CAR_Public/061113.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 13, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 225

                            Headlines

AVISTA CORP: Class Certification Sought in Wash. Securities Suit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: New Securities Suit Representative Named
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Injunction Sought in Crop Contamination Suit
BELLSOUTH CORP: Certification of Ala. Race Bias Case Appealed
BELLSOUTH CORP: Court Okays Writ of Certiorari for "Twombly"

BOSTON SALADS: Recalls Cole Slaw Salad for Possible Health Risk
CINCINNATI SMSA: Ohio Consumer Lawsuit to Go into Discovery
CMS ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Nev. Natural Gas Rulings
CMS ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Calif. Natural Gas Orders
CMS ENERGY: CMS MST Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Suits for $7M

CMS ENERGY: Kan. Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand "Oneok"
CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs in "Oneok" Want to Remand Case to Col.
CMS ENERGY: ACTS Purchasers File Suit After Exclusion in Class
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Dec. 7 Hearing Set for Attorneys Fee Row
ENTERGY NEW: Gordon, Lowenburg Reps. Oppose Disclosure Statement

EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Ga. Court Denies Parties' Motions in CROA Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status for Standfacts' Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Ala. Court Dismisses FCRA Violations Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Discovery Begins in CROA Violations Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Ex-Mercury Workers Plan Suits Over Options

IKANOS COMMS: Faces Investor Litigation in N.Y. Over 2005 IPO
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Ore. Court Approves $19M FCRA Suit Settlement
OCEAN COLONY: Offers Carts to Settle Disabled Players' Lawsuit
OMAHA BEEF: Recalls Ground Beef Over E. coli Contamination
POZEN INC: Class Certification Sought in N.C. Securities Lawsuit

PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Car Loan Discrimination Case in Tenn.
REPUBLIC OF SUDAN: Faces $105M Lawsuit Over U.S.S. Cole Incident
SEARS OPTICAL: Settles Consumer Fraud Litigation in Va. Over BPP
SNAP-ON TOOLS: N.J. Court to Resolve Dispute Over $13M Legal Fee
TENFOLD CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement

WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Cardigans Posing Strangulation Hazard


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

WARNER CHILCOTT: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********


AVISTA CORP: Class Certification Sought in Wash. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities complaint filed against
Avista Corp. in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington filed a motion for class certification.  

Several class action complaints were filed in September through
November 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against:

     -- the company,

     -- Thomas M.  Matthews, former chairman of the board,
        president and chief executive officer;

     -- Gary G. Ely, current chairman of the board and chief
        executive officer; and

     -- Jon E. Eliassen, former senior vice president and chief
        financial officer.  

In February 2003, the court issued an order, which consolidated
the complaints and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.  

On June 13, 2005, the company filed a motion for reconsideration
of its earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part,
on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to the
pleading requirements surrounding a sufficient showing of loss
causation.  

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss this complaint.  The order to dismiss was issued without
prejudice, which allowed the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.  

On Nov. 10, 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed.  
It alleges approximately $2.6 billion in damages due to the
decrease in the total market value of the company's common stock
during the class period.   

These alleged losses stemmed from violations of federal
securities laws through alleged misstatements and omissions of
material facts with respect to the company's energy trading
practices in western power markets.  

Plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions
regarding these matters were made in the company's filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other
information made publicly available by the company, including
press releases.  

The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 23, 1999 and
Aug. 13, 2002.  

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss an
amended class action complaint asserting deficiencies in it,
including that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss
causation.  

On June 2, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The U.S. District
Court's order denying the company's motion to dismiss is not a
decision on the merits of the lawsuit and the matter will
proceed in the normal course of litigation and a trial date is
currently scheduled for Nov. 13, 2007.

On Sept. 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  

The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington under Judge Robert  
H. Whaley.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randi D. Bandman and Michael Reese, Milberg Weiss  
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - CA(SF), 100 Pine Street,  
         Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111;   

     (2) Karl P Barth, Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP, 1420 Fifth  
         Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (425)  
         452-9800, Fax: (425) 452-9801, E-mail:  
         kbarth@lmbllp.com; and   

     (3) Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP  
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,  
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 12066230594, E-mail:  
         steve@hbsslaw.com.  

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Curt Roy Hineline, David M. Jacobson and Evan L.  
         Schwab, Dorsey & Whitney LLP - SEA, U S Bank Center,  
         1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:  
         206-903-8800, Fax: 206-903-8820, E-mail:  
         jacobson.david@dorsey.com and schwab.evan@dorsey.com;   
         and  

    (ii) Donald Gene Stone of Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke &  
         Miller - SPO, 717 W Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200,  
         Spokane, WA 99201-3503, Phone: 509-455-6000, Fax:  
         15098380007, E-mail: don.stone@painehamblen.com.    


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: New Securities Suit Representative Named
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new class representative is proposed in the consolidated
securities fraud suit filed against Baxter International Inc. in
the Northern District of Illinois.

In August 2002, six purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming
the company and its then chief executive officer and then chief
financial officer as defendants.

These lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making misleading statements regarding the
company's financial guidance that allegedly caused Baxter common
stock to trade at inflated levels.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a
trial court order granting the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant
certiorari in March 2005.  

In February 2006, the trial court denied the company's motion
for judgment on the pleadings.  The court has denied plaintiffs'
request for certification of a class action based on the
inadequacy of their class representatives but allowed plaintiffs
leave to find new ones.

In October 2006, separate plaintiffs' law firms have identified
new, different proposed class representatives and will be in
contention over the status as lead plaintiffs.

The suit is "Asher, et al. v. Baxter Intl. Inc., et al., Case  
No. 1:02-cv-05608," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning,
with referral to Judge Arlander Keys.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY  
10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300.

Representing the defendants is Matthew Robert Kipp of Skadden  
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite  
2100, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 407-0700, E-mail:  
mkipp@skadden.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Injunction Sought in Crop Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC and
Emerson Poynter LLP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
against Bayer CropScience in the "Binkley v. Bayer CropScience
US et al." class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The plaintiffs seek to prohibit Bayer from providing misleading
communications on its Web site regarding a testing method that
Bayer developed to detect the presence of its genetically
modified Liberty Link rice.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to order Bayer to provide
corrective information to the public and to disclose that
Bayer's testing method and certification procedure differ from
rice standards in other countries -- particularly important
export markets in the European Union.

Lead plaintiff Frank Binkley originally filed his lawsuit
against Bayer in August after the U.S. Department of Agriculture
announced that Bayer's unapproved Liberty Link rice had been
found in samples taken from commercial long grain rice.

After the USDA's announcement, Japan and the E.U. placed strict
limits on U.S. rice imports and the prices for U.S. rice have
dropped dramatically.  Losses to farmers in Arkansas, the
largest rice producing state, are estimated to exceed $80-$100
million.

The E.U. has declared that it will not accept imports of U.S.
rice that contain Bayer's unapproved Liberty Link rice at levels
in excess of .01%.  Plaintiffs' motion alleges, however, that
Bayer is only testing to detect the presence of Liberty Link at
levels as low as .1% -- a standard that is 10 times more lenient
than the E.U. allows.  Since Bayer has developed this more
relaxed standard, numerous U.S. rice shipments to the E.U. have
tested positive for genetically modified rice and been rejected.

Despite the E.U.'s actions, Bayer has declared on its website
that its testing method has been "accepted" by the E.U. and
encourages rice farmers to have their rice tested and certified
at Bayer-endorsed laboratories.

Plaintiffs are asking a court to order corrective notice
informing farmers that the Bayer standard is less stringent than
the one used by the E.U.

Richard S. Lewis, a partner and head of the environmental
practice with Washington, D.C.-based Cohen, Milstein, explained
that, "Our clients feel that Bayer should provide a full
disclosure on its website and let farmers know that Bayer's
standard does not ensure acceptance of U.S. rice into the E.U.
marketplace."

Scott Poynter, a partner with the Little Rock-based firm,
Emerson Poynter, added, "Everyday Bayer fails to provide full
and complete information to the public, it becomes more
difficult for farmers to market their rice."

The suit is "Binkley v. Bayer CropScience U.S. et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00168-SWW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge Susan Webber Wright.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter LLP - Houston, 830
         Apollo Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, E-
         mail: john@emersonpoynter.com;

     (2) Christopher D. Jennings and Scott E. Poynter both of
         Emerson Poynter LLP - Little Rock, The Museum Center,
         500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 305, Little Rock,
         AR 72201, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556, E-
         mail: Scott@emersonpoynter.com; and

     (3) Terry M. Poynter of Terry M. Poynter, P.A., Post Office
         Box 370, Mountain Home, AR 72654-0370, Phone: (870)
         425-2196, E-mail: pgatty@mtnhome.com.

Representing defendant is Edwin L. Lowther, Jr. of Wright,
Lindsey & Jennings - Little Rock, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite
2300, Little Rock, AR 72201-3699, Phone: (501) 371-0808, E-mail:
elowther@wlj.com.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Certification of Ala. Race Bias Case Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the race discrimination suit, "Gladys Jenkins, et
al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case No. 2:02-cv-01057-VEH," are
appealing an order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama denying class-action status to their case.

The suit alleges that the company systematically discriminates
against both African American hourly workers by denying them
promotions into salaried or management positions and against
African American salaried workers by paying them less than their
white peers.

The suit was filed on April 29, 2002.  It was brought on behalf
of about 15,000 African American employees.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of back pay,
benefits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the claims on behalf of two classes:
      
      -- a class of all African-American hourly workers employed
         by BellSouth Telecommunications at any time since April
         29, 1998, and

      -- a class of all African-American salaried workers
         employed by BellSouth Telecommunications at any time
         since April 29, 1998 in management positions at or
         below Job Grade 59/Level C.

Gladys Jenkins, Denise Levert, David Williams and Peggy Johnson
sought to represent the first class of employees.  Sharon
Griffin sought to represent the second class.

Specifically, the complaint contends that the company's actions
are in violation of Rule 42 of the U.S. Civil Code, Section 1981
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, rule
42 of the U.S. Civil Code Section 2000e, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, Rule 42 U.S. Civil Code Section 1981a.

According to the complaint, the company has a history of using
invalid tests that even its own executives don't trust and
administering those tests and other prerequisites to promotion
to management in a discriminatory manner.

The complaint also states that about 28% of the company's hourly
employees are African American, however only 16% of management
employees are African American.

Substantial discovery, including obtaining documents, employee
data, and taking depositions were previously completed, and
plaintiffs' motion asking the court to certify the case as a
class action was filed on Dec. 23, 2004.  Briefing on class
certification was completed in mid-July 2005.

The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on Sept. 19, 2006.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for reconsideration of the class certification ruling.

The suit is "Gladys Jenkins, et al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case No.
2:02-cv-01057-VEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Sellers and Christine E. Webber of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, West Tower, Suite 500,
         1100 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934,
         Phone: 1-410-408-4604 and 1-202-408-4600, Fax: 1-410-
         408-4699, E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com and
         cwebber@cmht.com; and

     (2) Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1300 19th Street
         NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-822-
         5100, Fax: 202-822-4997, E-mail:
         cmehri@findjustice.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Anne M. Brafford and Michael S. Burkhardt of Morgan,
         Lewis & Bocklius, LLP, Phone: 213-612-7335 and 1-215-
         963-5000, Fax: 213-612-2501 and 1-215-963-5001, E-mail:
         abrafford@morganlewis.com and
         mburkhardt@morganlewis.com; and

    (ii) Jeffrey A. Lee of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, 1901 Sixth
         Avenue North, 2400 AmSouth / Harbert Plaza, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 205-254-1987, Fax: 205-254-1999, E-
         mail: jlee@maynardcooper.com.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Court Okays Writ of Certiorari for "Twombly"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of
certiorari by BellSouth Corp. and certain other defendants for
the consumer class action, "William Twombly, et al. v. Bell
Atlantic Corp., et al."

The suit was filed on December 2002 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging antitrust
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against:

      -- BellSouth Corp.;
      -- Verizon;
      -- AT&T, formerly known as SBC; and
      -- Qwest Corp.  

It alleges that defendants conspired to restrain competition by
agreeing not to compete with one another and to impede
competition with others.  

Plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble damages
and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses.

In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  In October 2005, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the district court's
decision and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants'
petition for writ of certiorari.

The suit is "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
10220-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.
  
Representing the plaintiffs is J. Douglas Richards of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 946-9390, Fax: (212) 244-5423, e-
mail: drichards@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Hector Gonzalez and Lily Fu Swenson of Mayer, Brown,
         Rowe & Maw, LLP (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, e-
         mail: hgonzalez@mayerbrownrowe.com;  

     (2) Colin Ryle Kass of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Washington),
         655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: (202) 879-5172, Fax: (202) 879-5200, e-
         mail: ckass@kirkland.com; and

     (3) Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), 1615 M.
         Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-326-7902, Fax: 202-326-7999, e-mail:
         mkellogg@khhte.com.


BOSTON SALADS: Recalls Cole Slaw Salad for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Salads is conducting a voluntary recall of Cole Slaw
Salad sold in the retail deli section in 5 lb., 10 lb., 30 lb.
bulk and 1 lb. retail containers with sell by date of Nov. 9 and
or Nov. 11, 2006 because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Boston Salads Cole Slaw Salad is available for purchase in the
deli section of select supermarkets and delicatessen and
convenience stores under the Boston Salads & Provisions Co.,
Inc., Dietz and Watson Inc., Hummel Brothers, Inc. label in the
following states: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

No illnesses have been reported related to this voluntary
recall.  Consumers are advised to return the product to these
stores for full refund.

Boston Salads manufactures a wide variety of premium salads and
foods under their own name and private label.  No other Boston
Salads are affected nor have they been involved in this recall.

For additional information, please call Boston Salads at 617-
541-9046 ext. 14.


CINCINNATI SMSA: Ohio Consumer Lawsuit to Go into Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consumer lawsuit filed against Cincinnati SMSA Limited
Partnership and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio is proceeding into discovery.

From December 2003 through February 2004, six separate lawsuits
were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
against Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership and other
defendants.  Five of the suits were filed by companies
purporting to be resellers, while the sixth was filed by an
individual consumer purporting to represent a class of damaged
consumers.

Each of the Reseller Cases seeks damages ranging from $1 to $3
plus treble damages under Ohio law.  The Consumer Case seeks
damages in excess of $60 plus treble damages under Ohio law.  
All five of the Reseller Cases were dismissed.  However, during
the fourth quarter of 2005, two of these dismissals were
reversed and reinstated by the Ohio 8th District Court of
Appeals.

Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership is seeking review of these
two reversals in the Ohio Supreme Court.  Two of the dismissed
cases were refiled with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
(PUCO).  These two refiled cases were subsequently dismissed by
the PUCO.

A motion by Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership to dismiss the
Consumer Case was granted, in part, and overruled, in part, by
the trial court.  Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership sought
review by the Ohio Supreme Court of the part of the trial
court's decision that overruled the motion to dismiss.  The Ohio
Supreme Court denied review of the consumer class action, and
the Consumer Case will proceed into the discovery phase of
litigation.

Convergys Corp. is a limited partner of Cincinnati SMSA Limited
Partnership.


CMS ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Nev. Natural Gas Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on appeals
regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada to dismiss certain lawsuits against CMS Energy Corp.
and several other defendants in relation to the sale of natural
gas in the U.S.   

Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in
November 2003 against a number of energy companies engaged in
the sale of natural gas in the U.S., including CMS Energy.  

The complaint alleged defendants entered into a price-fixing
scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of
natural gas in California.  The complaint alleged violations of
the federal Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the
California Business and Professions Code relating to unlawful,
unfair and deceptive business practices.  

The complaint sought both actual and exemplary damages for
alleged overcharges, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief
regulating defendants' future conduct relating to pricing and
price reporting.

In April 2004, a Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Panel ordered
the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL matter in
the Nevada federal district court that at the time involved
seven complaints originally filed in various state courts in
California.  

These complaints make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case regarding price reporting, although none contain a
federal Sherman Act claim.  In November 2004, those seven
complaints, as well as a number of others that were originally
filed in various state courts in California and subsequently
transferred to the MDL proceeding, were remanded back to
California state court.  

The Texas-Ohio case remained in Nevada federal district court,
and defendants, with CMS Energy joining, filed a motion to
dismiss.  The court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss on April 8, 2005 and entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants on April 11, 2005.  

Texas-Ohio has appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The company reported no material development on the case at its
Nov. 2 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alan G. Crone of Crone & Mason, PC, 5100 Poplar Ave.,
         Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 83137, Phone: 901-683-1850
         Fax: 901-683-1963; and

     (2) Paul Alexis Del Aguila of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77
         West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 456-8400.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Frederic G. Berner, Jr. of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
         LLP, 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 80005, Phone:
         202-736-8000, Fax: 202-736-8711; and

     (2) Robert E. Craddock, Jr. of Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, P.O.
         Box 775000, Memphis, TN 92177-5000, Phone: 901-537-
         1000, Fax: 901-537-1010.


CMS ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Calif. Natural Gas Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on appeals
regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the District
of California to dismiss certain lawsuits that name CMS Energy
Corp. and several other defendants in relation to the sale of
natural gas in the U.S.   

Three federal putative class actions, were filed against:

     -- "Fairhaven Power Co. v. Encana Corp. et al.,"

     -- "Utility Savings & Refund Services LLP v. Reliant Energy
        Resources Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Abelman Art Glass v. Encana Corp. et al.,"

The suits all make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case, now under the caption, "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."  

Specifically, the suits claim price manipulation and seek
similar relief.  They were originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California in September 2004,
November 2004 and December 2004, respectively.  

The Fairhaven and Abelman Art Glass cases also include claims
for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.  The three
complaints were filed against CMS Energy and many of the other
defendants named in the Texas-Ohio case.  

In addition, the Utility Savings case names CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading and Cantera Resources Inc.  Cantera
Resources Inc., the parent of Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and CMS
Energy is required to indemnify Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and
Cantera Resources Inc. with respect to these actions.

The Fairhaven, Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass cases have
been transferred to the MDL proceeding, where the Texas-Ohio
case was pending.  

Pursuant to stipulation by the parties and court order,
defendants were not required to respond to the Fairhaven,
Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass complaints until the court
ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss in the Texas-Ohio case.  

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated class action
complaint alleging violations of federal and California
antitrust laws.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the
consolidated complaint should be dismissed for the same reasons
as the Texas-Ohio case.  The court issued an order granting the
motion to dismiss on Dec. 19, 2005 and entered judgment in favor
of defendants on Dec. 23, 2005.  

Like the Texas-Ohio case, plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


CMS ENERGY: CMS MST Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Suits for $7M
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of CMS Enterprises Co., a subsidiary of CMS Energy
Corp., reached an agreement in principle to settle for $7
million a master class action filed in California state court.  

Commencing in or about February 2004, 15 state law complaints
containing allegations similar to those made in the Texas-Ohio
case, now "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," but
generally limited to the California Cartwright Act and unjust
enrichment, were filed in various California state courts.

In addition to CMS Energy Corp., CMS MST is named in all of the
15 state law complaints.  Cantera Gas Co. and Cantera Natural
Gas, LLC (erroneously sued as Cantera Natural Gas, Inc.) are
named in all but one complaint.

In February 2005, these 15 separate actions, as well as nine
other similar actions that were filed in California state court
but do not name CMS Energy or any of its former or current
subsidiaries, were ordered coordinated with pending coordinated
proceedings in the San Diego Superior Court.  

The 24 state court complaints involving price reporting were
coordinated as, "Natural Gas Antitrust Cases v. Plaintiffs in
Natural Gas Antitrust Cases," were ordered to file a
consolidated complaint, but a consolidated complaint was filed
only for the two putative class actions.

Pursuant to a ruling dated Aug. 23, 2006, CMS Energy, Cantera
Gas Co. and Cantera Natural Gas, LLC were dismissed as
defendants in the master class action and the 13 non-class
actions, due to lack of personal jurisdiction.  CMS MST remains
a defendant in all of these actions.

In September 2006, CMS MST reached an agreement in principle to
settle the master class action for $7 million.  The settlement
is contingent upon a settlement agreement being signed and the
settlement being approved by the court.  


CMS ENERGY: Kan. Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand "Oneok"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas refused to
grant a motion seeking to remand the putative class action,
"Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al." to state court.

On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. was
served with a summons and complaint which named CMS Energy
Corp., CMS MST and CMS Field Services, Inc. as defendants in the
suit.

Similar to the other actions that have been filed, the complaint
alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000
through Oct. 31, 2002, defendants engaged in a scheme to violate
the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly reporting false
or inaccurate information to the publications, thereby affecting
the market price of natural gas.   

Plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from
defendants and other for their facilities, are seeking statutory
full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration
paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.  On Dec. 7, 2005, the case
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and later that month a motion was filed to transfer the
case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada.  

On Jan. 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
Kansas state court.  On Jan. 23, 2006, a conditional transfer
order transferring the case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada was
issued.  On Feb. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
conditional transfer order.  The court issued an order dated
Aug. 3, 2006 denying the motion to remand the case to Kansas
state court.

CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE: CMS) -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is  
an integrated energy holding company that operates through two
principal subsidiaries, Consumers Energy Co. and CMS Enterprises
Co.  The company operates in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jennifer Gille Bacon at Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC--
         KC, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Suite
         #1700, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax:
         816-374-0509, E-mail: jbacon@stklaw.com; and

     (2) Donald D. Barry at 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.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Joel B. Kleinman at Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinksy,
         LLP - DC, 2101 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037-
         1526, Phone: 202-785-9700, Fax: 202-887-0689, E-mail:
         kleinmanj@dsmo.com; and

     (2) Jerome T. Wolf at Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP -
         - KC, 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO
         64111, Phone: 816-460-2400, Fax: 816-531-7545, E-mail:
         jwolf@sonnenschein.com.


CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs in "Oneok" Want to Remand Case to Col.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action complaint, "Breckenridge Brewery
of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et
al.," are seeking to have the case remanded back to Colorado
state court.

The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of
natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court
in May 2006.

Defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services Inc.,
and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to have
violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities.  Plaintiffs are
seeking full refund damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado on June 12, 2006 and a conditional transfer order
transferring the case to the Multidistrict litigation proceeding
was entered on June 27, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking to have the case remanded back to
Colorado state court.

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC et al. v.
Oneok Inc. et al.," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Robert E. Blackburn with
referral to Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Representing the plaintiffs are John Preston Baker and Philip
Wayne Bledsoe at Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.-Colorado, 1050
17th Street #2300, Denver, CO 80265, Phone: 303-572-9300, Fax:
303-572-7883, E-mail: jbaker@stklaw.com, pbledsoe@stklaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michelle B. Goodman at Sidley Austin LLP-Los Angeles
         555 West 5th Street, #4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013,
         Phone: 213-896-6014, Fax: 213-896-6600; and

     (2) Mark H. Hamer at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP-San
         Diego, 401 B Street, #1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-699-4758, Fax: 619-699-2701, E-mail:
         mark.hamer@dlapiper.com.


CMS ENERGY: ACTS Purchasers File Suit After Exclusion in Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed on behalf of purchasers of CMS
Energy Corp.'s 8.75 percent Adjustable Convertible Trust
Securities after their exclusion from a class in a consolidated
Michigan securities suit.

Beginning on May 17, 2002, a number of complaints were filed
against CMS Energy, Consumers Energy Co., and certain officers
and directors of CMS Energy and its affiliates.

The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit, which
generally seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that
the defendants violated U.S. securities laws and regulations by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about CMS
Energy's business and financial condition, particularly with
respect to revenues and expenses recorded in connection with
round-trip trading by CMS MST.

In January 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss Consumers
and three of the individual defendants, but denied the motions
to dismiss CMS Energy and the 13 remaining individual
defendants.  The court issued an opinion and order dated March
24, 2006, granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs'
amended motion for class certification.

The court conditionally certified a class consisting of "[a]ll
persons who purchased CMS common stock during the period of
October 25, 2000 through and including May 17, 2002 and who were
damaged thereby."  The court excluded purchasers of CMS Energy's
8.75 percent Adjustable Convertible Trust Securities from the
class.

Trial has been scheduled for March 2007.  

In response to the court's opinion and order excluding
purchasers of ACTS from the shareholder class, a new class
action was filed on behalf of ACTS purchasers.  The new lawsuit
names the same defendants as the shareholder action and contains
essentially the same allegations and class period.

The consolidated suit is "In re CMS Energy Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-72004," filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge George Caram Steeh.   

Case Contact: Julie A. Richmond, Phone: 800-516-9926.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Dec. 7 Hearing Set for Attorneys Fee Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert McGinnis in Boone Circuit Court in Kentucky will
hold a hearing on Dec. 7 to determine how to divide attorneys
awards in the settlement of a sexual abuse class action filed
against priests in the Diocese of Covington, according to the
Cincinnati Post.  Both sides have filed summary judgments
motions.

                        Case Background

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

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

                           Settlement

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

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

                        Attorneys' Fees

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

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

                    Release of Personal Info

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

Attorneys had argued that the order violates the victims'
constitutional right to privacy.  The Kentucky Court of Appeals
ruled on Sept. 29 that attorneys for the sex abuse victims do
not have to give prosecutors the names of victims (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2006).  It ruled recently, that the names of
accused offenders who are still living should be given to
prosecutors (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).  


ENTERGY NEW: Gordon, Lowenburg Reps. Oppose Disclosure Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gordon and Lowenburg Plaintiffs object to the adequacy of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.'s Disclosure Statement explaining its
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Plan on grounds that the
Disclosure Statement fails to:

   (1) describe how ENOI arrived at "zero" estimates for the
       Gordon and Lowenburg Claims;

   (2) describe how the intercompany claims were determined and
       allocated, particularly in view of the conflicting
       interest of ENOI's parent and affiliates; and

   (3) adequately describe the Gordon and Lowenburg suits
       because the description contained in the Disclosure
       Statement is incomplete and inaccurate.

Michael H. Piper, Esq., at Steffes, Vingiello McKenzie, LLC, in
New Orleans, Louisiana, also argues that the Disclosure
Statement fails to provide a means for estimation of the
unsecured claim of the more than 180,000 ratepayers, nor provide
a procedure for the ratepayers to vote on the Plan.

Additionally, the Disclosure Statement fails to describe how
ENOI intends to treat the liability to the ratepayers if either
the Gordon and Lowenburg Plaintiffs, or both, are successful on
appeal.

The Gordon and Lowenburg Plaintiffs claim that ENOI has
deliberately chosen not to provide the 180,000 ratepayers with:

   (i) copies of the Disclosure Statement and Plan;

  (ii) notice of their claims and notice of their rights under
       the Plan; and

(iii) a notice as to how their rights are affected by the Plan,
       specifically the discharge and injunction provisions.

Mr. Piper argues that as a matter of due process, the ratepayers
and the members of the Gordon and Lowenburg putative classes
must receive copies of the Disclosure Statement and Plan, and a
proper notice of the existence of their rights in the Gordon and
Lowenburg claims, including the claims on appeal, the stayed
Gordon Antitrust Putative Class Action and the Lowenburg class
Action Suit to be refiled.

Headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans
Inc. -- http://www.entergy-neworleans.com/-- is a wholly owned  
subsidiary of Entergy Corp.  Entergy New Orleans provides
electric and natural gas service to approximately 190,000
electric and 147,000 gas customers within the city of New
Orleans.  Entergy New Orleans is the smallest of Entergy Corp.'s
five utility companies and represents about 7% of the
consolidated revenues and 3% of its consolidated earnings in
2004.  Neither Entergy Corp. nor any of Entergy's other utility
and non-utility subsidiaries were included in Entergy New
Orleans' bankruptcy filing.  

Entergy New Orleans filed for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 23,
2005 (Bankr. E.D. La. Case No. 05-17697).  Elizabeth J. Futrell,
Esq., and R. Partick Vance, Esq., at Jones, Walker, Waechter,
Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P., represent the Debtor in
its restructuring efforts.  Carey L. Menasco, Esq., Philip
Kirkpatrick Jones, Jr., Esq., and Joseph P. Hebert, Esq., at
Liskow & Lewis, APLC, represent the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors.  When the Debtor filed for protection from
its creditors, it listed total assets of $703,197,000 and total
debts of $610,421,000.  (Entergy New Orleans Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 26; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Ga. Court Denies Parties' Motions in CROA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied motions for class certification and partial summary
judgment in a putative consumer class action against Equifax
Consumer Services, Inc.

The suit, "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. and
Fair Isaac, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," was filed on Nov.
19, 2004.  It claims that defendants have jointly sold the
company's Score Power credit score product in violation of
certain procedural requirements under the Credit Repair
Organizations Act (CROA).  

Plaintiff contends that the company and Fair Isaac are "credit
repair organizations" under CROA and that the transaction by
which he purchased Score Power was in violation of CROA and
fraudulent.  

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased such services from defendants within
the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.  
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2005, the district court denied defendants' partial
motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered,
denying all liability or wrongdoing.

Following the conclusion of discovery, plaintiff filed motions
for class certification and partial summary judgment, which were
denied by the district court on Aug. 18, 2006, 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 "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Beverly B.
Martin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H.
         Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood,
         925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road,
         N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E-
         mail: efile@pmkm.com;  

     (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall
         225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278; and

     (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Craig Edward Bertschi, Audra Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn
         Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree Street,
         Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-
         6500, E-mail: cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com,
         adial@kilpatrickstockton.com,
         chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP,
         Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610,
         Phone: 312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-mail:
         kliebardk@howrey.com or mclawhornt@howrey.com.  


EQUIFAX INC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status for Standfacts' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case filed by Standfacts Credit Services
against Experian Informations Solutions, Inc., Equifax Inc., and
TransUnion, LLC in the U.S. District Court of the Central
District of California are seeking class-action status for the
suit.

On March 25, 2004, the National Credit Reporting Association,
Inc. (NCRA), a trade association of mortgage credit information
resellers, and, separately, 23 of NCRA's members, commenced
suits against Equifax Consumer Services, Experian and TransUnion
alleging various violations of antitrust and unfair practices
laws.  

After a variety of rulings on procedural and substantive issues,
including grants on two occasions of all or part of defendants'
motions to dismiss, the remaining claims of all plaintiffs have
been consolidated under a third amended complaint, filed June
29, 2005 as "Standfacts Credit Services, et al. v. Experian
Informations Solutions, Inc., Equifax Inc., and TransUnion,
LLC," in the U.S District Court of the Central District of
California.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all resellers that have
purchased information from defendants since March 2000, and
allege that the defendants have conspired to monopolize, have
discriminated among resellers in pricing and have treated
resellers unfairly.  The amended complaint seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified amounts of damages.

On Aug. 12, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the antitrust
claims and for summary judgment on the unfair practices claims.
The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss all
claims except for one remaining Sherman Act, Section 1
conspiracy claim and 19 of the 23 original plaintiffs have been
dismissed from the case by agreement.  Discovery is ongoing and
a trial date is scheduled for Oct. 2, 2007.  

On Sept. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, 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 "Standfacts Credit Services et al. v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-00358-DOC-
PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge David O. Carter with referral to Judge
Patrick J. Walsh.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie L. Dieringer of Hulett Harper Stewart, 550
         West C. St., Ste. 1770, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-338-1133, E-mail: sldieringer@hulettharper.com; and

     (2) Jonathan W. Cuneo of Cuneo Law Group, 317 Massachusetts
         Ave., NE Suite 300, Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-
         789-3960.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Teresa T. Bonder of Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Ctr.,
         1201 W Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone:
         404-881-7000, E-mail: tbonder@alston.com; and

    (ii) Thomas Demitrack of Jones Day, North Point, 901
         Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-
         586-3939, E-mail: tdemitrack@jonesday.com.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Ala. Court Dismisses FCRA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Alabama
dismissed the class action, "Nunnally, et al. v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC," which alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 13, 2004.  It alleges that the
company violated the FCRA by failing to provide a full
disclosure along with its reinvestigation results sent to
consumers that disputed the accuracy of their consumer reports.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all consumers to which
the company failed to send a complete disclosure after
completion of reinvestigation. They are also seeking unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 4, 2005, the district court denied the company's motion
to dismiss the complaint, but certified the issue for immediate
appeal and stayed the case.

On June 8, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
reversed the district court decision and the case was dismissed
by the district court on July 25, 2006.

The suit is "Nunnally, et al. v. Equifax Information, case no.
1:04-cv-02890-RBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Robert B Propst.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Cindy D Hanson, J Anthony Love, Mara McRae, Kilpatrick
         Stockton, LLP, 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800,
         Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 1-404-815-6500, Fax: 1-
         404-815-6555; and

     (2) James S. Witcher, III, Hand Arendall, LLC, 2001 Park
         Place North, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 404-324-4400,
         E-mail: jwitcher@handarendall.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, Tammy McClendon Stokes, Donaldson &
         Guin, LLC, Two North Twentieth Building, 2 North 20th
         Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 404-
         226-2282, Fax: 404-226-2357, E-mail:
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, tstokes@dglawfirm.com;

     (2) James Donnie Patterson, P O Box 969, Fairhope, AL
         36533-0969, Phone: 1-251-990-5558, Fax: 1-251-990-0626,
         E-mail: jpatterson@alalaw.com; and  

     (3) Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Law Offices Of Earl P.
         Underwood, Jr., PO Box 969, Fairhope, AL 36533-0969,
         Phone: 251-990-5558, Fax: 251-990-0626, E-mail:
         epunderwood@alalaw.com.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Discovery Begins in CROA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action filed by Steven G.
Millett and Melody J. Millett against Equifax Information
Services, LLC and Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. over
allegations the company violated the Credit Repair Organizations
Act.

The suit was originally filed on June 16, 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for Kansas, but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Filed on April 19, 2006, the complaint asserts among other
allegations, that Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. sold Equifax's
Credit Watch product in violation of CROA.  

It asserted claims similar to those made by plaintiff in the
class action, "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc.
and Fair Isaac, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM."   

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased the CreditWatch product from Equifax
from Sept. 9, 2001 to the present, and unspecified damages,
attorney's fees and costs.  

Discovery has commenced in the suit, 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 "Millett, et al. v. Equifax Credit Information
Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02122-TWT," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under
Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Leslie J. Bryan, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles &
         Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600,
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail:
         lbryan@dsckd.com

     (2) Barry R. Grissom, Law Office of Barry R. Grissom,
         Building 7-Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland
         Park, KS 66212-6166, Phone: 913-341-6616, Fax: 913-341-
         4780

     (3) B. Joyce Yeager, Yeager Law Firm, LLC, Building 7,
         Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland Park, KS
         66212, Phone: 913-648-6673, Fax: 913-648-6921, E-mail:         
         jyeager@joyceyeagerlaw.com  

Representing the company is Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick
Stockton, 1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530,
Phone: 404-815-6500, E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Ex-Mercury Workers Plan Suits Over Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 10 former Mercury Interactive Corp. employees have banded
together to organize a lawsuit against their former employer
over stock option grants, according to Shiri Habib of Globes
Online.

The lawsuit, if filed, will be against Hewlett-Packard Co.,
following the two companies' merger.  The cause of the action is
that the former employees cannot exercise their stock options,
even though they have not yet expired, as a result of options
backdating.  

According to reports, the suit will be filed initially in
Israel.  It is believed that there are 100 former employees who
quit or were dismissed from Mercury Interactive, and who cannot
currently exercise their options.  The options in question are
reportedly worth millions of dollars.

One of the former employees who is not part of the group and is
independently preparing to sue is the company's former vice
president.  Globes Online has learned that he sent a letter
through his attorney Mercury's management several weeks ago
demanding to exercise his options and indicating readiness to
file a class action.

Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ) --
http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products, technologies,  
solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses and large enterprises.  Its offerings
span enterprise storage and servers; multi-vendor services,
including technology support and maintenance; consulting and
integration, and managed services; personal computing and other
access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and
services.  


IKANOS COMMS: Faces Investor Litigation in N.Y. Over 2005 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of investors of Ikanos Communications, Inc.
who purchased the common stock of Ikanos pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
for its initial public offering on Sept. 22, 2005, or its
secondary public offering on March 8, 2006, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

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

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

     -- contained untrue statements of material facts;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages.

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

Plaintiffs are represented by Jack Fruchter, Esq Larry Levit,
Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, Phone: (212) 279-5050,
Toll free: (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Ore. Court Approves $19M FCRA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon approved a $19.25 million class action settlement between
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., its subsidiary, AMCO Insurance
Co., and approximately 65,000 of their policyholders.

The policyholders alleged that Nationwide and AMCO charged them
more for insurance based on information in their credit reports,
but failed to provide adequate "adverse action" notices as
required by and defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Nationwide and AMCO denied any wrongdoing.

If the policyholders were able to prove at trial that the
alleged violations were willful, each policyholder would have
been entitled to recover between $100 and $1,000 in statutory
damages.  Under the approved settlement, the class members will
be sent checks of approximately $200.

"This settlement is important for all consumers," said Steve
Larson, lead plaintiffs' attorney with the Portland based law
firm Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter. "In today's world,
where identity theft is on the rise, consumers need to be made
aware that their credit record is impacting their insurance
policy premiums."

"Nationwide determined that settling this case is in the best
interest of Nationwide and its subsidiaries and policyholders,"
said Brant Bishop, an attorney from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, which
represented Nationwide.  "Because there is uncertainty in the
interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the litigation
would have required additional expenditure and on-going
uncertainty.  Nationwide and AMCO preferred to find a resolution
that would allow them to focus on their business."

At the time the Nationwide case was settled, it was on appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Related cases against
Farmers, Safeco, State Farm, GEICO and Hartford were also
pending in the Ninth Circuit at the time.

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the Safeco and GEICO cases
for consideration this term.  Arguments in those cases will take
place on Jan. 16, 2007.

"The Nationwide settlement led to another settlement in a
related case by policyholders against Hartford Insurance Co. and
its affiliates," said Mr. Larson.  On Sept. 11, 2006, Judge
Brown preliminary approved a settlement between Hartford, its
affiliates and more than 360,000 policyholders.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon, claimed that insurers were using credit ratings to
increase insurance rates without any notice or without
adequately informing consumers as required by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.;  

     -- Allied Group Inc.; and  

     -- AMCO Insurance Co.

The suit is "Razilov et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01466-BR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.

Representing the defendants are:
  
     (1) Jennifer S. Atkins, Daniel F. Attridge and Brant W.  
         Bishop all of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 655, Fifteenth  
         Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 879-
         5000, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-mail:         
         jatkins@kirkland.com or dattridge@kirkland.com or  
         bbishop@kirkland.com;

     (2) Amanda T. Gamblin, Jan K. Kitchel, Heidi L. Mandt and  
         Joshua P. Stump all of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC,  
         1600-1900 Pacwest Center, 1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue,  
         Portland, or 97204, Phone: (503) 796-2903 or  (503)  
         796-2939 or (503) 222-9981 or (503) 796-2835, Fax:  
         (503) 796-2900, E-mail: agamblin@schwabe.com or  
         jkitchel@schwabe.com or hmandt@schwabe.com or  
         jstump@schwabe.com; and

     (3) Richard J. Kuhn of Hoffman Hart & Wagner, LLP, 1000 SW  
         Broadway, 20th Floor, Portland, OR 97205, Phone: (503)  
         595-1243, Fax: (503) 222-2301, E-mail: rjk@hhw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven C. Berman, Mark A. Friel, Steve D. Larson, Scott  
         A. Shorr and N. Robert Stoll all of Stoll Stoll Berne  
         Lokting & Schlachter, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,  
         Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503)  
         227-6840, E-mail: sberman@ssbls.com or mfriel@ssbls.com  
         or slarson@ssbls.com or sshorr@ssbls.com or  
         rstoll@ssbls.com; and

     (2) Charles A. Ringo of Charlie Ringo & Associates, PC,  
         4085 SW 109th Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97005, Phone: (503)  
         643-7500, Fax: (503) 644-4754, E-mail:  
         cringo@verizon.net.


OCEAN COLONY: Offers Carts to Settle Disabled Players' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Colony Partners, the owners of The Half Moon Bay Golf
Links course, will offer two modified carts for disabled players
to partially settle a purported class action filed against it,
The Associated Press reports.

According to plaintiff attorney Mark A. Chavez, Ocean Colony
agreed to buy the carts to settle part of a lawsuit filed in
October on behalf of two players in wheelchairs.  

Those two players are:

      -- U.S. Army veteran Larry Celano, 37, of Arizona became a
         paraplegic after he was shot during the U.S. invasion
         of Panama, and

      -- Rich Thesing, 66, of Atherton, who injured his spine in
         a diving accident as a teenager.

Mr. Thesing said that the Half Moon Bay course denied his
repeated requests to provide him with a modified cart.  The
carts can cost up to $8,000, twice as much as regular carts,
plaintiffs' attorneys said.

Despite the concession, the lawsuit remained unresolved over a
claim seeking to compel Marriott International to offer the
carts at 80 courses affiliated with the hotel chain around the
country.

The Half Moon Bay course offers packages in connection with the
Ritz-Carlton hotel, one of Marriott's companies.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys accused Marriott of walking away from negotiations.

However, the company is still waiting for more details about the
carts before resuming negotiations, according to attorney
Gregory Hurley of Greenberg Traurig, the firm representing
Marriott.

For more details, contact Mark A. Chavez of Chavez & Gertler,
LLP, 42 Miller Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941, Phone: 415-381-5599,
Fax: 415-381-5572, E-mail: info@chavezgertler.com.


OMAHA BEEF: Recalls Ground Beef Over E. coli Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------
Omaha Beef Co., Inc., of Danbury, Connecticut, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 1,680
pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E.
coli O157:H7.

The products subject to recall include:

     -- 10-pound boxes of "Hamburger Patties, Omaha Beef Co.,
        Inc."

     -- Five- and 10-lb. bags of "Hamburger, Omaha Beef Co.,
        Inc."

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 2769" inside
the USDA mark of inspection, as well as the case code, "101861."

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
testing.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of these products.

The ground beef products were produced on Oct. 18 and were
distributed to restaurants in Connecticut and several counties
in southern New York State.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.


POZEN INC: Class Certification Sought in N.C. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities complaint filed against
Pozen Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina filed a motion to certify a class in the suit.

Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class
actions in 2004, alleging violations of securities laws.  These
actions were filed as a single consolidated class action
complaint on Dec. 20, 2004.   

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims,
violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company
and a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.  

By order dated Nov. 4, 2004, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on Dec.
20, 2004.  The defendants named in the amended complaint are
Pozen and John R. Plachetka, chairman and chief executive
officer.

The amended complaint requests certification of a plaintiff
class consisting of purchasers of stock between Oct. 4, 2002 and
May 28, 2004.

On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Aug. 30, 2005, the motion to dismiss was
denied and the case is now in the discovery phase.  On March 27,
2006, a motion for class certification was filed.  The company
filed its brief in opposition to class certification on June 30,
2006.

The suit is "In Re: Pozen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 04-
CV-505," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle  
District of North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James E. McGovern, Steven J. Toll, Matthew K. Handley,
         Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste.  
         500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax:
         202-408-4699, E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com and  
         dsommers@cmht.com;    

     (2) Harry H. Albritton, JR. and Marvin Key Blount, JR., The  
         Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C., POD 58, GREENVILLE, NC
         27835-0058, Phone: 252-752-6000, Fax: 252-752-2174, E-      
         mail: harry@theblountlawfirm.com and  
         deborah@theblountlawfirm.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &  
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King Of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA  
         19087, Phone: 610-822-0247.

Representing the defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble  
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA,  
Phone: 919-755-2100 and 919-755-2135, Fax: 919-755-6067, E-mail:  
pmillen@wcsr.com.   


PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Car Loan Discrimination Case in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Co. unit Primus Automotive Financial Services,
Inc. settled a nationwide auto loan discrimination lawsuit filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, the New York Daily News reports.

Under the settlement, Primus will pay $1.9 million in legal fees
and a total of $40,000 in damages to three car buyers.  It will
also limit how much dealers can mark up interest rates and offer
a minimum of 200,000 pre-approved offers of credit to black
consumers.  It is expected to save black consumers more than $20
million on car loans, the report said.  

A national class action challenging the auto lending practices
of Ford Motor and its brand name Primus Automotive Financial
Services began on March 1, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 2,
2005)

Primus offers automobile financing services to consumers
throughout the nation using the brand names Mazda American
Credit, Land Rover Credit, and Jaguar Credit, pursuant to
contracts with Mazda, Land Rover, and Jaguar.

In the suit, plaintiffs contend that the credit pricing policies
developed and managed for Primus by Ford Motor and marketed
using either Ford Credit, Mazda American Credit, Land Rover
Credit, or Jaguar Credit discriminate by charging African
Americans more for credit, for reasons not related to
creditworthiness.

The lawsuit alleges that Primus's lending policies permit and
encourage a practice known as "auto finance markup" that has a
discriminatory impact on African-American plaintiffs and results
in their paying more for credit than White consumers with
comparable credit ratings.  The markup occurs when a consumer
requests a car dealer to arrange financing for a car purchase.

Typically the dealer submits the consumer's credit application
to a lender who determines an approved interest rate by
examination of the consumer's credit history.  The lender then
communicates the approved interest rate to the dealer and
authorizes the dealer, without informing the consumer, to
subjectively add percentage points to the interest rate of their
loan without regards to their creditworthiness.  The dealer and
the lender then split the markup, as additional profit.  Markup
costs to a consumer over the life of the loan can range from
hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Studies of industry data filed in various court cases, including
the case against Primus, have asserted that African-American and
Hispanic consumers are more likely to receive the markup and
that they on average pay higher markup fess than White
customers.

The suit is "Claybrook, et al. v. Primus Auto Financ, et al.,
Case No. 3:02-cv-00382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing plaintiffs is John A. Barney of Shelley I. Stiles &
Associates, 5214 Maryland Way, Suite 402, Brentwood, TN 37027,
Phone: (615) 371-8969, E-mail: jbarney@brentwoodlaw.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Evelyn L. Becker, John H. Beisner, Neil K. Gilman and
         Rachel S. Janger all of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 1625 I
         Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4001, Phone: (202)
         383-5300;

     (2) Valerie S. Sanders, Thomas M. Byrne, Daniel H.
         Schlueter and Rocco E. Testani all of Sutherland,
         Asbill & Brennan, 999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta,
         GA 30309-3996, Phone: (404) 853-8000, Fax: 404-853-
         8806, E-mail: valerie.sanders@sablaw.com or
         tom.byrne@sablaw.com or dan.schlueter@sablaw.com; and

     (3) Anita L. Whisnant of Primus Automotive Financial
         Services, Inc., P O Box 680100, Franklin, TN 37068-
         0100, Phone: (615) 315-7992.


REPUBLIC OF SUDAN: Faces $105M Lawsuit Over U.S.S. Cole Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Sudan faces a purported class action filed by
families whose members where killed in the 2000 bombing of the
U.S.S. Cole, The Charleston State Journal reports.

The families of the 17 sailors killed in the terrorist attack on
the U.S. Navy warship alleges that the East African nation's
government provided support, including money and training, that
allowed Al-Qaeda to attack the ship.  

The lawsuit seeks $105 million in damages.  Families say that
the money could be paid from Sudanese assets the U.S. government
has frozen.

In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in
Richmond denied Sudan's request to dismiss the lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs is Saundra Flanagan, whose son, 30-year-
old Petty Officer Second Class Kevin Rux, was among those
killed.

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer U.S.S. Cole was the target of
a terrorist attack in Aden, Yemen, on Oct. 12, 2000 during a
scheduled refueling.  The attack killed 17 crewmembers and
injured 39 others (http://researcharchives.com/t/s?14db).


SEARS OPTICAL: Settles Consumer Fraud Litigation in Va. Over BPP
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of class actions in Virginia against Cole Vision,
the operator of Sears Optical stores, went into effect on Nov.
9, 2006, according to WDBJ7.

The suit is over the Breakage Protection Plan (BPP) at Sears
Optical and the extra fees customers were making.  It was a deal
that included a warranty on eyeglasses, part of a half price
promotion.

In some cases, customers never knew they were paying extra.  In
addition, they also never received an itemized bill to see what
they were paying for, and weren't given a choice.

Two consumers filed the class action complaints.  The company
denies defrauding consumers, but Cole Vision settled with the
consumers out of court, agreeing to issue more than 30,000
coupons.

The court settlement calls for Sears Optical to display signs
prominently disclosing package prices.  However, as of Nov. 9,
there were no such signs at the Sears Optical store in Roanoke,
where all this started, according to the report


SNAP-ON TOOLS: N.J. Court to Resolve Dispute Over $13M Legal Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey is to decide on how to allocate the $13
million in fees awarded to attorneys in the settlement of a
class action against Snap-on Tools Co. by its franchisees.  A
date has yet to be set for the hearing.  Meanwhile, the $13
million award will be held in escrow, according to the New
Jersey Law Journal.

Judge Cavanaugh approved on Oct. 27 a settlement valued at more
than $125 million between Snap-on Tools and former and current
franchisees (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2006).  The
settlement affects 3,200 current Snap-on dealers and 2,900
former Snap-on dealers.  It includes about $38 million that will
be split among former and current dealers as well as for
attorneys' fees.

Two plaintiff law firms are in disagreement on whether to divide
50-50 or 60-40 the excess of the fees after each firm's lodestar
and expenses are paid.  Gerald Marks, of Marks & Klein in Red
Bank, New Jersey, set his fee lodestar at $1.673 million.  
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter of Morristown, New
Jersey, which Mr. Marks said in court papers, he "hired" in
2003, filed a brief stating his firm's lodestar is $3.196
million.

Franchisees of the company sued the company alleging that
because of deceptive business practices by Snap-on, their
franchises failed.

Named plaintiffs Middletown resident Richard Fortuna and
Brick resident Paul Vladyka will each receive no more than
$50,000 under the settlement.  The remaining part of the
settlement includes the forgiveness of debt of former
franchisees, which totals about $61.6 million.

The settlement also provided for credits payable to current and
prospective franchises, changes in Snap-On's franchise
distribution and business practices and other benefits to the
class, with a combined estimated value of $64 million.

In addition, another nearly 100 class members, who are
represented by counsel as of April 18, 2006, will get as much as
$15,000 each.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Snap-On Credit, LLC
     -- Snap-On Inc., and
     -- Snap-On Tools Co., LLC

The suit is "Desantis et al. v. Snap-On Tools Co., Case No.
2:06-cv-02231-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, with
referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the defendants are Gage Andretta and Daniel D.
Barnes both of Wolff & Samson, PC, One Boland Drive, West
Orange, NJ 07052, Phone: (973) 325-1500, E-mail:
gandretta@wolffsamson.com or dbarnes@wolffsamson.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward Bruce Deutsch, Donna Dubeth Gardiner and Ronald
         J. Riccio all of McElroy, Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter,
         LLP, 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, PO Box 2075, Morristown,
         NJ 07962-2075, Phone: (973) 993-8100, E-mail:
         edeutsch@mdmc-law.com or dgardiner@mdmc-law.com or
         rriccio@mdmc-law.com; and

     (2) Justin M. Klein and Gerald Allen Marks both of Marks &
         Klein, LLP, 63 Riverside Avenue, Red Bank, NJ 07701,
         Phone: (732) 747-7100, E-mail: justin@marksklein.com or
         jerry@marksklein.com.


TENFOLD CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed
against TenFold Corp., 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.

On Nov. 6, 2001, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants the
company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.

An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2002.  The company
and certain of the company's officers and directors are named in
the suit pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the
basis of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters'
alleged compensation and manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated Oct. 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted a motion to dismiss the Rule
10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the company.

On June 27, 2003, the company's board of directors approved a
proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the company's and of the individual defendants for the alleged
wrongful conduct in the Amended complaint.  

The company agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims that it may have
against its underwriters.

In June 2004, a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed with the Court.  The underwriters filed a
memorandum with the court opposing preliminary approval of the
settlement.  

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb.
15, 2005, subject to certain modifications.  On Aug. 31, 2005,
the court issued a preliminary order further approving the
modifications to the settlement and certifying the settlement
classes.

The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on Nov.
15, 2005.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006, though
the court issued no ruling.

The suit is "In re Tenfold Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax; 212.686.0114, e-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Cardigans Posing Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation
with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
14,000 units of Minnie Mouse cardigan sets.

The company said if the cardigan is buttoned, the ribbon woven
around the neckline poses a strangulation hazard for children.  
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The pink cardigan is sold as part of a three-piece set which
also includes a light pink turtleneck and denim pants.  The
cardigan has a pink ribbon woven around the neckline.  Minnie
Mouse is embroidered on the lower left front of the cardigan.  
The cardigan was sold in sizes 12M, 18M, 24M, 3T, 4T, and 5T.

These recalled cardigans were manufactured in China and are
being sold exclusively at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from July
2006 through August 2006 for about $15.

Picture of the recalled cardigan:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07015.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled cardigan away from
children immediately and return the entire three-piece set to
Wal-Mart for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278
between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.walmartstores.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


WARNER CHILCOTT: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly-
traded common stock of Warner Chilcott Lt. pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the initial public offering of Warner
Chilcott shares between Sept. 20, 2006 and Sept. 26, 2006
inclusive.  

The deadline to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff is Jan. 2, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  The company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO failed to disclose that shortly prior to the IPO, the
company had stopped shipping Ovcon 35, Warner Chilcott's top
selling birth control pill and a primary source of revenue for
the company.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the company filed a supplement to Warner
Chilcott's Registration Statement and Prospectus.  By that
supplement, the company disclosed for the first time that it had
stopped shipments of Ovcon 35 in September 2006 when Warner
Chilcott launched Ovcon Chewable.

On this news, Warner Chilcott's common stock price closed at
$12.60 a share, on unusually high volume of nearly 15 million
shares traded, down $2.40 a share from the offering price of $15
per share.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
of Zwerling Schachter, Phone: 1-800-721-3900, E-mail:
sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com, Web site:
http://www.zsz.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *