon the same theories and allegations as
asserted in the Section 10(b) class action, "Heller v. Quovadx,
et al."

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to consolidate this
Section 11 action with the Section 10(b) cases and authorized
the two competing lead plaintiff candidates to take discovery of
each other in advance of a hearing on the appointment of lead
plaintiff.  

On July 14, 2004, the company and outside director defendants
filed an answer to the complaint, denying allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses.  

On Sept. 8, 2004, the court directed the plaintiff to publish
new notice of pendency of this action inviting potential class
members to submit motions for appointment as lead plaintiff.  

On Oct. 4, 2004, the company's former chief executive and chief
financial officer filed an answer to the complaint, denying
allegations of wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative
defenses.

On June 29, 2005, the court ordered the appointment of Special
Situations Fund as lead plaintiff.  On July 26, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion for
appointment of lead counsel.  

The amended complaint asserts the same claims as those asserted
in the original complaint, and includes an additional allegation
that the Infotech revenue was falsely recognized as part of a
fraud to inflate the company's stock price for the Rogue Wave
acquisition.  

In August 2005, the court approved the appointment of Special
Situations Fund's counsel as lead plaintiffs' counsel and the
Company and the various independent defendants filed answers to
the amended complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting various affirmative defenses.

On Dec. 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of liability under Section 11, which
defendants did not oppose, conceding that the subsequently
restated third quarter 2003 financial statements incorporated by
reference in the registration statement filed by the company to
register the issuance of Quovadx shares to former stockholders
of Rogue Wave Software established prima facie misstatement
liability for the company to the plaintiff class under Section
11.

      No Ruling Yet on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

On Dec. 23, 2005, plaintiffs moved to dismiss without prejudice
the individual defendants.  On May 30, 2006, the court dismissed
without prejudice the claims against the individual defendants,
leaving the company as the sole remaining defendant in the
litigation.  

Although the company has admitted liability with respect to
affirmative misstatements in the registration statement,
plaintiffs filed a second motion for partial summary judgment on
May 26, 2006, seeking a separate finding of liability against
the company for alleged material omissions from the registration
statement.

The company opposed this second motion, in a response filed July
24, 2006.  On June 29, 2006, the "Notice of Class Action
Lawsuit, Dismissal of Individual Defendants and Request for
Information to Class Members" was mailed to class members.  

The purpose of the request for information was to obtain from
class members information that will assist the court in
determining the proper amount of damages, if any, for which the
company may be liable.

Pursuant to the court's order, class members had until August
28, 2006, to respond to the request for information or to
request exclusion from the class.  No class member has requested
to be excluded from the class.  

On Oct. 23, 2006, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs' second
motion for partial summary judgment.  The court has taken
plaintiffs' motion under advisement and has not yet issued any
ruling on the motion.  

Plaintiffs have indicated they intend to seek leave from the
court to amend their complaint to add Section 10(b) claims.

The parties have not yet completed their experts' analysis and
discovery on issues regarding damages and causation, nor has the
newly raised issue of plaintiff's potential assertion of Section
(10) claims been submitted to the court for resolution.  

As a result, it is not yet possible for the company to
reasonably estimate the amount of damages the class members
could ultimately recover in the Special Situations Fund case.  

                     Preliminary Settlement

As part of preliminary settlement negotiations, on March 16,
2006, the company made a formal offer to the plaintiffs to
settle the case for $3,300,000.  The plaintiffs demand at that
time was $13,500,000.  Since then, there have been no further
settlement discussions.  

The company continues to believe that, if settlement
negotiations were to resume, $3,300,000 represents a reasonable
estimate of the company's minimum liability on plaintiffs'
Section 11 claims and accrued this amount as an expense in the
first quarter of 2006.

The company's liability in a negotiated settlement could
materially exceed that amount.  

                      Settlement with SEC

On Sept. 29, 2006, the company offered to enter into a
settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to
settle the formal SEC investigation initiated April 12, 2004
pursuant to an "Order Directing Private Investigation and
Designating Officers to Take Testimony."

The proposed settlement would not involve any financial penalty.  
The settlement is subject to approval by the SEC.  The company's
understanding is that the Staff of the Enforcement Division
intends to recommend to the SEC that the proposed settlement be
approved.  

The settlement relates to a SEC investigation into transactions
entered into during the third quarter of 2002 and transactions
entered into during 2003 including two distributor contracts
totaling approximately $1 million and transactions between
Quovadx and Infotech.

The suit is "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-
cv-01006-RPM," filed in the United States District Court in
Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Marcela A. Kirberger and Gavin
J. Rooney of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue,
Roseland, N.J. 07068, U.S.A, Phone: 973-597-2450, Fax: 973-597-
2451, E-mail: mkirberger@lowenstein.com, grooney@lowenstein.com.

Representing the company are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam
Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC,
455 Sherman Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-777-7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:
jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com.  


QUOVADX INC: Awaits Final Court Approval of IPO Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to the settlement by Quovadx,
Inc. of claims against it in the "Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

On November 14, 2001, a stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.  

The amended complaint asserts that the prospectus for the
company's Feb. 10, 2000 initial public offering failed to
disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of shares in the
company's IPO.

The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, the company and certain officers and directors
under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended and the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Bartula v.
XCare.net, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-10075).

Similar complaints were filed concerning more than 300 other
IPO's; all of these cases have been coordinated as, "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

In a negotiated agreement, individual defendants, including all
of the individuals named in the complaint filed against the
company, were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling
agreement.  

Issuer and underwriter defendants in these cases filed motions
to dismiss and, on February 19, 2003, the court issued an
opinion and order on those motions that dismissed selected
claims against certain defendants, including the Rule 10b-5
fraud claims under the Exchange Act against the Company, leaving
only the Section 11 strict liability claims under the Securities
Act against the company.

A committee of the company's board of directors has approved a
settlement proposal made by the plaintiffs.  On Feb. 15, 2005,
the court issued an order granting conditional preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On Aug. 31, 2005, the court entered
an order confirming its preliminary approval of the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement,
but has not yet issued a ruling on the motion for final approval
at the fairness hearing.  

The settlement remains subject to a number of conditions,
including final approval of the court, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30.

Specifically, under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for
a $1 billion guaranteed recovery to be divided pro rata by
participating issuer defendants and an assignment of claims that
the issuer defendants may have against the underwriter
defendants, the plaintiffs would dismiss with prejudice and
release their claims against the issuer defendants, including
the company.  The company's director and officer insurance
policy covering these claims is expected to be sufficient to
cover any share of the recovery that is ultimately allocated to
the company.


QUOVADX INC: Reaches $9M Settlement for "Heller" Suit in Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit, "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-00665-RPM" reached a modified agreement in principle to
settle the suit for $9.0 million.

On Mar. 18, 2004, a purported class action complaint "Smith v.
Quovadx, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-M-0509," was filed against
the company its former chief executive officer and its former
chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section  
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Quovadx
common stock from Oct. 22, 2003 through Mar. 15, 2004.  The
claims were based upon allegations the company:  

      -- purportedly overstated its net income and earnings per  
         share during the class period;  

      -- purportedly recognized revenue from contracts between  
         the company and Infotech Networks Group (Infotech)  
         prematurely; and  

      -- purportedly lacked adequate internal controls and was  
         therefore unable to ascertain the financial condition  
         of the company.  

The action sought damages against the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  Thereafter, eight additional, nearly
identical class action complaints were filed in the same court
based on the same facts and allegations.  

Subsequently, all but one of the actions, entitled, "Heller v.
Quovadx, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-M-0665 (OES) (D. Colo.)," was
dismissed.  

On June 10, 2004, the plaintiff in the Heller case filed a first
amended complaint, which asserts the same claims as those
asserted in the original complaint, and includes allegations
regarding the company's accounting for certain additional
transactions.  On Sept. 8, 2004, the court approved the
appointment of David Heller as lead plaintiff.   

On Sept. 29, 2004, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss the first amended complaint and approved the appointment
of Mr. Heller's counsel as lead plaintiff's counsel.  

On Oct. 14, 2004, the company and the other defendants filed
answers to the first amended complaint, denying allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses.  

On April 12, 2005, the court issued an order certifying as a
class all persons (except insiders) who purchased or otherwise
acquired Quovadx stock on the open market between Oct. 22, 2003
and Mar. 15, 2004.  On Jan. 13, 2005, the court entered a
scheduling order in the case.   

In November 2005, the court vacated the Jan. 13, 2005 scheduling
order, in anticipation that the court would enter a coordinated
scheduling order in conjunction with a scheduling order in
"Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al. v. Quovadx, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01006-RPM."  A scheduling conference was
held on Feb. 24, 2006, at which the court further delayed
scheduling for thirty days to allow the parties time to complete
settlement negotiations.  No trial date has been set.  
  
On Dec. 13 and 14, 2005, a voluntary mediation was held among
plaintiffs in each of the Heller, Special Situations Fund and
derivative cases; the company; the individual director
defendants; the former officer defendants; and the various
director and officer insurance carriers.  

As a result of the mediation and subsequent discussions, the
parties reached a preliminary understanding to settle the Heller
case and the derivative cases.   

Additionally, the company reached an understanding with the
director and officer insurance carriers for a settlement under
the applicable policies.  

These understandings, including the understanding with the
insurance carriers and the former officers, were contingent on
material agreements among the parties, which were not achieved
until late in March 2006.  

Final agreements among the various parties ultimately were
reached and the Memorandum of Understanding documenting the
settlement with the plaintiffs in the Heller case was executed
as of Apr. 4, 2006.

Under the terms of the settlement MOU, the plaintiffs will
receive $10.0 million in exchange for their release of the
company and the individual defendants, with prejudice, of all
claims under Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.   

As of Mar. 31, 2006, the company accrued $3.0 million as a
settlement expense.  In April the company paid that sum, and its
insurance carriers paid $7.0 million, into a settlement fund
established by the lead plaintiff's counsel.

On July 25, 2006, the parties executed the stipulation of
settlement, which was submitted to the court for preliminary
approval.

The agreement excluded claims made under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act, which have been brought in another class
action lawsuit, the Special Situations Fund lawsuit, which also
arose out of the company's 2004 restatement of financial results
and is still pending.  

The agreement purported to include any claims under Section
10(b) that the Special Situations Fund class plaintiffs might
have.

        Refusal and Modification of Proposed Settlement

On Oct. 11, 2006, the court denied approval of the Heller
settlement agreement on the grounds that the proposed settlement
purported to settle claims on behalf of a settlement class that
is broader than the class that was certified by the court for
trial purposes -- namely, the inclusion of the Special
Situations Fund class plaintiffs to the extent of their Section
10(b) claims.

The parties in the Heller case have subsequently reached a
modified agreement in principle in which the settlement class
members would receive $9.0 million in exchange for the release,
with prejudice, of their claims against the company and the
individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

This modified agreement would exclude all potential claims by
the Special Situations Fund class plaintiffs.  When finalized,
the amended stipulation of settlement will be submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  

In a related agreement, the Heller plaintiffs have
unconditionally returned $1 million to the company from the
settlement fund as an excess payment under the modified
settlement agreement.  

As a result of this refund, the company recorded this $1 million
recovery in the third quarter financial statements and reduced
its previously recorded settlement accrual of $3 million to $2
million.

It is not possible at this time to know whether the court will
approve the modified settlement agreement, when finalized and
submitted.

The suit is "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00665-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Dennis Jeremy Herman, Jeffrey W. Lawrence and Ex Kano
         S. Sams of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP-SF CA, 100 Pine Street #2600, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111, U.S.A, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:  
         415-288-4534, E-mail: dherman@lerachlaw.com,  
         jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com, exkanos@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th  
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:  
         KShuman@DyerShuman.com.  

Representing the company are:  

     (i) John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam Philip Stapen of Dill,  
         Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC, 455 Sherman  
         Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-
         7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:  
         jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com;   
         and

    (ii) John Peter Stigi, III of Sheppard Mullin Richter &  
         Hampton, LLP, 333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor, Los  
         Angeles, CA 90071-1448, U.S.A, Phone: 213-620-1780,  
         Fax: 213-620-1398, E-mail: jstigi@sheppardmullin.com.


RC2 BRANDS: Recalls 275T Toy Keys Over Possible Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
RC2 Brands, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 275,000 "Learning Curve" and "The
First Years" toy keys, a ConsumerAffairs.com report said.

The company said the colored top portion of the keys can crack,
resulting in the release of small parts, which poses a choking
hazard to young children.  RC2 has received four reports of
cracking. No injuries have been reported.

"Shake "n Jingle Keys," "Shake & Jingle Keys," "My Jingle Keys"
all by The First Years and the John Deere "Real Keys" are toy
keys, with three colored keys attached to a blue, red or green
remote control with electronic features.  Various colored
buttons on the remote activate sounds.

Only toy keys with the letter "F" in the date code stamp listed
between date codes 2015F01 through 2636F04 on the packaging and
product are involved in the recall.  The date code can be found
on the back of the remote control.  Toy keys with "TE" in the
date code or yellow sides on the remote are not included in this
recall.

The keys were sold at department stores and independent toy
stores nationwide from August 2005 through October 2006 for
about $6.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled toy keys
immediately and contact RC2 for a free replacement toy.

For additional information, contact RC2 at (800) 704-8697
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
Learning Curve's Web site: http://www.learningcurve.com.


SAXON CAPITAL: Settles Ill. Suit Over FCRA Violations for $0.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action "Cechini, et al., v. America's
MoneyLine, Inc.," which alleges violations of Fair Credit
Reporting Act, reached an agreement to settle the suit for $0.5
million.

The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, as Case No. 05C 4570.

The plaintiff filed the case as a class action, alleging
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with
the use of pre-approved offers of credit by America's MoneyLine,
Inc., our former subsidiary, which was merged with Saxon
Mortgage, Inc., a company subsidiary, effective Jan. 1, 2006.

Saxon Mortgage, Inc. is successor in interest to the defendant.
On June 19, 2006, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this case, pending the court's approval.  

The settlement requires the defendant to create a settlement
fund for approximately $0.5 million.  The claims of settlement
class members and plaintiff's attorney's fees will be paid out
of the fund.  

On Aug. 30, 2006, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and a final fairness hearing is scheduled for Feb.
13, 2007.  The estimate of possible loss for this matter in the
amount of $0.5 million was accrued for in June 2006.

The suit is "Cechini v. America's Moneyline, Inc., Case No.  
1:05-cv-04570," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman and James O.  
Latturner of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South  
LaSalle Street, Phone: 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:  
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com and  
jlatturner@edcombs.com.  

Representing the defendants are David Luther Hartsell and  
Kristin Henrichs Sculli of McGuireWoods, LLP, 77 West Wacker  
Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60601-7567, Phone: (312) 849-
8100, E-mail: dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com and  
ksculli@mcguirewoods.com.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Continues to Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services, a subsidiary of Saxon Capital Inc.,
remain a defendant in the suit "Brian Harris, et al., v. Capital
Mortgage Company, et al.," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, County Department-Chancery Division, Illinois as Case
No. 05CH 22369.

Saxon Mortgage Services was served with a summons and complaint
on March 1, 2006.  The plaintiffs included a class action claim,
alleging, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
that our subsidiary Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and other
named defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act in connection with
originating and servicing the plaintiffs' loans.

Plaintiffs seek certification as a class and a judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs for money damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  There were no
significant developments in this matter during the quarter ended
September 30, 2006.


SAXON MORTGAGE: La. Court Remands Suit Over Mortgage Loan Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana court proceedings in the class action,
"Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.," which names the
subsidiary of Saxon Capital Inc., Saxon Mortgage Services, as
defendant.

"Bauer, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. is a
matter filed on December 1, 2004 in the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Case No. 2004-17015.

On Jan. 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the
case without prejudice, and the court entered an order
dismissing the case on Jan. 31, 2005.  

On Feb. 17, 2005, the plaintiffs re-filed the case as two
separate class action lawsuits:

     -- "Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.," filed as Case
        No. 05-2173 in the Civil District Court for the Parish
        of Orleans, State of Louisiana; and

     -- "Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.," filed as
        Case No. 05-2174 in the Civil District Court for the
        Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

In the Bauer case, Saxon Capital Inc. is not a named defendant
but may owe defense and indemnification to Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, N.A., as custodian of a mortgage loan for
which one named plaintiff is mortgagor.  Saxon Capital's
subsidiary, Saxon Mortgage Services, is a named defendant in the
Patterson case.

In both cases, the named plaintiffs allege misrepresentation,
fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment on the part of the
lender defendants and a law firm hired by a number of
defendants, including Saxon Mortgage Services, to enforce
mortgage loan obligations against borrowers who had become
delinquent pursuant to the terms of their mortgage loan
documents.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the law firm quoted
inflated court costs and sheriff's fees on reinstatement
proposals to the plaintiffs.  In both cases, the plaintiffs seek
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and other
unspecified general, special and equitable relief.  

On Jan. 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted Saxon Capital's motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the court proceedings as to named
plaintiffs Keenan and Karen Duckworth in "Bauer, et al., v. Dean
Morris, et al., filed as Case No. 05-2173" in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

On Jan. 25, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted Saxon Capital's motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the court proceedings as to named
plaintiff Debra Herron in "Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et
al., filed as Case No. 05-2174" in the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

The court subsequently remanded the underlying court proceedings
in both the Bauer and Patterson cases to the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.  There were
no significant developments in this matter during the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Ohio Court Stays Suit Over Loans Servicing
----------------------------------------------------------
The Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County, Ohio stayed the
court proceedings in the suit, "Jumar Hooks and Diane Felder, et
al., v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc."

The case was filed on Oct. 12, 2005, as Case No. CV 05-574577.
Plaintiffs filed it as a class action on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated Ohio borrowers, alleging that Saxon
Mortgage, a subsidiary of Saxon Capital Inc., engaged in
unlawful practices in originating and servicing the plaintiffs'
loans.  

Plaintiffs seek certification as a class and a judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs for money damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  

During the second quarter of 2006, the court granted the
company's motion to compel individual arbitration as to each of
the two named plaintiffs and stayed the court proceedings with
no class having been certified.  There were no significant
developments in this matter during the quarter ended September
30, 2006.


SEITEL INC: Tex. Appeals Court Mulls Dismissal of "Villarreal"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the joint
motion for dismissal of the class action filed against Seitel,
Inc. and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd. in the class action,
"Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al., Cause
No. DC-00-214."

The suit, filed in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas on Apr. 1, 2002, alleges geophysical trespass.  The
plaintiffs alleged that certain defendants conducted
unauthorized 3-D seismic exploration of the mineral interests by
obtaining seismic data on adjoining property, and sold the
information obtained to other defendants.  Plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants obtained summary judgments dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the San
Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.

During the pendency of the company's bankruptcy proceedings, the
San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision
as to the company's co-defendants and stayed the appeal as to
the Company.

The Texas Supreme Court denied plaintiffs Petition for
Certiorari, refusing to hear the matter.  The plaintiffs filed
an unspecified unliquidated claim in the Chapter 11 cases.  The
company objected to this claim, which was withdrawn by order of
the Bankruptcy Court on Jun. 29, 2005.

This June 2005 order includes the plaintiffs' agreement to
dismiss their appeal.  The parties' joint motion for dismissal
with the San Antonio Court of Appeals is pending, according to
the company's Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Facing Fraud Lawsuits in N.C., S.C., Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential
plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products sold in
the finance and insurance departments were done so in a
deceptive or otherwise illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of
its South Carolina subsidiaries.  

The company said at its form 10-Q regulatory filing for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006 that it has been advised that the
plaintiffs' attorneys in this South Carolina private civil
action intend to file private civil class actions against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in other
states.

This group of plaintiffs' attorneys has filed another one of
these private civil class action lawsuits in state court in
North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-state class of
plaintiffs.  

The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina
state court action have since been consolidated into a single
proceeding in private arbitration.

Another one of these private civil actions has been filed in
Tennessee state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and one of
our Tennessee subsidiaries.  

Additionally, a private civil action has also been filed against
one of our dealerships in Los Angeles County stating allegations
of deceptive sales practices by that dealership.  

Plaintiffs in this private civil action purport to represent a
class of customers as potential plaintiffs, although no motion
for class certification has been filed.


XCEL ENERGY: "Ever-Bloom" Suit Stayed, Awaits 9th Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc., reports that the litigation, "Ever-Bloom,
Inc., et al. v. AEP Energy Services, Inc., et al.," has been
stayed, pending the outcome of cases on appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 21, 2005, Ever-Bloom, Inc., filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The lawsuit names as defendants, among others, Xcel Energy and e
prime.  Filed on behalf of a purported class of gas purchasers,
the suit alleges that defendants falsely reported natural gas
trades to market trade publications in an effort to artificially
raise natural gas prices in California, purportedly in violation
of the Sherman Act.  

The matter has been stayed pending the outcome of cases on
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the
firm's Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Ever-Bloom, Inc., et al. v. AEP Energy Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00814-AWI-DLB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California under
Judge Anthony W. Ishii with referral Judge Dennis L. Beck.

Representing the plaintiffs is Dennis Stewart of Hulett Harper
Stewar, LLP, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619338-1133, Fax: 619338-1139, E-mail:
office@hulettharper.com.


XCEL ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Suit in Kans., No Discovery Yet
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has denied a
motion that seeks to remand the class action, "Learjet, Inc. v.
e prime and Xcel Energy et al.," back to state court, according
to Xcel Energy, Inc.'s Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

On Nov. 4, 2005, the suit was filed in state court for Wyandotte
County of Kansas on behalf of all natural gas producers in
Kansas.  

The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Inc., Xcel Energy, Inc. and
other named defendants conspired to raise the market price of
natural gas in Kansas by, among other things, inaccurately
reporting price and volume information to the market trade
publications.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the defendants removed this matter to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.  Plaintiffs have
filed a motion for remand, which was denied on Aug. 3, 2006.  

Plaintiffs in this matter have moved the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for a separate MDL docket to be set up
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The suit is styled, "Learjet, Inc., et al v. ONEOK, Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in the U.S. District of
District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to
Judge James P. O'Hara.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jennifer Gille Bacon of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC,
         Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Kansas
         City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax: 816-374-0509,
         E-mail: jbacon@stklaw.com; and

     (2) Donald D. Barry of Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., 5340 West
         17th Street, P.O. Box 4816, Topeka, KS 66604, Phone:
         785-273-3153, Fax: 785-273-3159, E-mail:
         dbarry@inlandnet.net.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IKANOS COMMS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, announces that a
securities class action was filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Ikanos
Communications, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering (IPO) that took place on Sept. 22, 2005
or its secondary public offering on March 8, 2006.  The class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market relating to the IPO and the
secondary public offering, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Ikanos.

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.

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


IKANOS COMMS: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Ikanos Communications, Inc.
pursuant and or traceable to the company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus for its initial public offering on
Sept. 22, 2005, (IPO) or its secondary public offering
(Secondary Offering) on March 8, 2006, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The lawsuit -- which was filed against Ikanos and certain
officers, directors and underwriters -- alleges that defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statements and Prospectuses issued in connection with the
company's IPO and Secondary contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made therein not misleading.

In particular, the company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses contained representations that its business had
grown due to positive deployments in Japan.

However, as alleged in the complaint, the deployments in Japan
had grown because Ikanos had shipped excessive product to
Japanese customers in excess of their needs.

On Oct. 4, 2006, Ikanos announced preliminary third quarter
revenue results and stated that revenues would be $4 million to
$6 million lower than expected and that fourth quarter results
would be adversely affected by carriers in Japan currently
working through their existing equipment levels.

In reaction to this news, shares of Ikanos fell to $7.76 per
share, a one-day drop of 32.8%.

For more information on the suit, contact Brian Penny, Esq. of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 668-4130.


IKANOS COMMS: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., announces the filing
of a lawsuit seeking class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Ikanos
Communications, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus for its initial public
offering on Sept. 22, 2005, (IPO) or its secondary public
offering (Secondary Offering) on March 8, 2006.

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

The Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in
connection with the IPO and Secondary Offering were negligently
prepared and included representations that the company's
business had grown due to successful deployments in Japan.

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 October 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.

For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A.
Kulesa both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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  * * *