CAR_Public/061114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 226

                            Headlines

APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Faulty 17" LCDs
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Debt Collections Practices
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: N.J. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CALIFORNIA: L.A. County, Long Beach Face Suit Over Phone Taxes
CALIFORNIA: Legal Challenges to Limit Prison Population Filed

CANADIAN NATIONAL: Court Denies Class Status for Coal Dust Suit
CERADYNE INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
DUN & BRADSTREET: Circuit Court Mulls Pension Plan Suit Motions
DUN & BRADSTREET: N.J. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss "Finley"
EDWARD JONES: Judge Nixes Motion to Remand Calif. Consumer Suit

FERRO CORP: Settles Ohio Lawsuit Over ERISA Violation for $4M
FLORIDA: Court Bans Housing of Kids in Unlicensed Facilities
FMC CORP: Penn. Court Approves $25M Antitrust Suit Settlement
FRANCE: Council of Ministers Approve Class-Action Legislation
HERCULES INC: Settles Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in Pa.

HILB ROGAL: N.J. Court Denies Certain Claims in Antitrust Suit
HOOVER'S INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement with Underwriters
INTERGRAPH CORP: Settles Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Merger
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Calif. Securities Fraud Complaint Amended
MOSCOW CABLECOM: Shareholders File Suit in Del. Over $130M Sale

NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Conn. ERISA Suit Dismissal Motion Pending
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Discovery Ongoing in Ohio Insurance Policy Suit
OREGON: Medford, City Manager Face Suits over Retiree Benefits
PACIFIER MANUFACTURERS: Recall Pacifiers Posing Choking Hazard
PROFLOWERS.COM: Settles Deceptive Marketing Suit in Calif.

QC HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Payday Loans, Interest Rates
UAL CORP: Reaches Settlements for Several Antitrust Lawsuits
WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Gas Boilers with Incorrect Installing Tags
WESTAR ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Appeal on $30M Stock Suit Deal
WESTAR ENERGY: Kans. Court Approves $9.25M ERISA Fraud Suit Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APOLLO GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
WARNER CHILCOTT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Faulty 17" LCDs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc. settled a purported class action filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court by customers who experienced quality
problems with their 17-inch LCD Studio Displays manufactured
beginning May 2001, according to Prince McLean of Apple Insider.

The suit, "Allen v. Apple," alleged that the inverter board of
the display was faulty, causing gradient dimming of the top or
bottom half of the screen and a power light to constantly blink
on and off in a short-short-long pattern.

The settlement automatically covers all U.S. customers who
purchased one of the displays beginning in May 2001, unless they
submit a request for exclusion postmarked on or before Jan. 19,
2007.

Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to
those customers who paid for a repair related to the inverter
board and who send in a valid claim form.  

The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who
performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair,
and how old the display was when the repair was performed.

In essence the settlement stipulates that:

      -- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired
         by the company during the second year of ownership will
         be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their
         unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and

      -- customers who had repairs done by a party other than
         the company will receive the actual amount they paid up
         to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter.

However, in order to receive the refund, customers who had their
17-inch Studio Display repaired on or before Nov. 13, 2006 must
mail a claim form postmarked on or before Feb. 12, 2007.  

If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be
mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered
repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier.

Fairness hearing is Feb. 15, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.

For more details, visit: http://www.apple17inchlcddisplay.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Debt Collections Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Legal Assistance Group filed a purported class
action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against Bank of America Corp. and several others over
alleged unconstitutional debt collection practices.

The suit, "Sims, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al.," was
filed on behalf of recipients of Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) in New York State whose bank accounts are or will be
restrained (frozen) to enforce a money judgment even though the
accounts contain only SSI benefits that are exempt from
collection.

Plaintiffs challenge provisions of New York law that permit such
accounts to be frozen, alleging that the provisions violate
class members' rights under federal law, the U.S. Constitution
and the New York State Constitution.

Besides Bank of America, other defendants in the case include:

     -- Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, which issued the
        restraining notice;
     -- the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge of the
        State of New York; and

     -- the State Superintendent of Banks, in their official
        capacities.

Technological developments make it easier and cheaper than ever
for judgment creditors to collect debts by freezing a debtor's
bank account.

However, under the current system, accounts containing only SSI
benefits that a debtor needs to live -- money Congress has
protected from collection -- are often illegally frozen.

Illegally frozen accounts can take weeks to "unfreeze."  In the
meantime, the debtor has no money for rent, utilities and other
essential expenses, and also frequently faces unaffordable bank
fees caused by the restraint.

Plaintiff Justine Sims' sole source of monthly income is $690 in
SSI benefits and $119 in food stamps.  Ms. Sims' Bank of America
account was illegally frozen on Oct. 12, and the bank charged a
$100 service fee for processing the restraining notice.

Despite Ms. Sims' numerous phone calls to her bank and other
defendants explaining that her account contained only SSI
benefits, it remained illegally frozen for over three weeks
until the lawsuit was filed.  

Without access to her SSI benefits, Ms. Sims could not pay her
rent and utility bills; she has already received one
disconnection notice from her electricity provider.

"The way the system currently works affords everybody but the
SSI recipient the advantage of technological advances," says
Caroline Jane Hickey, staff attorney in NYLAG's Special
Litigation Unit.

Ms. Hickey goes on to explain, "The government saves money by
using electronic deposit rather than mailing a paper check, the
judgment creditor saves time and money by serving restraining
notices electronically, but the SSI recipient's account is
retrained even though, prior to freezing the account, banks can
simply take a quick look at the customer's recent deposits to
determine whether the account contains only protected SSI
benefits."

The suit is "Sims v. Bank of America Corp., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-05991-CPS-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Charles P. Sifton with
referral to Judge Joan M. Azrack.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jane Greengold Stevens of The New
York Legal Assistance Group, 450 West 33rd Street, 11th Floor,
New York, NY 10001, Phone: (212) 750-0800 ext. 207, Fax: (212)
750-0820, E-mail: jstevens@nylag.org.


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: N.J. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative securities class action filed against Barrier
Therapeutics Inc., certain of its officers and certain of the
underwriters for the company's 2004 initial public offering and
2005 secondary offering, has been voluntarily dismissed, in its
entirety and with prejudice, by the lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs' counsel submitted the stipulation of
dismissal to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, without any payment by the company or any of the
defendants to the plaintiffs or their counsel.

The company expects the court to enter an order with respect to
the submission promptly.

In October 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc.
between Apr. 29, 2004 and Jun. 29, 2005.

At least four additional putative class actions were also filed
against the company and certain of its officers, all pleading
essentially the same allegations.

In an order entered on Dec. 19, 2005, the court consolidated
these cases.  By order dated March 2, 2006, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs and approved co-lead counsel.  

The complaints filed allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The suit is "Midtown Partners, Inc. v. Barrier Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-04926-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann  
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ  
         07663, Phone: 201-845-9600, E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com;

     (2) Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 236 Tillou  
         Road, South Orange, NJ 07079, Phone: (973) 313-1887, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and  

     (3) Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas,  
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:  
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Robert Alan White of Morgan,  
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08540,  
Phone: (609) 919-6600, E-mail: rwhite@morganlewis.com.


CALIFORNIA: L.A. County, Long Beach Face Suit Over Phone Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach were each
named as defendant in two separate class actions that accuse
each one of improperly collecting taxes on telephone service,
The Courthouse News reports.

The suits, which were both filed in Los Angeles Superior Court,
are captioned:

      -- "Willy Granados, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, Case
         No. BC361470," and

      -- "John W. McWilliams, et al. v. City of Long Beach, Case
         No. BC361469."

Both cases were assigned to Judge Victoria Chaney.  Rachele R.
Rickert with Wolf Haldenstein Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP is
representing both plaintiffs in the case.

                       Granados Litigation

In "Granados," plaintiff alleges improper collection and
administration of the Los Angeles County Telephone Utility Users
Tax.

Plaintiff specifically accuses the county of collecting a 5
percent tax on phone service in unincorporated areas, which he
claims says is prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service code.  
He also claims five U.S. District Courts have declared that this
federal excise tax is illegal.

Plaintiff thus seeks on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated taxpayers:

      -- a declaration that the Utility Users Tax does not apply
         to telephone services to which the Federal Excise Tax
         does not apply;

      -- an injunction preventing the county from further
         improper collection of the Utility Users Tax;

      -- damages in the amount of monies improperly collected
         under the Utility Users Tax, plus interest; and

      -- such other relief as the court deems proper.

                      McWilliams Litigation

In "McWilliams," plaintiff alleges improper collection and
administration of the Long Beach City Telephone Utility Users
Tax.  He claims that Long Beach charges its residents an illegal
10 percent tax.

Plaintiff thus seeks on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated taxpayers:

      -- a declaration that the Utility Users Tax does not apply
         to telephone services to which the Federal Excise Tax
         does not apply;

      -- an injunction preventing the city from further improper
         collection of the Utility Users Tax;

      -- an injunction preventing the city from adopting an
         amendment creating a new tax or, at a minimum,
         increasing the tax base of the Utility Users Tax
         without voter approval;

      -- damages in the amount of monies improperly collected
         under the Utility Users Tax, plus interest; and

      -- such other relief as the court deems proper.  

For more details, contact Rachele R. Rickert with Wolf
Haldenstein Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, Symphony Towers, 750 B
St., Suite 2770, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-239-4599, Fax:
619-234-4599.


CALIFORNIA: Legal Challenges to Limit Prison Population Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions were filed in U.S. District Courts for both the Eastern
(Sacramento) and Northern (San Francisco) Districts of
California that seek to cap the inmate population in state
prisons, The Associated Press reports.

According to two 2004 reports, there are about 173,000 prisoners
in state facilities, over 30,000 more than the prisons are
designed to handle.

The motion in Sacramento was filed as part of an already settled
class action to improve mental health care for prisoners.  While
the San Francisco court motion is part of a class action case
over all health care services in the prison system.

In a press release, San Francisco plaintiff attorney Michael
Bien wrote, "Inhumane levels of crowding have overwhelmed the
efforts of these courts to assure even minimal standards of
human decency in the delivery of medical and mental health
care."

As of the moment, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) has yet to issue a response to the
motions.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking a December hearing before a
federal judge to request a three-member judiciary panel to hear
the population limit motions.

In October, Gov. Schwarzenegger issued an emergency order to
CDCR to enter contracts with out-of-state prison operators to
begin transferring up to 5,000 prisoners.  

Last week, 80 inmates were taken to a medium level facility in
Macon, Tennessee.  CDCR has signed agreements to transfer up to
2,260 inmates to prisons in Arizona, Oklahoma and Indiana,
besides Tennessee.

For more details, contact Michael Bien of Rosen, Bien & Galvan,
LLP, 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor, San Francisco, CA
94104, Phone: (415) 433-6830, Fax: (415) 433-7104, E-mail:
rbg@rbg-law.com, Web site: http://www.rbalaw.com/.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Court Denies Class Status for Coal Dust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court declined to certify as class
action a lawsuit filed against Canadian National Railway Ltd.
(CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP) over the pollution
caused by dust coming from their coal trains, Reuters reports.

The suit was filed by a Kamloops, British Columbia woman.  It
accuses the railroads of not doing enough to stop escaping dust
and damaging property within 500 meters of the tracks carrying
trains from Sparwood, British Columbia to Roberts Bank on the
Pacific Coast.

The court refused to certify the suit, ruling that it would
render individual landowner's complaints too complicated to
resolve.


CERADYNE INC: 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 Ceradyne, 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 lawsuit, 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,
Website: http://www.ssbny.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Circuit Court Mulls Pension Plan Suit Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Circuit Court has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motions in
the pension plan litigation filed against Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
in March 2003.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status.  It was filed in federal
court in Connecticut on behalf of 46 specified former employees.  
The putative class includes:

     -- current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun &
        Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and were previously
        participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun &
        Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan (MRP);

     -- current employees of Receivable Management Services
        Corp. (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
        Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and were previously
        participants in the MRP;

     -- former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management
        Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred vested
        retirement benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet
        Corp. Retirement Account or the MRP; and

     -- former employees of RMS whose employment with D&B
        terminated after the sale of the RMS operations but who
        are not employees of RMSC and who, during their
        employment with D&B, were "Eligible Employees" for
        purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan.

There are four counts in the Amended Complaint.

Count 1: claims that the company violated Employee Retirement
         Income Security Act by not paying severance benefits
         under the company's Career Transition Plan.

Count 2: claims that the company's sale of the RMS business to
         RMSC and the resulting termination of the company's
         employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the
         plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs
         for the purpose of interfering with their employment
         and/or benefit rights in a violation of ERISA.

Count 3: claims that the company's summary plan description
         failed to reasonably apprise participants and
         beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the
         plans and that, therefore, the actuarial reduction
         beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B before age 55
         and elect to retire early cannot be enforced against
         them.

Count 4: claims that the interest rate used to actuarially
         reduce early retirement benefits is unreasonable and,
         therefore, results in a prohibited forfeiture of
         benefits under ERISA.

The plaintiffs sought:

     * payment of severance benefits;
   
     * equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
       employment with D&B or restoration of employee benefits,
       including stock options;

     * invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to
       deferred vested early retirement benefits, including
       invalidation of the plan interest rate used to
       actuarially reduce former employees' early retirement
       benefits; and

     * attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may
       deem just.

In September 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss Counts
1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint.  The court granted the
motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3, and requested that the parties
conduct limited expert discovery and submit further briefing
regarding Count 4.

In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count
4, the company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the
ground that the interest rate is reasonable as a matter of law.

Plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to dismiss with prejudice Count
2.  Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to amend the Amended
Complaint to add a new count challenging the adequacy of the
retirement plan's mortality tables, which the company opposed.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted D&B's motion for summary
judgment as to Count 4 (the interest rate issue) and also denied
the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended Complaint.

On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the ruling granting the
motion to dismiss Count 3, the ruling granting summary judgment
on Count 4, and the denial of leave to amend their Amended
Complaint.  

Oral argument before the Second Circuit took place on Feb. 15,
2006, and a decision is pending, according to the company's Nov.
3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30.


DUN & BRADSTREET: N.J. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss "Finley"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the purported class
action, "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al."

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 7, 2005 on behalf of a current
employee raising complaints against the company's retirement
plans.   

The complaint seeks certification of these putative classes:  

      -- current or former Dun & Bradstreet employees (other  
         than employees who on Dec. 31, 2001, were at least
         age 50 with 10 years of vesting service);  

      -- had attained an age which, when added to his or her  
         years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than  
         70; or  

      -- had attained age 65, who participated in The Dun &  
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before Jan. 1,
         2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet
         Corp. Retirement Account at any time since
         Jan. 1, 2002.

The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
1,000 individuals.  There are five counts in the complaint.   

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by reducing the rate of an employee's
benefit accrual on the basis of age.   

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement, because the plan allegedly conditions receipt of
cash balance benefits on foregoing the early retirement benefits
plaintiff earned prior to the adoption of the cash balance
amendment.   

Count 3 claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's
"anti-backloading" rule.   

Count 4 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to supply advance
notice of a significant benefit decrease.   

Count 5 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to provide an
adequate Summary Plan Description.

In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks:  

      -- a declaration that Dun & Bradstreet's cash balance plan  
         is ineffective and that the Dun & Bradstreet Master  
         Retirement Plan is still in force and effect, and  
         plaintiff's benefit accrual under the cash balance plan  
         must be unconditional and not reduced because of age;
  
      -- an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash  
         balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit  
         accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits  
         due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable  
         relief to determine plan participant losses caused by
         D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance  
         plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional
         benefits as appropriate;

      -- attorneys' fees and costs;  

      -- interest; and  

      -- such other relief as the court may deem just.

A Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District of New Jersey
was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 and was granted on March 31, 2006.  
The action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, and,
on June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which
omitted the claim for violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement and added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based
on allegedly misleading plan communications.  

On July 5, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant
to Section 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures, on
the grounds that:  

      -- the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations  
         and the doctrine of laches;

      -- the cash balance plan does not discriminate on the  
         basis of age;

      -- the cash balance plan does not violate ERISA's anti-
         backloading rule;  

      -- D&B complied with Section 204(h) of ERISA by providing  
         sufficient advance notice of the plan amendment;

      -- D&B's Summary Plan Description fully complies with the  
         requirements of ERISA; and  

      -- plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of  
         fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on Sept.
11, 2006.  The company filed its reply Oct. 11, 2006 and is
awaiting a decision.

The suit is "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No.  
2:06-cv-01838-SRC-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.  

Representing the defendant is Christopher H. Mills at Fisher &
Phillips, LLP, Corporate Park III, 580 Howard Ave., Somerset,
N.J. 08873, Phone: (732) 560-7100.

Representing the plaintiff is Jonathan I. Nirenberg at Resnick
Nirenberg & Siegler, 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300,
Roseland, N.J. 07068, Phone: 973-795-1240, E-mail:
jnirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com.


EDWARD JONES: Judge Nixes Motion to Remand Calif. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a second motion to remand the consumer class action filed
against broker Edward D. Jones & Co., a principal subsidiary of
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., (Partnership),
according to The Courthouse News.

The suit, filed by Todd Bressler and William O. Potter, accuses
the company of receiving kickbacks from mutual fund companies it
had placed on an internal "preferred funds" list.  

Plaintiffs alleged that the company offered them biased
investment advice to get them to keep their holdings in the
preferred funds.  

Initially, the case was filed in February 2004 under the
caption, "Bressler, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."  The
case, along with another one, was consolidated before the
Superior Court for Los Angeles, California (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 21, 2006).

Plaintiffs, in their amended and consolidated complaint, allege
that the company violated Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code by failing to disclose the receipt
of revenue sharing associated with customers' holding of mutual
fund shares under management at the company.

In addition, plaintiffs allege that the company breached
fiduciary duties by accepting account fees and revenue sharing
incident to the holding of mutual fund shares without adequate
disclosures, as well as alleging unjust enrichment.  

Plaintiffs only seek to represent California resident customers
of the Partnership who held Preferred Family mutual fund shares
from January 1999 through 2004.  

The company removed the action to federal court, which remanded
after determining that the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act did not apply.

Less than two years later, the company filed a second motion for
removal, arguing that plaintiffs' state claims were pre-empted
by the Act in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.  

This time, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper agreed.  She denied and
dismissed the motion to remand.

The suit is "In Re Edward Jones Holders Litigation, Case No.
2:06-cv-01974-FMC-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Florence-Marie Cooper
with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.

Representing the plaintiff is Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067. Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James H. Ferrick of Greensfelder Hemker and Gate, 10 S.
         Broadway, Suite 2000, St Louis, MO 63102, US, Phone:
         314-241-9090; and

     (2) Peter B. Gelblum of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, 11377
         W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683, Phone:
         310-312-2000, E-mail: pbg@msk.com.


FERRO CORP: Settles Ohio Lawsuit Over ERISA Violation for $4M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corp. reaches an agreement to settle a suit filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio over an alleged
Employee Retirement Income Security Act breach.

On June 10, 2005, a putative class action was filed against
Ferro Corp., and certain former and current employees alleging
breach of fiduciary duty with respect to ERISA plans.

In October 2006, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that would result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice
in exchange for the settlement amount of $4.0 million, which
would be paid by the company's liability insurer subject to the
company's satisfaction of the remaining retention amount under
the insurance policy.

The company and the individual defendants expressly deny any and
all liability.  Several contingent events must be satisfied
before the settlement becomes final, including preliminary and
final approval by the U.S. District Court where the matter is
pending.

The suit is "Duquette v. Ferro Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01594-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio under Judge John M. Manos.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein, 60 South
         Park Place, Painsville, OH 44077, Phone: 440-352-3391,
         Fax: 440-352-3469, E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com;  

     (2) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, Ste. 1005, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-3610, Fax:
         212-918-7967; and

     (3) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner, Ste. 1000, 485
         7th Street, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-239-4340,
         Fax: 239-4310, E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com.  

Representing the defendants is Steven A. Friedman of Squire,
Sanders & Dempsey, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland,
OH 44114, Phone: 216-479-8327, Fax: 216-479-8777, E-mail:
sfriedman@ssd.com.  


FLORIDA: Court Bans Housing of Kids in Unlicensed Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------
The Leon County Circuit Court in Florida issued an order in a
purported class action against the state that prohibits it from
housing foster children in unlicensed facilities, according to
Jim Ash of The Tallahassee Democrat.

The suit was filed on behalf of foster children on April 4, 2006
by the Children's Advocacy Center at Florida State University,
the San Francisco-based Youth Law Center and attorney Michael J.
Dale, who is also a law professor at Nova Southeastern
University in Davie.  

It alleged that the Department of Children and Families (DCF)
and the Big Bend Community Based Care, Inc., did not provide
enough foster placements for children with special needs (Class
Action Reporter, May 1, 2006).  

According to the suit, the foster children were being housed
overnight for several days in a Tallahassee conference room,
which was shared by the Big Bend and the DCF.

In August, children's advocates quickly reached a settlement
with Big Bend after the contractor promised to find more
suitable quarters.  However, the department argued that it was
exempt from state licensing requirements.

In her latest order though, Circuit Judge Janet Ferris wrote
that "holding children in office conference rooms or other
unlicensed facilities violates the mandate" of state law.

For more details, contact Michael J. Dale, Nova Southeastern
University, 3305 College Ave Ft. Lauderdale-Davie, FL 33314,
Phone: 954-262-6100 and 800-986-6529, E-mail:
dalem@nsu.law.nova.edu.


FMC CORP: Penn. Court Approves $25M Antitrust Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted preliminary approval to the $25.0 million settlement of
a class action filed against FMC Corp. over alleged violations
of antitrust laws involving the company's microcrystalline
cellulose product.  

In 2005, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the
company's co-defendant, Asahi Kasei Corp. for a payment of $25.0
million.  

As a result of motions by the company to disqualify the
plaintiffs' economic experts, the experts' reports were required
to be revised.  At the oral hearing on these motions, the court
requested that the parties engage in settlement discussions.  

Mediation before a magistrate judge was held on July 21, 2006
and as a result, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the federal class action for the same amount paid by
the company's co-defendant.

Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court
in early September 2006.  The amount paid in settlement of this
case is being held in escrow pending final approval by the
court.

The suit is "Highland Lab., Inc. v. FMC Corp., et al., Case No.  
2:01-cv-01464-TON," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas N. O'Neill,  
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is H. Laddie Montague, Jr. of Berger  
& Montague, PC, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:  
215-875-3000, E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net.   


FRANCE: Council of Ministers Approve Class-Action Legislation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The French government approved a consumer-protection bill that
would introduce a version of class actions into the country's
legal system, according to Rick Mitchell of Business Insurance.

At a recent meeting, the Council of Ministers approved the bill,
which would also require telecommunication companies and
Internet service providers to stop charging consumers for time
spent waiting on customer-service hotlines.

Additionally, the new bill also reinforces the government's
consumer protection watchdog, while allowing for tax-deductible
contributions to consumer defense associations.

In a recent press statement regarding the bill's approval,
President Jacques Chirac said that it was a question of justice
and it's important for consumer confidence, and thus for
economic growth.

The French president adds that the French version would "avoid
the abuses of the Anglo-Saxon system," a reference mainly to
class actions in the U.S., according to a report by the
Associated Press.

In essence, the bill creates a two-phase process in which judges
could hear class-action complaints, but only those covering
consumer goods linked to a contract, and only those filed by
government-approved consumer organizations.  Damages are capped
at $2,573.44 (EUR2,000).

If a judge determines "professional fault," individual
plaintiffs would have to individually negotiate with the company
for compensation and then personally appear before the judge if
the company refuses to settle.

However, the new bill will not introduce lawyer contingency
fees, punitive damages or civil trials with juries into the
country.  

It also stipulates that class actions would not be allowed for
medical complaints, transportation accidents, or other non-
commercial disputes.

In January 2005, France's president announced that he had
instructed his government to introduce class actions.  The move
was welcomed by French consumer groups, but was fiercely
criticized by the business and legal community, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 10, 2005).

According to the consumer groups, introduction of collective
lawsuits would help redress the balance of economic power,
currently weighted in favor of producers, since unlike the U.S.,
France has few powerful consumer champions or shareholder rights
groups and independent pension funds capable of taking on
powerful companies.  

The government stressed though that it would learn from the
American's experience and prevent any abuses of the system by
unscrupulous lawyers.

However, Ernest-Antoine Seilliere, president of Medef, the
French employers' federation, said that class actions could have
"catastrophic consequences" and added, "We are very active in
trying to limit these measures" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27,
2005).

France is the latest European country to consider ways of
facilitating collective legal action against companies, after
several financial and health scandals affected confidence in the
corporate sector.  Aside from France, the U.K. recently changed
a certain law to allow groups of cases to be managed
collectively, while German lawmakers are considering similar
moves (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2005).


HERCULES INC: Settles Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated class action filed against Hercules
Inc. and other defendants over alleged Employee Retirement
Income Security Act violations entered into an agreement to
settle the case.

In June 2004 Charles Stepnowski filed a purported class action
(Civil Action No. 04-cv-2296) in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against:

     -- Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Hercules Inc. Finance Committee, and
     -- Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' vice president human
        resources

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of benefits under the
Pension Plan of Hercules Inc., and alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Rule 29 of the U.S.
Civil Code Section 1001 et seq.  Under the Plan, eligible
retirees of the company may opt to receive a single cash payment
of 51% of the present value of their accrued benefit, with the
remaining 49% payable as a monthly annuity.  

In the Stepnowski lawsuit, it is alleged that the company's
adoption in 2002 of a new interest rate assumption used to
determine the 51% cash payment constitutes a breach of fiduciary
duty and a violation of the anti-cutback requirements of ERISA,
the Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the Plan, and that
its communications to employees concerning the new interest rate
assumption constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of additional benefits
under ERISA (as well as costs and attorneys fees), seeks to
compel the company to use an interest rate assumption that is
more favorable to eligible retirees, and seeks to establish a
class comprised of all plan participants who retired (or who
will retire) on or after Dec. 1, 2001.  

By Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 2005, the court denied
without prejudice plaintiff's motion for class certification and
dismissed plaintiff's anti-cutback claim, but allowed
plaintiff's claim for benefits and breach of fiduciary duty to
proceed.  

In December 2005, a virtually identical purported class action
(Civil Action No. 05-6404) was filed in the same court by Samuel
J. Webster, and others, against:

     -- Hercules, Inc.,
     -- The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Hercules Inc. finance committee, and
     -- Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' vice president human
        resources

In January 2006, the court consolidated the Stepnowski and
Webster lawsuits for discovery and trial and set both cases for
trial on March 27, 2006.  That trial was then re-scheduled and
then postponed indefinitely.

In March 2006, the court certified the Webster action as a class
action.  

By Order dated April 20, 2006, the court entered partial summary
judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that while the interest
range change did not violate the anti-cutback provisions of
ERISA, such change did violate provisions of the Plan.

The court ordered the company to recalculate the lump sum
pension benefit owed to class members by using the prior
interest rate assumption (the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corp. rate, which was the rate used prior to the change to the
new interest rate, as referenced above) to calculate benefits
accrued through Dec. 31, 2001, and the new interest rate (the
"30-Year Treasury Bill" rate) for all benefits accrued after
Dec. 31, 2001.

That Order also required the company to make certain payments to
Mr. Stepnowski and Mr. Webster, with such payments representing
the additional lump sum benefit payable as a result of the
adjusted lump sum calculation described in the preceding
sentence, plus interest.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the parties entered into a settlement in
principle to resolve both the Stepnowski lawsuit and Webster
class action.  The parties have agreed to keep the terms of the
settlement in principle confidential until such time as the
parties submit the settlement to the court for approval.

In a separate but partially related matter, on July 27, 2006,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a prior
ruling of the U.S. Tax Court and held that the above-described
interest rate change made to the Plan by Hercules did not
violate the Internal Revenue Code's anti-cutback requirements
(Charles P. Stepnowski v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
Hercules Incorporated, Docket No. 03-08383).

The suits are "Stepnowski v. Hercules, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-02296-JF," and "Webster v. Hercules Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-06404-JF," which are both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Pennsylvania under Judge John
P. Fullam.

In "Stepnowski," the plaintiff are represented by:

     (1) Alice W. Ballard of Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, PC,
         1616 Walnut St., Suite 2205, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-893-9708, Fax: 215-893-9997, E-mail:
         awballard@awballard.com; and

     (2) Mervin M. Wilf of Mervin M. Wilf, Ltd., One South Broad
         Street, Suite 1630, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-
         568-4842.

In "Webster," the plaintiff is represented by Robert J. Larocca
of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, E-mail:
rlarocca@kohnswift.com.  

Representing the company in both cases are David S. Fryman and
Allison V. Kinsey of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPP,
1735 Market St., 51ST FL., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599, Phone:
215-864-8105 and 215-864-8782, Fax: 215-864-9743, E-mail:
fryman@ballardspahr.com and kinseya@ballardspahr.com.  


HILB ROGAL: N.J. Court Denies Certain Claims in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied in
part the motion to dismiss the Commercial Complaint and the
Employee Benefits Complaint in the class action, "In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which names Hilb
Rogal & Hobbs Co. as defendants.

In August 2004, OptiCare Health Systems Inc. filed a putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 04-CV-06954) against a number of
the country's largest insurance brokers and several large
commercial insurers.  Hilb Rogal was named as a defendant in the  
OptiCare suit in November 2004.  

In December 2004, two other purported class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Stephen Lewis (Case No. 04-C-7847) and Diane Preuss (Case No.
04-C-7853), respectively, against certain insurance brokers,
including the company, and several large commercial insurers.  

On Feb. 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the OptiCare suit, along with three other purported
antitrust class actions filed in New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania against industry participants, be centralized and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New  
Jersey.  

In addition, by Conditional Transfer Order dated March 10, 2005,
the Panel conditionally transferred the Lewis and Preuss cases
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
transfer subsequently became effective and as a result of the
Panel's transfer orders, the OptiCare, Lewis and Preuss cases
are proceeding on a consolidated basis with other purported
class actions in "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. MDL-1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-cv-5184."  

               Commercial Class Action Complaint

On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation filed a First Consolidated Amended
Commercial Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Civil No. 04-5184) against the
company and certain other insurance brokers and insurers.  

In the Commercial Complaint, the named plaintiffs purport to
represent a class consisting of all persons who, between Aug.
26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may occur,
engaged the services of any one of the broker defendants or any
of their subsidiaries or affiliates to obtain advice with
respect to the procurement or renewal of insurance and who
entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the
insurer defendants.  

The plaintiffs allege in the Commercial Complaint, among other
things:  

      -- that the broker defendants engaged in improper steering  
         of clients to the insurer defendants for the purpose of  
         obtaining undisclosed additional compensation in the  
         form of contingent commissions from insurers;  

      -- that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging  
         scheme involving the submission of false and/or  
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;  

      -- that the broker defendants improperly placed their  
         clients' insurance business with insurers through  
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was  
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional  
         commissions from insurers;  

      -- that the broker defendants entered into unlawful tying  
         arrangements to obtain reinsurance business from the  
         defendant insurers; and  

      -- that the defendants created centralized internal  
         departments for the purpose of monitoring, facilitating  
         and advancing the collection of contingent commissions,  
         payments and other improper fees.  

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Rule 18 of the U.S. Civil Code Section
1962(c) and (d), fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.  

                   Employee Benefits Complaint

In addition, the plaintiffs in the Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation also filed on Aug. 1, 2005 a First Consolidated
Amended Employee Benefits Class Action Complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against:

     * the company;
     * Frank F. Haack & Associates, Inc.;
     * O'Neill, Finnegan & Jordan Insurance Agency Inc.; and       
     * certain other insurance brokers and insurers.  

In the Employee Benefits Complaint (Civil Nos. 04-5184, et al.),
the named plaintiffs purport to represent two separate classes
consisting of ERISA and non-ERISA plan employees and employers,
respectively, that have acquired insurance products from the
defendants in connection with an employee benefit plan between
Aug. 26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may
occur.  

Plaintiffs allege in the Employee Benefits Complaint, among
other things:

      -- that the broker defendants secretly conspired with the  
         insurer defendants to steer plaintiffs and members of  
         the classes to the insurer defendants in exchange for  
         undisclosed fees, including communication fees,  
         enrollment fees, service fees, finders fees and/or  
         administrative fees, contingent commissions and other  
         payments, including broker bonuses, trips and  
         entertainment, from the insurer defendants;  

     -- that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging scheme  
        involving the submission of false and/or inflated bids  
        from insurers to clients;  

     -- that the broker defendants improperly placed their  
        clients' insurance business with insurers through  
        related wholesale entities where an intermediary was  
        unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional  
        commissions from insurers; and  

     -- that the defendants entered into unlawful tying  
        arrangements under which the broker defendants would  
        place primary insurance contracts with insurers on the  
        condition that the insurers use the broker defendants  
        for placing their reinsurance coverage with reinsurance  
        carriers.  

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Rule 18 of the U.S. Civil Code Section
1962(c) and (d), fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble and punitive
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution,
interest, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.  

The company, along with other defendants, filed a motion to
dismiss both the Commercial Complaint and the Employee Benefits
Complaint.  The motion is now fully briefed and awaiting a
decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New  
Jersey.  

Also, on Feb. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motions for
class certification in each case.  On May 5, 2006, the
defendants filed their oppositions to the motions for class
certification.  

On May 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support
of their motions for class certification.  The motion for class
certification is fully briefed and awaiting a decision from the
District Court of New Jersey.

    Developments on Commercial, Employee Benefits Complaint

On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court of New Jersey denied in part
the motion to dismiss the Commercial Complaint and the Employee
Benefits Complaint and ordered that plaintiffs provide
supplemental information regarding each of their consolidated
complaints by Oct. 25, 2006.  The company revealed no
development on this aspect.

The District Court of New Jersey further ordered that upon
receipt of this supplemental information, the District Court of
New Jersey will issue a "final ruling" on the motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Rule 18 of the U.S. Civil Code Section
1962(c) and (d) and that on Nov. 6, 2006, the defendants will be
required to inform the District Court of New Jersey whether they
intend to move to dismiss the remaining counts or alternatively
to move for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on the
remaining counts, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,  
Case No. MDL-1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-cv-5184," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge  
Faith S. Hochberg.

Representing the company are:  

     (1) Michael R. Griffinger of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan,  
         Griffinger & Vecchione, PC, One Riverfront Plaza,  
         Newark, NJ 07102-5496, Phone: (973) 596-4500, E-mail:
         griffinger@gibbonslaw.com; and

     (2) Shawn Patrick Regan of Hunton & Williams, LLP, 200 Park  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: (212) 309-1046, E-
         mail: sregan@hunton.com.   


HOOVER'S INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement with Underwriters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to approve the settlement between Hoover's Inc. and its
underwriters in relation to a lawsuit over the company's 1999
initial public offering.

Hoover's Inc. is the E-Business Solutions operation of Dun &
Bradstreet Corp.

On Nov. 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against Hoover's, certain of its then current and former
officers and directors, and one of the underwriters of Hoover's
July 1999 initial public offering.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Hoover's stock between July 20, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000.  The
operative complaint alleges violations of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Hoover's and the Individual Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter allocated stock in
Hoover's IPO to certain investors in exchange for commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock in the aftermarket at prices above the IPO price.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Hoover's IPO was false
and misleading because it did not disclose these arrangements.  
The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.  Hoover's moved to dismiss all claims against it but
the motion was denied.

In 2004, the court certified a class in six of the approximately
300 actions, intending to provide strong guidance regarding the
remaining cases.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has
granted the underwriters leave to appeal this decision.  
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the case
involving Hoover's.

                 Settlement with Underwriters

Hoover's has approved a settlement agreement that requires
Hoover's to agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away claims it may have against its
underwriters.  The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for all of the
approximately 300 cases. Thus, if the underwriters settle for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required by the issuers,
but if the underwriters settle for less than $1 billion, the
issuers are required to make up the difference.

On April 20, 2006, JPMorgan Chase, one of the underwriters, and
the plaintiffs reached a preliminary agreement for a $425
million settlement.  If the settlement is approved by the court,
the issuers' insurers would be potentially liable for $575
million.  

Hoover's expect a maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs is
less than $3.4 million.  If the JPMorgan Chase settlement is
approved, Hoover's maximum financial obligation would be less
than $2 million.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement involving Hoover's.  The court held a
fairness hearing regarding that settlement on April 24, 2006,
but has not yet issued a ruling, according to the company's Nov.
3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Hoover's Inc. IPO, et al. v. Hoover's, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:01-cv-10122-SAS " filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stanley D. Bernstein, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         bernstein@bernlieb.com; and

     (2) Aaron Lee Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-
         7230, Fax: 212-4902022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.

Representing the defendant is Ronit Setton at Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP (NYC), One World Financial Center, New
York, NY 10281, Phone: 212-504-6000 x6130, Fax: 212-504-6591, E-
mail: ronit.setton@cwt.com.


INTERGRAPH CORP: Settles Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intergraph Corp. along with other named defendants entered into
a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel of two
purported class actions, previously consolidated, that have been
filed in connection with the proposed acquisition of Intergraph
by an entity primarily owned by entities affiliated with Hellman
& Friedman LLC and Texas Pacific Group.

Under the terms of the memorandum, Intergraph, the other named
defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit
subject to court approval.  If the court approves the settlement
contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuit will be dismissed
with prejudice.

Intergraph denies all of the allegations in the lawsuit and
believes that its disclosures are appropriate under the law.
Nevertheless, it and the other defendants have agreed to settle
the purported class action in order to avoid costly litigation
and eliminate the risk of any delay to the closing of the
merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum the company has agreed
to provide additional information to stockholders through
publicly available filings in order to supplement the proxy
statement that has been provided to its stockholders in
connection with the special meeting of stockholders concerning
the proposed merger as to the following matters, among others:

     -- projected financial information considered by
        Intergraph's Board of Directors;

     -- certain intellectual property litigation updates; and
      
     -- certain of Intergraph's non-core assets, including real
        estate and an equity investment in Bentley Systems,
        Inc.

For their part, the plaintiffs, under the settlement, agreed to
the dismissal of the class actions and to withdraw all motions
filed in connection with such actions.  

In addition, the company agreed to pay the legal fees and
expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, subject to the approval by the
court.  This payment will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid in the merger.  

The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to
be sent to the company's stockholders prior to a hearing before
the court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee
application.

Huntsville, Alabama-based Intergraph Corp. (NASDAQ: INGR) --
http://www.intergraph.com/-- is a global provider of spatial  
information management software.  Security organizations,
businesses and governments in more than 60 countries rely on the
company's spatial technology and services to make better and
faster operational decisions.  The company's customers organize
vast amounts of complex data into understandable visual
representations, creating intelligent maps, managing assets,
building and operating better plants and ships, and protecting
critical infrastructure and millions of people around the world.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Calif. Securities Fraud Complaint Amended
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action against
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. filed a second amended complaint with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In December 2003, April 2005 and June 2005, six purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors alleging violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

These actions have since been consolidated into a single
proceeding captioned, "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.  
Securities Litigation."  

On Jan. 27, 2006, the lead plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended and consolidated complaint.  This complaint purports to
be a class action seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who acquired the company's Class A common stock between
July 24, 2003 and Oct. 18, 2004.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the company to
make false and misleading statements about the company's
business and forecasts about the company's financial
performance, that certain of its individual officers and
directors sold portions of their stock holdings while in the
possession of adverse, non-public information, and that certain
of the company's financial statements were false and misleading.  

On March 27, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint, and on July 31, 2006, the
court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend and  
refile.

On Sept. 29, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint.  This second amended
complaint continues to seek unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who acquired the company's Class A common stock during
the period July 24, 2003 through Oct. 18, 2004.

Like the predecessor complaint, this complaint continues to
allege that the defendants caused the company to make false and
misleading statements about the company's business and forecasts
about the company's financial performance, and that certain of
its current and former individual officers and directors sold
portions of their stock holdings while in the possession of
adverse, non-public information.

Discovery has not commenced, and a trial date has not been set.

The suit is "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05421-RMW," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V.  
Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Coughlin 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: patc@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Julie Juhyun Bai of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt  
         & Pucillo, 425 California Street, Suite 2100, San  
         Francisco, CA 94104-2205, Phone: 415-433-3200 x241,  
         Fax: 415-433-6382, E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com.   

Representing the defendants are Leo Patrick Cunningham and  
Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page  
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650/320-4573, Fax:  
650-565-5100 and (650) 493-9300, E-mail: lcunningham@wsgr.com
and dturbow@wsgr.com.   


MOSCOW CABLECOM: Shareholders File Suit in Del. Over $130M Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Moscow Cablecom Corp. have filed a class-action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware in
and for New Castle County to block the company's sale for $130
million to its largest stockholder, Renova Media Enterprises,
The Courthouse News reports.

Besides the company, other defendants in the suit are:

      -- Oliver R. Grace, Jr.,
      -- Jay M. Haft,
      -- Andrew Intrater,
      -- Ivan Isakov,
      -- Valentin V. Lazutkin,
      -- James J. Pinto,
      -- Vladimir A. Serdyuk,
      -- Mikhail Smirnov,
      -- David R. Van Valkenburg,
      -- Alexander P. Vladislavlev, and
      -- Renova Media.

Renova Media owns 40.5% of the company's shares and control six
of the 10 board seats, but if it were to execute all its rights
it would own 81.1% of the shares.

The suit states that the New York-based company's board members
announced recently that they would sell out to Renova Media,
even if they get better offers.  Moscow Cablecom stock sold at
$13 in February, and at $9.99 the day of the announcement.  The
current sale price values the shares at $10.80 each.

Lead plaintiff Levy Investments, Ltd., represented by Carmella
Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, says the price is unfair
and wants the sale enjoined.

New York-based Moscow CableCom Corp. (NASDAQ: MOCC) --
http://www.moscowcablecom.com/english/html/splash/default-
noswf.asp -- provides television, radio, data transmission and
Internet access services through a hybrid-fiber coaxial network
(the HFC Network or last mile access network) in Moscow, Russia.

For more details, contact Carmella Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait
& Goddess, P.A., 919 N. Market St., Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070,
Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 656-4433.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Conn. ERISA Suit Dismissal Motion Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion by Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and
its Nationwide Life Insurance Co. subsidiary to dismiss a fifth
amended complaint alleging Employee Retirement Income Security
Act violations.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named as defendants in the
lawsuit, "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc.  
Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial  
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Co."

The fifth amended complaint, filed March 21, 2006, purports to
represent a class of qualified retirement plans under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
that purchased variable annuities from NLIC.  

Plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their
variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA
fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from
certain mutual funds.  

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

The District Court has rejected the plaintiffs' request for
certification of the alleged class.  NLIC and NFS' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint is currently
pending before the court, according to the company's Nov. 3 form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.  
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill with
referral to Judge William I. Garfinkel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard A. Bieder of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.,  
         350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604, 203-336-4421,  
         Fax: 203-368-3244, E-mail: rbieder@koskoff.com;   

     (2) Gregory G. Jones, 603 S. Main, Suite 200, Grapevine, TX  
         76051, Phone: 871-424-9001, Fax: 817-424-1665, E-mail:
         greg@gjoneslaw.com; and

     (3) Roger L. Mandel of Stanley, Mandel & Iola, 3100  
         Monticello Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone:  
         214-443-4300, Fax: 214-443-0358, E-mail:  
         rmandel@smi-law.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jessica A. Ballou of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103,  
         Phone: 860-293-3535, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail:
         jballou@llgm.com; and  

    (ii) Sam Broderick-Sokol of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &  
         Dorr-LLP-DC, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC  
         20006, Phone: 202-663-6000, Fax: 202-663-6363, E-mail:
         sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com.  


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Discovery Ongoing in Ohio Insurance Policy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action filed against Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. in Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio are
currently engaged in discovery, according to the company's Nov.
3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC was named in a class action filed in
Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co."  

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.  The complaint also seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, disgorgement of all amounts in excess of
the guaranteed maximum premium and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.  The court certified a class consisting of
all residents of the U.S. and the Virgin Islands who, during the
class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC for term
life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class period
that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding certain
specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.  The class period is from Feb. 10,
1990 through Feb. 2, 2006, the date the class was certified.  
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.


OREGON: Medford, City Manager Face Suits over Retiree Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Medford and City Manager Mike Dyal faces two
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
over the lack of health insurance coverage for retirees,
according to Meg Landers of The Mail Tribune.

The latest case was a civil suit filed on Sept. 29, 2006 by
Joseph Bova of the Public Works Department and Marlene Scudder
of the Medford Police Department.  

Other employees may join the plaintiffs later on, according to
the complaint, entitled, "Bova, et al. v. City of Medford et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01369-PA."

Plaintiffs in the suit are current employees, who are seeking
the option to participate in the city's health care insurance
program when they retire.

That case follows an earlier class action, "Doyle et al. v. City
of Medford et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-03058-PA," which was filed
on Aug. 10, 2006 by four retired city employees who demanded
reinstatement of health insurance benefits, compensation and
punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2006).

Plaintiffs in this case seek to represent a potential class of
hundreds of other retirees who were denied continued health
insurance benefits starting in 1990.  They are also asking:

      -- for unspecified amount of compensation for the
         difference between the cost of retirees' health
         insurance premiums and the cost of city employees'
         premiums;

      -- compensation for emotional distress; and

      -- punitive damages against the city manager for
         discontinuing the practice of allowing retirees the
         same insurance as employees.

The city discontinued health insurance coverage to police
officer retirees in 1990.  It did the same to then management-
level employees in 2001.  Now, about 300 of the 440 current
employees are not offered continued health insurance into
retirement.

In both cases, attorneys Stephen L. Brischetto and George P.
Fisher represent plaintiffs, while Robert E. Franz, Jr.
represents the city and Mr. Dyal.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Stephen L. Brischetto, Attorney at Law, 806 SW
         Broadway, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205, Phone: (503)
         223-5814, Fax: (503) 228-1317, E-mail:
         slb@brischettolaw.com;

     (2) George P. Fisher of George P. Fisher, PC, 3635 SW Dosch
         Road, Portland, OR 97239, Phone: (503) 224-7730, Fax:
         (503) 227-2429, E-mail: george.fisher@gpf-law.com; and

     (3) Robert E. Franz, Jr. of Law Office of Robert E. Franz,
         Jr., P.O. Box 62, Springfield, OR 97477, Phone:
         (541)741-8220, Fax: (541) 741-8234, E-mail:
         rejfranz@qwest.net.


PACIFIER MANUFACTURERS: Recall Pacifiers Posing Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
various firms, announced a voluntary recall of about 237,000
units of flashing pacifiers.

Companies involved in the recall:

     -- Rhode Island Novelty of Providence, Rhode Island;
     -- Hayes Specialties Corp. of Saginaw, Michigan;
     -- My Bargain Bin LLC of New Castle, Delaware;
     -- Ravesupply.com of Las Vegas, Nevada;
     -- Vistawholesale.com of Greencastle, Indiana;
     -- Xtreme Jewelry of New York;
     -- Intertradecorp.com of Cheverly, Maryland;
     -- Litesrus.com of San Jose, California; and
     -- Dollar Days International LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona.

According to a notice of recall, these pacifiers failed to meet
federal safety standards for pacifiers.  The nipple can separate
from the shield easily, posing a choking hazard.  Some pacifiers
were sold with necklaces that pose a strangulation hazard, and
one of the necklaces has beads that can come loose, which poses
an aspiration hazard.  Though they are marketed for older
children, they could be given to babies, and can cause serious
injury or death.  No injuries were reported.

The units involved are flashing pacifiers and flashing pacifiers
with whistles.  The pacifiers are clear or colored purple, blue,
pink or green.  The pacifiers have five flashing LED lights that
are red and blue, red and light green and orange.  Some
pacifiers are sold with a rainbow cord that is attached to
handles, and some cords have breakaway connectors.  

One pacifier has multi-colored beads on the cords in the shapes
of barrels, trains, boats and various animals.  Pacifiers were
sold in clamshell packages.  The packaging has a warning that
states they are for "12+ Years" or "6+ Years."  Some of the
products have a warning on the packaging that they are not a
real pacifier, but a practical joke.  The chart below lists
additional information about the products sold and what is
written on the packaging.

Company Name/Contact    Trade Name               Model/Bar Code

Rhode Island Novelty    Flashing Joke Novelty    Model GL-FLAP5
(800) 528-5599          Pacifier
http://www.rinovelty.com

Hayes Specialties Corp. "Hot" Flashing Pacifier  Bar Code 0
(800) 642-9373                                   85754 15115 4
http://www.ehayes.com  

My Bargain Bin LLC      2 in 1 Flashing Pacifier Model FP
(800) 431-1389          with Whistle             Bar Code 7
http://www.mybargainbin.com                     62656 31137 5  

Ravesupply.com
recall@ravesupply.com   Pacifier Necklace        Model PAC-
                                                 STANDARD  

Vistawholesale.com      2 in 1 Flashing          Blink Pacifier
Call collect at         Pacifier with Whistle
(765) 653-0906
http://www.vistawholesale.com/
pacyrecall

Xtreme Jewelry          "Hot" Flashing Pacifier  Bar Code 0  
(866) 388-3838                                   12480 01132 8
kit@xtremejewelry.com

Intertradecorp.com      Flashing Pacifier "I am  Flashing
(888) 622-7348          baby, I need to be       Pacifier
http://www.intertradecorp.com loved."   

Litesrus.com            2 in 1 Flashing Pacifier Flashing
                        with Whistle Necklace    Pacifier with
Customerservice@litesrus.com                     Whistle
                                                 Necklace

Dollar Days             Practical Joke "Hot"     Bar Code 0
International LLC       Flashing Pacifier        85754 15115 4
(877) 969-7742          2 in 1 Flashing Pacifier Bar Code 7  
http://www.dollardays.comwith Whistle           62656 31137 3   

Pictures of the recalled pacifiers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07024.jpg

These pacifiers were manufactured in China and are being sold at
novelty shops, toy stores, carnivals, amusement parks and by Web
retailers nationwide from January 2003 through September 2006
for between $0.55 and $13.

Consumers are advised to take these pacifiers away from young
children immediately and dispose of them.  Consumers can also
return the pacifiers to the retailers for a refund.


PROFLOWERS.COM: Settles Deceptive Marketing Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
ProFlowers.com reached an agreement to settle a class action
alleging deceptive marketing by the company, the Denver Post
reports.

Under the settlement, the company will give customers who bought
flowers from ProFlowers between Oct. 4, 2001, and Oct. 26, 2006
a $10 store credit, and pay $250,000 in attorneys fees.  The
store credit can be used between Jan. 1, 2007 and June 30, 2007.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in October
2005.  It alleged that Pro Flowers uses middlemen, distribution
centers and warehouses to store its products before they are
shipped to customers.  The company did not admit wrongdoing
under the settlement.

Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman will review the proposed
settlement on Dec. 20.

San Diego-based Provide Commerce, which operates ProFlowers and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Douglas County-based Liberty
Media

Westrup Klick LLP -- http://www.wkalaw.com/-- and the Law  
Offices of Allan A. Sigel PC -- http://www.sigellaw.com--  
represented the lead plaintiff Theodore G. Phelps.


QC HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Payday Loans, Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., faces a purported class action in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, alleging that it violated state laws
by renewing payday loans an excessive number of times and
charging exorbitant interest rates, The Kansas City Business
Journal reports.

Filed on Oct. 13, 20006, the suit alleges that QC Financial
Services Inc., a company subsidiary doing business as Quik Cash,
renewed a loan for the plaintiff, Dequae Woods, more than six
times at a 469 percent interest rate.

The suit also alleges that Quik Cash didn't evaluate plaintiffs'
ability to repay the loan, charged more than 75 percent of the
original loan amount in interest and fees.  It also alleges that
it violated other Missouri payday laws and the state's
Merchandising Practices Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages and an injunction
prohibiting Quik Cash from engaging in the alleged practices.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, QC
Holdings revealed that that it hasn't filed an answer in the
case.  However, it does plan to have the suit dismissed and an
arbitration agreement with the plaintiff enforced.

Overland Park, Kansas-based QC Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCCO) --
http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer  
loans, known as payday loans.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company
operated 532 branches in the U.S.  It also provides other
consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing
services, title loans, credit services, money transfers and
money orders.


UAL CORP: Reaches Settlements for Several Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corp., the parent of United Airlines, settled several
lawsuits that accused the holding company of violating antitrust
laws in connection with ticket prices, The Associated Press
reports.

The company also revealed that it has agreed to settle most of
the more than 90 class actions that accuses air cargo carriers,
including their own subsidiary, United Airlines, of conspiring
to fix some air cargo surcharges.

Essentially, the suits claim that the airline's actions are in
violation of the federal antitrust laws of the U.S.,
specifically: Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, Rule 15 of
the U.S. Civil Code Section 1 and Section 4 of the Clayton
Antitrust Act of 1914, Rule 15 of the U.S. Civil Code Section 15
(Class Action Reporter, July 5, 2006).

The air cargo surcharges are charged by the major airlines
acting as airfreight shipping providers that deliver the cargo
placed by their customers, companies or individuals seeking to
transport freight via air on behalf of themselves or others.

The fees are charged to customers purportedly to compensate the
air carriers for certain external costs for including increased
cost for fuels, for additional securities measures after the
Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist incident, for war-risk insurance
premiums applied in conjunction with the outbreak of war in Iraq
in 2003, and for other external costs.   

The complaint states that the plaintiff, on behalf of those
similarly situated, seeks to recover the surcharges paid by it
and other direct purchasers as a result of the airlines'
conspiracy to levy these coordinated and inflated fees on their
airfreight customers.

Under the settlement, United Airlines agreed to cooperate with
the plaintiffs' factual investigation.  UAL said that the terms
of the passenger-pricing settlement are similar and that both
settlement agreements remain subject to court approval.

UAL Corp. (NASDAQ: UAUA) -- http://www.united.com/-- is a  
holding company whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines,
Inc. (United).  United's operations, which consist primarily of
the transportation of persons, property and mail throughout the
U.S. and abroad, accounted for most of UAL's revenues and
expenses during the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.  


WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Gas Boilers with Incorrect Installing Tags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weil-McLain, of Michigan City, Indiana, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
16,000 units of Weil-McLain Ultra Series Gas Boilers.

These boilers were manufactured for use with natural gas, but
could have a blue tag incorrectly indicating to installers that
they are intended for use with LP (propane) gas.  If an
installer connects one of the boilers to LP gas without
installing a propane conversion kit, carbon monoxide can build
up due to incomplete combustion, posing a risk of carbon
monoxide poisoning.

Weil-McLain is aware of one incident where two consumers
reported carbon monoxide poisoning when the boiler installed in
their home was connected to LP gas.

The recall involves Weil-McLain Ultra 80, Ultra 105, Ultra 155,
Ultra 230 and Ultra 310 condensing, high-efficient, gas-fired
boilers for space heating.  The user's manual and installation
manual have "Ultra Gas-Fired Water Boiler" on the cover.  

The boilers are wrapped in a glossy silver/flat black jacket and
either stand on the floor or are wall-mounted.  The serial
numbers range from CP5071716 through CP5327000.  When the panel
on the front of the boiler is removed, a bar-coded label with
the serial number is located on the lower right hand side of the
boiler itself.  "Weil-McLain" is written on the front panel of
the boilers.

These recalled Ultra Series gas boilers were manufactured in the
U.S. and are being sold by plumbing and heating wholesale
distributors to plumbers and contractors nationwide from May
2005 through July 2006 for between $4,000 and $7,000.

Pictures of the recalled gas boilers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07020a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07020b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07020c.jpg

Consumers who had a Weil-McLain Ultra series boiler installed
for use with propane and have not already been contacted by
their installer should contact the installer or a heating
professional for a free safety inspection.  If the boiler was
not installed with a propane conversion kit, one will be
installed at the time of the inspection at no charge.  Heating
professionals may contact Weil McLain Technical Service at (219)
879-6561 for more information.

For more information, contact Weil-McLain toll-free at (866)
426-6172 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.weil-mclain.com


WESTAR ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Appeal on $30M Stock Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a
motion asking the court to reconsider its order approving the
$30.0 million settlement of the suit, "In Re Westar Energy, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Master File No. 5:03-CV-4003 and related
cases.

In early April 2005, the company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.  The full
terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated as of
May 31, 2005 filed with the court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the court
approved the proposed settlement and directed the parties to
consummate the settlement in accordance with the stipulation.

Pursuant to the stipulation, the company paid $1.25 million and
the company's insurance carriers paid $28.75 million into a
settlement fund that upon effectiveness of the settlement will
be disbursed, after payment of $9.0 million of legal fees for
plaintiffs' counsel plus expenses, to shareholders as provided
in the stipulation.

The amounts paid by the company's insurance carriers in this
settlement include the payments related to the settlement of the
shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by Mark Epstein (Case No.
03-4081-JAR).  

Pursuant to the stipulation, the recovery from the company's
insurance carriers, less attorney's fees of $2.5 million, was
paid into the settlement fund for the settlement of the
securities class action.  On Sept. 16, 2005, one shareholder
filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its order
approving the settlement.  The court denied this motion on Dec.
2, 2005, and the shareholder then filed a timely appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.  This appeal was
dismissed on June 21, 2006 and the settlement is now effective.

The suit is "In Re: Westar Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation,
03-CV-4003," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas under Judge Julie A. Robinson.   

Representing the plaintiffs are: Schoengold & Sporn, PC, 233  
Broadway 39th Floor, New York, NY 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046;
and the law firm of Swanson Midgley, LLC, 2420 Pershing Road.  
Suite 400, Kansas City, MO 64108-2505, Phone: 816.842.6100, Fax:  
816.842.6100, E-mail: mail@swansonmidgley.com.


WESTAR ENERGY: Kans. Court Approves $9.25M ERISA Fraud Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas approved a
$9.25 million settlement of a class action filed on behalf of
participants in, and beneficiaries of Westar Energy, Inc.'s
Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan between July 1, 1998 and Jan. 1,
2003.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act arising from the conduct of certain present and
former officers and employees, who served or are serving as
fiduciaries for the plan.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit for $9.25 million,
which will be paid by the company's insurance carrier.   
The full terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in a
Class Action Settlement Agreement dated March 23, 2006 filed
with the court.

On July 27, 2006, the court issued an order that approved the
proposed settlement, approved plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses totaling $2.9 million to be paid from the
settlement fund, and directed the parties to consummate the
settlement in accordance with the settlement agreement.

The suit is "In Re: Westar Energy ERISA Litigation, Case No.
5:03-cv-04032-JAR-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge Julie A. Robinson with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph H. Meltzer and Gerald
David Wells, III of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLC, 280 King of
Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA, Phone: 620-676-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056,
E-mail: gwells@sbclasslaw.com and jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com; and
Ronald P. Pope of Ralston, Pope & Diehl, LLC, 2913 S.W. Maupin
Lane, Topeka, KS 66614, Phone: 785-273-8002, Fax: 785-273-0744,
E-mail: ron@ralstonpope.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Charles W. German and Kirk T. May of Rouse Hendricks
         German May, PC, One Petticoat Lane Bldg., 1010 Walnut  
         St., Ste. 400, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-471-
         7700, Fax: 816-471-2221, E-mail: charleyg@rhgm.com and  
         kirkm@rhgm.com;    

     (2) Sharon Katz of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4508, Fax:  
         212-450-3508, E-mail: skatz@dpw.com;   

     (3) Paul G. Schepers of Seigfreid, Bingham, Levy, Selzer &  
         Gee, 2800 Commerce Tower, 911 Main Street, Kansas City,
         MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-4460 x1, Fax: 816-474-3447, E-          
         mail: pschepers@sblsg.com;   

     (4) Thomas M. Bradshaw and Stanley M. Burgess of Armstrong  
         Teasdale LLP - Kansas City, 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite  
         2000, Kansas City, MO 64108-2617, Phone: 816-221-3420,  
         Fax: 816-221-0786, E-mail:   
         tbradshaw@armstrongteasdale.com and
         mburgess@armstrongteasdale.com;   

     (5) Julia D. Kitsmiller of Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw &  
         Eisenbrandt, LLP - KC, Two Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd.,
         Suite 500, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-561-7007,  
         Fax: 816-561-1888, E-mail: jkitsmiller@bowse-law.com;   
         and

     (6) Kathryn A. Lewis of Warden Triplett Grier, LLP, 9401  
         Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1100, Overland Park, KS
         66210, Phone: 913-345-5181, Fax: 913-491-2979, E-mail:
         klewis@wtglaw.com.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APOLLO GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 2,
2006, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona against Apollo Group, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Nov. 28, 2001 through Oct. 18, 2006.

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

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Warner Chilcott
Limited pursuant and/or traceable to the company's Sept. 20,
2006 initial public offering.

The complaint charges Warner Chilcott and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that Warner Chilcott had eliminated a primary source of
         revenue for the company; and

      -- specifically, that Warner Chilcott stopped shipping
         Ovcon 35, a birth control drug, as early as September
         2006.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Warner Chilcott stunned investors when the
company filed a supplement to its Registration Statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Therein, the
company disclosed that it had stopped shipping Ovcon 35 in
September 2006, and had launched Ovcon Chewable.

On this news, shares of Warner Chilcott plunged $2.40, or 16
percent, to close, on Sept. 26, 2006, at $12.60 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

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

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.  


WARNER CHILCOTT: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, 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 Limited 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.  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 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 plaintiff's counsel Jack Fruchter,
Esq. or Larry Levit, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.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  * * *