CAR_Public/061115.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 227

                            Headlines

BASF CORP: To Pay $62M in Fraud Lawsuit Filed by Minn. Farmers
DOBSON COMMS: Settles Consolidated Stock Suit in Okla. for $3.4M
EDWARD D. JONES: Enters Settlement in Mo. Suit Over Mutual Funds
EQUINIX INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
GILAT SATELLITE: Settles U.S. Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Continues to Face Suit Over High Mercury Levels
KPNQWEST NV: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for $5.5M Stock Suit Deal
KRISP-PAK: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit for Possible Contamination
MARYLAND: Lawsuit Filed Over Lack of Counsel at Bail Hearings
MICROSOFT CORP: Ark. Court Authorizes Settlement Notification

NEW JERSEY: Insurers Face Suits Over Anorexia Patient Coverage
NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque Faces Litigation Over Red-Light Cameras
MASCO CORP: To Close Settlements of Behr Products Suits in '06
MASCO CORP: Named Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuits in Ga., Fla.
NICOR GAS: Settles Property Owners Suit Over Ill. Plant Cleanup

PORTLAND GENERAL: Abatement Order Issued in Suits Over Trojan
PORTLAND GENERAL: Ore. Circuit Court Okays $10M MCBIT Suit Deal
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Insurance Agents File N.Y. Overtime Suit
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Plaintiffs Amend Md. Securities Complaint
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Named in N.Y. Stockbrokers Overtime Suit

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Colo. Court to Hear $33M ERISA Suit Deal
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Rights-of-Way Suits in State Court Remain
SARA LEE: Recalls Burger Buns Over Undeclared Milk Content
SOUTH CAROLINA: 2007 Trial Set for Right-of-Way Lawsuit in S.C.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Appeal Right-of-Way Suit's Dismissal

TRIP ASSURED: Tenn. Travel Protection Firm Faces Suit in Calif.
UNITED STATES: Lawyers to Gather More Data on "Keepseagle" Case
WELLS FARGO: Claims in Suit Over Broker Kickbacks Due Nov. 17
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Tip Sharing Policy


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APOLLO GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Ariz. Stock Suit Filing
TIER TEHNOLOGIES: The Rosen Law Firm Files Va. Securities Suit


                            *********


BASF CORP: To Pay $62M in Fraud Lawsuit Filed by Minn. Farmers
--------------------------------------------------------------
BASF Corp. will pay $62 million to resolve a class action
accusing it of defrauding farmers through its marketing of
herbicides, according to WCCO Minneapolis/St. Paul.

The judgment was the result of a purported class action filed n
1997 by 11 Minnesota, Montana and North Dakota farmers who
accused BASF of deceitful marketing of its Poast and Poast Plus
herbicides.

The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same,
but that BASF charged more for Poast.  BASF sold Poast Plus for
soybeans, and Poast for sunflowers, sugarbeets, potatoes,
vegetables and fruits.

Farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are
eligible to share in the judgment.  Plaintiffs' attorney Douglas
Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible.

Early this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the
Florham Park, N.J.-based company's appeal of a decision by the
Minnesota Supreme Court that reaffirmed the award by a Norman
County jury in 2001.

The distribution will be pro rata.  Plaintiffs attorney, Douglas
J. Nill, plans to ask the court to approve incentive awards of
around $100,000 to each of the 11 farmers who originally brought
the suit, and for attorney's fees of around 40 percent.

For more details, contact Douglas J. Nill, P.A., 1100 One
Financial Plaza, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55402-1801, Phone: (866) 573-3669, Fax: (612) 573-3669, E-mail:
dnill@farmlaw.com, Web site: http://www.farmlaw.com.


DOBSON COMMS: Settles Consolidated Stock Suit in Okla. for $3.4M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dobson Communications Corp. reached a settlement agreement for a
consolidated securities class action pending against it and
certain of its officers and directors in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma.

The company said the $3.4 million settlement, if approved, would
settle all claims from investors who bought shares between May
6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004.  A substantial portion of the
settlement amount is covered by insurance, according to the
company.

Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed
against the defendants.  Most of them allege violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.  The
suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various
positive statements concerning its financial prospects and
subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM
network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and
that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into "Central Laborers
Pension Fund v. Dobson Communications, et al., Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."  

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were filed.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to
dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.  

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Dobson
Communications, et al., Case No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge
Robin J. Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart W. Emmons, William B. Federman and Jennifer F.
         Sherrill of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave.,
         Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-
         1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com,
         wfederman@aol.com and jfs@federmanlaw.com.

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory Castaldo of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         tborum@sbclasslaw.com and gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey A. Berger of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP-
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
         312-701-8583, Fax: 312-706-8400, E-mail:
         jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com; and  

    (ii) Warren F Bickford, IV, Fellers Snider Blankenship
         Bailey & Tippens-OKC, 100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax:
         405-232-9659, E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: Enters Settlement in Mo. Suit Over Mutual Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., settled the class action, "Spahn
IRA, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.," filed in
the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri,
according to Heather Cole of The Daily Record.

Under a preliminary settlement agreement submitted by the
plaintiffs, current and former customers would receive an
average of $22 in cash and credits, and plaintiffs' attorneys
would split about $38 million in fees.  The preliminary
agreement was filed Oct. 31, 2006.

Additionally, under that agreement, the brokerage also agreed to
disclose on its Web site information on the payments from the
mutual fund groups, which were called preferred mutual fund
families.

A proposed notice to class members in the filing noted that
plaintiffs' attorneys would seek a cash fee of 30 percent of the
total of the value of the cash and credit settlement.  Eleven
plaintiffs' law firms are listed on court filings and likely
would split the fees.  

"Spahn" along with five other companion cases filed in January
or February 2004, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 21, 2006).

The amended and consolidated complaint alleges that the
brokerage violated Sections 10(b), 12(2), and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by
failing to adequately disclose its revenue sharing arrangements
to customers.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
purchased shares of the Preferred Family mutual funds from Jan.
25, 1999 through December 2004.  

The suit is "Spahn v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., Case
No. 4:04-cv-00086-HEA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Henry E. Autrey.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Martin W. Blanchard of Sauerwein and Blanchard, P.C.,
         147 N. Meramec, Suite 200, Clayton, MO 63105, Phone:
         314-863-9100, Fax: 314-863-9101, E-mail:
         mwb@sauerwein.com;

     (2) Richard A. Acocelli of Weiss and Yourman, 551 Fifth
         Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-
         3025, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: racocelli@wllawny.com;
         and

     (3) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg and Weiss, One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, Suite 4915, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-
         594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229.

Representing the defendants is Lisa A. Nielsen of Greensfelder
and Hemker, 10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000, Equitable Building, St.
Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-241-9090, Fax: 314-241-3643, E-mail:
lan@greensfelder.com.


EQUINIX INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed
against Equinix, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 1, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On July 30, 2001 and Aug. 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
actions were filed against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and several investment banks that were
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.  

The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's stock between Aug. 10, 2000 and Dec. 6,
2000.  In addition, similar lawsuits were filed against
approximately 300 other issuers and related parties.  

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
the company and individual defendants.  Plaintiffs have since
dismissed the individual defendants without prejudice.

The suits allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's IPO to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the company's IPO was
false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the company, but denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Equinix
Board of Directors approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
company, the individual defendants, the plaintiff class and the
vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants
and the individual defendants currently or formerly associated
with those companies.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the Individual Defendants and the company's
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the company may have against its underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, but has not yet issued
a ruling.

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


GILAT SATELLITE: Settles U.S. Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel-based Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd., along with certain
former officers, reached a proposed settlement in the
consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. in 2002.

The purported class comprises all shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Gilat common stock between Feb. 9, 2000 and
May 29, 2002, inclusive.

In 2002, Gilat and certain of its directors were named
defendants in several putative class action on behalf of all
persons who invested in Gilat Satellite Networks. Ltd from Feb.
9, 2000 through May 29, 2002.  

In 2003, the lawsuits were consolidated, alleging defendants
Gilat, Yoel Gat and Yoav Leibovitch made materially misleading
misrepresentations and omissions during the class period
concerning its Starband joint venture, a subscription satellite
internet service, and Gilat's own finances.  

The amended consolidated complaint alleged that defendants
recorded revenues in violation of the U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principle and the company's own publicly reported
revenue recognition policies and engaged in sham transactions to
increase Gilat's recorded revenues.  

By the end of the class period, Gilat announced an exponential
increase in its allowance for doubtful accounts as a result of
its improper revenue recognition practices and its joint
venture, Starband, had filed for bankruptcy.  

Several months after the class period, Gilat itself filed for
bankruptcy-style proceedings in Israel and a voluntary
bankruptcy petition in the U.S.

Under the settlement, the company did not admit wrongdoing,
fault or liability.  The entire settlement will be covered by
the company's insurance carriers.

The consolidated suit is "In re: Gilat Satellite Networks, Case
No. 1:02-cv-01510-CPS-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Charles P. Sifton,
with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are Andrew M. Behrman and Joseph P.
Cyr both of Lovells, 590 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 909-0600, Fax: 212-858-1000, E-mail:
andrew.behrman@lovells.com; and Thomas Bush of Lovells, One IBM
Plaza Suite 1900, 330 N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, Phone:
(313)-832-4400.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jules Brody of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, Fax:
         212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com;

     (2) Jeffrey Michael Haber of Bernstein, Liebhard &
         Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New
         York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-
         3218, E-mail: haber@bernlieb.com;

     (3) Jacob Sabo of The Law Office of Jacob Sabo, Fax: 011
         972-3 607 88 89;

     (4) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
         212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (5) Richard A. Speirs of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
         LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010,
         Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-5969, E-mail:
         rspeirs@zsz.com;

     (6) Steven J. Toll and Catherine A. Torell both of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC, The First Interstate
         Building, 150 East 52nd Street, 13th Floor, New York,
         NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-
         mail: ctorell@cmht.com; and

     (7) Joseph Harry Weiss of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025,
         Fax: (212) 682-3010, E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com.


KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Continues to Face Suit Over High Mercury Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin, New Jersey resident Wayne Adair Jr. filed a lawsuit in
Superior Court on behalf of his children who attended Kiddie
Kollege, the Cherry Hill Courier Post reports.

Named defendants in the suit, which is similar to a lawsuit
filed in federal court against Kiddie Kollege, are:

     -- Jim Sullivan Inc.,  
     -- Navillus Group LLC,  
     -- Jim Sullivan Real Estate Services Inc.,  
     -- James Sullivan III,  
     -- James Sullivan IV,  
     -- Accutherm Inc., and
     -- Philip J. Giuliano.
     
The suit alleges that the building's former owners failed to
reveal the building was contaminated with mercury.  It seeks
punitive and compensatory damages, including all past and future
medical expenses.

The complaint also seeks ongoing medical monitoring for all
children who attended the day-care center.  It also seeks
certification as a class action, which if approved by a judge,
would allow additional plaintiffs to join.

Mr. Adair brought the lawsuit on behalf of his children Taylor
Minyon, Joey Adair and Wayne Adair III.

In August, Haddonfield lawyer Philip Stephen Fuoco filed a
similar lawsuit against Kiddie Kollege on behalf of Franklin
residents Marc and Jennifer Mignano, whose son Isaac, attended
Kiddie Kollege (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2006).

In October, Princeton, New Jersey attorney Stuart J. Lieberman
filed a lawsuit against Kiddie Kollege on behalf of Jonathan and
Patricia Conti whose son Jacob, attended a mercury-contaminated
day care facility (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The complaint contends that defendants were aware that the
operation of a day care center on a property with heavy mercury
contamination would injure those attending the school.

It added that negligent, reckless and intentional conduct of the
defendants has resulted in harm, damages, and injuries to the
plaintiffs.

Kiddie Kollege voluntarily shut down its facilities, in July,
after testing found abnormal mercury levels inside the building,
which used to be a thermometer factory.  Testing found elevated
mercury levels in 20 students and three employees.

Prolonged exposure to mercury vapor can cause neurological and
kidney damage.


KPNQWEST NV: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for $5.5M Stock Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set a Jan. 4, 2007 hearing to consider final approval of the
proposed $5.5 million settlement of a securities fraud suit
filed against KPNQwest, N.V.

A putative class action is pending in the federal district court
for the Southern District of New York against Qwest
Communications International Inc., and its consolidated
subsidiaries, certain of its former executives who were also on
the supervisory board of KPNQwest, of which Qwest Communications
was a major shareholder, and others.

This lawsuit was initially filed on Oct. 4, 2002.  The current
complaint alleges, on behalf of certain purchasers of KPNQwest
securities, that, among other things, defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme and deceptive course of business in order to
inflate KPNQwest's revenue and the value of KPNQwest securities.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and/or rescission as
appropriate against defendants, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  On Feb. 3, 2006, Qwest
Communications, certain other defendants and the putative class
representative in this action executed an agreement to settle
the case against Qwest Communications and certain other
defendants.

Under the settlement agreement, Qwest Communications has
deposited $5.5 million in cash into a settlement fund on behalf
of the settlement class, and no later than 30 days following
final approval by the court, Qwest Communications will issue
shares of its stock to the settlement fund then valued at $5.5
million as additional consideration for the settlement.

The settlement agreement would settle the individual claims of
the putative class representative and the claims of the class he
purports to represent against Qwest Communications and all
defendants except:

      -- Koninklijke KPN N.V. a/k/a Royal KPN N.V.,
      -- Willem Ackermans,
      -- Eelco Blok,
      -- Joop Drechsel,
      -- Martin Pieters, and
      -- Rhett Williams.

Those defendants are parties to a separate proposed settlement
agreement with the putative class representative.  The federal
district court for the Southern District of New York has issued
orders:

     * preliminarily approving the proposed settlements;

     * setting a hearing for Jan. 4, 2007 to consider final
       approval of the proposed settlements; and

     * certifying a settlement class on behalf of purchasers of
       KPNQwest's publicly traded securities from Nov. 9, 1999
       through May 31, 2002.

No parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement.

Certain individuals and entities have opted out of the KPNQwest
securities settlement class.  In the aggregate, those who have
requested exclusion from the settlement class currently contend
that they have incurred losses resulting from their investments
in KPNQwest securities during the settlement class period of at
least $76 million, which does not include any claims for
punitive damages or interest.  

The suit is "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Peter K. Leisure with referral to Frank Maas.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Ira M. Press and Mark Booker of Kirby, McInerney &   
         Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10TH Floor, New York, NY   
         10022 USA, Phone: (212) 317-2300;  

     (2) Jacob A. Goldberg, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three   
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USA,   
         Phone: (610) 667-7706; and  

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert M. Zabb, Glancy, Binkow &   
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los   
         Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: (310) 201-9150.  

Representing the company are Barry Howard Goldstein of O'Melveny  
& Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, USA, Phone:   
212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: Bgoldstein@omm.com; and   
Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S Hope Street, Los   
Angeles, CA 90071, USA, Phone: (213) 430-6000.


KRISP-PAK: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit for Possible Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Krisp-Pak Co., Inc. of Norfolk, Virginia is recalling all lots
of Krisp-Pak Brand packaged fresh cut fruit with expiration
dates on or before Nov. 9, 2006, because it has the potential to
be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

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

The product comes in plastic containers in 4 ounce cups, 8 ounce
cups, 1 pound cups, 3 pound tubs, 10" trays (2.5 pounds) and 13"
trays (4.5 pounds) for retail suppliers.  The product is
packaged in 5-pound trays for foodservice suppliers.  The
products being recalled include individually packaged cantaloupe
or honeydew or red grapes, and a mixture of the three.  The
recall is limited to these products only.

The recalled fresh cut fruit was distributed in the Hampton
Roads and Richmond, Virginia areas and the Charlotte, Greensboro
and Raleigh, North Carolina areas through retail stores and
foodservice distribution centers.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was the result of a sampling program by the U.S. Army
Veterinary Services/Commissary Food Inspection Section, which
revealed that one container of the finished product contained
Listeria monocytogenes.

Krisp-Pak has ceased the production and distribution of the
product as Krisp-Pak continues their investigation as to what
caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Krisp-Pak Brand fresh cut fruit are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Krisp-Pak at 1-800-755-
0746.


MARYLAND: Lawsuit Filed Over Lack of Counsel at Bail Hearings
-------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Maryland faces a purported class action that
accuses it of violating the rights of the poor by failing to
provide them with taxpayer-funded attorneys at bail hearings.

Filed in Baltimore Circuit Court, the suit targets procedures at
the crowded Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Facility.  It
names as defendants Chief District Court Judge Ben C. Clyburn
and several other court officials.

The suit was filed on behalf of a dozen indigent defendants at
the city's central booking center.  Each of the 12 plaintiffs
was indigent, requested an attorney at the bail hearing, and was
denied by the commissioner, the suit states.

In Maryland, according to the suit, suspects make initial
appearances before appointed district court commissioners who
decide whether to set bail, and, if so, how much it should be.  
No formal legal training is required to become a commissioner.

Under the Maryland Public Defender Act (MPDA), the suit argues
those charged with crimes are entitled to counsel at "all
stages" of a criminal proceeding -- including the initial bail
hearing.

Those who can't afford an attorney should be represented by a
public defender, according to the suit, which is being handled
by students of Douglas L. Colbert, a University of Maryland
School of Law professor.  

Mr. Colbert himself pointed out that the state must ensure that
private attorneys who are sometimes kept out of the hearings due
to security or space concerns must have access to their clients.

Venable, LLP, a Mid-Atlantic law firm with offices in Baltimore
and Washington, filed the suit and is handling the case pro bono
after being approached by the students, Venable attorney
Mitchell Mirviss said.

The suit states that criminal suspects who are not represented
at such hearings are "less likely to be released on their own
recognizance, more likely to have higher and unaffordable bail,
and more likely to pay the expense of a bail bondsman's non-
refundable fee to regain their freedom."

It argues that prolonged detention of many of the arrestees
detained in Central Booking is costly, wasteful and often
unnecessary.

Plaintiffs' attorneys note that prosecutors dismiss without
trial or decline to prosecute 60 to 70 percent of the charges
brought against Baltimore City defendants.

Conditions at Central Booking are "overcrowded, harsh, and
sometimes dangerous and without an attorney, plaintiff's
requests for needed medical treatment or for transfer to a safer
location are much more likely to be ignored," the suit states.

According to the suit, about 250 to 275 suspects are processed
at Central Booking each day and the facility is often at or
beyond capacity.  It added that at times, arrestees might share
a small cell meant for a few people with as many as 10 to 15
individuals in extremely cramped quarters.

Essentially, the suit claims that in failing to provide
attorneys at bail hearings, defendants are violating provisions
of the state and federal constitutions, as well as MPDA.

For more details, contract Venable, LLP, 575 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004, Phone: (202) 344-4000, Fax: (202) 344-
8300, E-mail: info@venable.com, Web site:
http://www.venable.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Ark. Court Authorizes Settlement Notification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alice Gray of the Pulaski County Arkansas Circuit Court,
Twelfth Division, authorized a notification program beginning
Oct. 23, 2006 regarding a proposed $37. 8 million settlement for
the class action "Peek v. Microsoft Corp., No. CV-06-2612," the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

The notice was issued to Arkansas residents who licensed certain
varieties of Microsoft Corp. software between Jan. 1, 1998, and
Dec. 31, 2004.  The settlement provides up to $37,800,000 in
benefits for Arkansans.

Under the settlement, recipients whose total claims fall under $
950 could use the vouchers toward the purchase of printers,
monitors, scanners, keyboards, mice and similar items.  Those
with claims of $950 or greater could use the vouchers for
similar products, but only with a computer purchase.

The proposed settlement covers the individual purchase of
software products, as well as personal computers bought with
Microsoft software installed.  Licenses for resale or
relicensing are ineligible for the settlement.

Half the amount of unclaimed settlement benefits would go to
public schools in Arkansas where at least half the students
qualify for free or reduced-price lunch programs.  The proceeds
would be used for computer hardware, software and professional
development services.

Microsoft denies plaintiff's allegations and believes that it
developed and sold high quality and innovative software products
at fair and reasonable prices.  

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an
indication that any law was violated.  The court did not rule on
the merits of the lawsuit.  

The parties settled the case, and on Sept. 7, 2006, the court
conditionally certified a settlement class and preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that the company violated
Arkansas laws pertaining to anti-trust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition and thereby overcharged consumers for some of
its software.

The Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. for the proposed
settlement.

The hearing will be held at the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, Twelfth Division, 401 W. Markham Street, Little Rock,
Arkansas.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Feb. 17 & 20, 2007, respectively.  Proof of claim forms
must be submitted by April 23, 2007.

Microsoft-Arkansas Settlement on the net:      

                   http://www.microsoftARsuit.com

The suit is "Peek, et al v.Microsoft Corp., No. CV-06-2612
case," filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mike L. Roberts of The Roberts Law
Firm, P.A., 20 Rahling Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-1790,
Phone: (501) 821-5575; and Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates,
P.C., One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602,
Phone: (312) 621-2000.
  
Representing Microsoft are Richard J. Wallis of Microsoft Corp.,
One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052; and David B.Tulchin of
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004.


NEW JERSEY: Insurers Face Suits Over Anorexia Patient Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several federal class actions were filed against Horizon Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and Aetna, Inc., alleging that
they breached their contracts with insureds by denying or
reducing coverage for the treatment of eating disorders such as
anorexia nervosa and bulimia.

The three suits that were all filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey are:

      -- "DeAnna v. Aetna,"
      -- "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield," and
      -- "Bradley v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield"

Each one charges insurers of refusing to pay the full cost of
treatment on the ground that anorexia is not biologically based.  
Thus, insurers cover only 30 or 35 days of in-facility coverage.

However, with treatment often lasting months or even years,
insureds, must cut treatment short or run up huge bills,
according to plaintiffs' attorney Bruce Nagel, of Nagel Rice &
Mazie.

All three suits seek to compel insurers to increase coverage as
well as compensatory and punitive damages.  Each suit was
respectively brought by Dawn Beye of Wayne, N.J., Cliff and
Maria DeAnna of Mountainside, N.J. and Tim Bradley of
Pennsylvania on behalf of their daughters that suffer from
anorexia nervosa.

Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by low body
weight.  Individuals with anorexia often control body weight by
voluntary starvation, excessive exercise or other weight-control
measures.

Plaintiffs' attorneys including Mr. Nagel and Eric D. Katz,
argue that a 1999 state law requires health insurers to provide
the same coverage for "biologically-based mental illness" as for
purely physical ailments.

That law expressly applies to mental or nervous conditions
caused by a "biological brain disorder" that results in a
"clinically significant or psychological syndrome or pattern
that substantially limits the functioning of the person,"
including but not limited to, schizophrenia, schizoaffective
disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, paranoia
and other psychotic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder,
panic disorder and pervasive developmental disorder or autism."

However, since eating disorders aren't specifically mentioned in
the law, insurers are contending that the legislature didn't
intend to include them.  

The suit, though, alleges otherwise and thus accuses insurers of
violating the state law.  Mr. Nagel even reasons that though
anorexia is not mentioned, "there is substantial medical
authority supporting this position, adding that as usual, the
case may come down to a battle of the experts."

As of the moment, Mr. Nagel says that is seeking a class
comprised only of New Jersey residents, rather than people from
across the U.S., since the state law is favorable.  

For more details, contact Bruce Nagel and Eric D. Katz of Nagel
Rice & Mazie, Phone: Tel: (973) 618-0400 ext. 122 and (973) 618-
0400 ext. 110, Fax: (973) 618-9194, E-mail: BNagel@nrmlaw.com
and ekatz@nrmlaw.com.


NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque Faces Litigation Over Red-Light Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Albuquerque was named as a defendant in a class
action filed in state District Court, alleging that its camera-
based traffic enforcement program is breaking the law, The
Albuquerque Journal reports.

Filed earlier this month, the class action contends that the
program violates state constitutional guarantees of due process,
trial by jury and other protections.

There are three named plaintiffs in the suit.  They include a
social worker and a single mother that were both cited under the
red light camera program.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Richard Sandoval said that the
case seeks a court order to halt the program until legal issues
are settled.

In 2004, traffic cameras first appeared in Albuquerque under a
pilot program that grew into the present system.  Under the
program, violators are declared a "nuisance" and thus subject to
civil penalty.

However, the lawsuit contends the city is overreaching.  It
pointed out that a vehicle might not be declared a nuisance
based on a single traffic violation without knowledge or
evidence of the actual driver in the vehicle.

Under the system, owners of vehicles photographed while running
red lights or speeding are fined under a civil administrative
system overseen by City Hall.  

The Metropolitan Court, which generally handles traffic
citations issued by law officers, is not involved with the
traffic cameras.

An administrative hearing run by the city is afforded to
motorists who deny wrongdoing, and fines are considered a civil
-- not criminal -- matter.

For more details, contact Richard A. Sandoval, 2025 Rio Grande
Blvd., NW Albuquerque, NM 87104, Phone: (505) 243-3500 or (800)
562-3456 or 1-800-828-4LAW, Fax: (505) 243-3534, Web site:
http://www.branchlawfirm.com/.


MASCO CORP: To Close Settlements of Behr Products Suits in '06
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. expects to close in 2006 two settlements of all
class actions over certain exterior wood coating products
manufactured by its subsidiary.

Late in the second half of 2002, the company and its subsidiary,
Behr Process Corp., agreed to two settlements: the National
Settlement and the Washington State Settlement to resolve all
class actions pending in the U.S. involving certain exterior
wood coating products formerly manufactured by Behr.

The evaluation, processing and payment of claims for the
National Settlement and the Washington State Settlement will be
completed in 2006, except for a small number of administrative
appeals of claim awards, which should be resolved in the first
half of 2007, the company said at its Nov. 2 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30.
  

MASCO CORP: Named Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuits in Ga., Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. is facing antitrust lawsuits in two states and a
consumer suit alleging defects in some aluminum windows
manufactured by its subsidiary.
   
Several lawsuits have been brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies in the federal
courts in Atlanta, Georgia and Fort Myers, Florida, alleging
that certain practices violate provisions of federal and state
antitrust laws.  The complaints are requesting class action
certification.

The company is vigorously defending these cases and believes
that the conduct of the company and its insulation installation
companies, which have been the subject of these lawsuits, has
not violated any antitrust laws.

A lawsuit has also been brought against the company and its
Milgard Manufacturing subsidiary alleging design defects in
certain Milgard aluminum windows.  In August 2006, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' motion for class action certification.  
Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling.


NICOR GAS: Settles Property Owners Suit Over Ill. Plant Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in class actions filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois against Nicor Gas Co. and others
that claim ongoing cleanup of a former manufactured gas plant
site in Oak Park, Illinois is inadequate.

In December 2001, a purported class action was filed against
Exelon Corp., Commonwealth Edison Co. and the company.  Since
then, additional lawsuits have been filed related to this same
former manufactured gas plant site.  

These lawsuits seek, in part, unspecified damages for property
damage, nuisance, and various personal injuries that allegedly
resulted from exposure to contaminants allegedly emanating from
the site, and punitive damages.

An agreement in principle to settle the purported class action
has been reached and, as of Sept. 30, 2006, the company has
recorded a $2.25 million liability in connection with this
matter, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Naperville, Illinois-based Nicor Inc.-- http://www.nicor.com--  
is a holding company.  Gas distribution is Nicor's primary
business.  The company's principal subsidiaries are Northern
Illinois Gas Co. (Nicor Gas Co., Nicor Gas), a distributor of
natural gas, and Tropical Shipping, a transporter of
containerized freight in the Bahamas and the Caribbean region.  
Nicor also owns several energy-related ventures, including Nicor
Services and Nicor Solutions, which provide energy-related
products and services to retail markets, and Nicor Enerchange, a
wholesale natural gas marketing company.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Abatement Order Issued in Suits Over Trojan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County Circuit Court in Oregon issued an Order of
Abatement in the suits:

     -- "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
        General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court Case
        No. 03C 10639;" and

     -- "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion County
        Circuit Court Case No. 03C 10640."

Two class action suits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court
against PGE on Jan. 17, 2003 on behalf of two classes of
electric service customers:

     -- one case seeks to represent current PGE customers that
        were customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to
        Oct. 1, 2000 (Current Class); and

      -- the other case seeks to represent PGE customers that
         were customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to
         Oct. 1, 2000, but who are no longer customers (Former
         Class).

The suits seek damages of $190 million for the Current Class and
$70 million for the Former Class, as a result of the inclusion
of a return on investment of Trojan in the rates PGE charges its
customers.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the Judge granted the Class Action Plaintiffs'
motion for Class Certification and Partial Summary Judgment and
denied PGE's motion for Summary Judgment.  

On March 3, 2005 and March 29, 2005, PGE filed two Petitions for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court,
asking the court to take jurisdiction and command the trial
Judge to dismiss the complaints or to show cause why they should
not be dismissed and seeking to overturn the Class
Certification.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
PGE's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus abating these
class action proceedings until the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon responds to the Nov. 7, 2003 remand issued by the Marion
County Circuit Court in:

     -- "Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon v. Public Utility
        Commission of Oregon and Utility Reform Project;" and

     -- "Colleen O'Neill v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon,
        Marion County Oregon Circuit Court No. 94C-10417."

The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary
jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy it can offer to
PGE customers, through rate reductions or refunds, for any
amount of return on the Trojan investment PGE collected in rates
for the period from April 1995 through October 2000.

The Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determines
that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class
action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part, but if
the OPUC determines that it cannot provide a remedy, and that
decision becomes final, the court system may have a role to
play.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the
right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the
remanded OPUC proceedings.  

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions for one year.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Ore. Circuit Court Okays $10M MCBIT Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon approved a $10
million settlement in the suit filed against Portland General
Electric Co. over the Multnomah County Business Income Taxes
(MCBIT).

In January 2005, David Kafoury and Kafoury Brothers, LLC filed a
class action in Multnomah County Circuit Court against Portland
General on behalf of all Portland General customers who were
billed on their electric bills and paid amounts for MCBIT after
1996 that the plaintiffs alleged were never paid to Multnomah
County.

The charges were billed and collected under Public Utility
Commission rules that allow utilities to collect taxes imposed
by the county.  As Portland General was included in Enron
Corp.'s consolidated income tax return, the company paid the tax
it collected to Enron.  The plaintiffs sought judgment against
PGE for restitution of MCBIT in excess of $6 million, plus
interest, recoverable costs, punitive damages, and attorney
fees.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the parties agreed to a settlement by which
PGE will make refunds and payments totaling $10 million,
inclusive of interest and plaintiffs' attorney fees, costs, and
expenses as approved by the court's final order.

The settlement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing
by PGE.  PGE established a reserve of $10 million in 2005
related to the settlement.  On July 28, 2006, the settlement was
approved by the Multnomah County Circuit Court.  In September
2006, the company began making refunds, which are expected to be
completed during the fourth quarter of 2006.

The suit is "David Kafoury, an individual, and Kafoury Brothers,
LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Corp., each as representative
of class, etc. v. Portland General Electric Company, Case No.
0501-00627," filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court for the
State of Oregon.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Insurance Agents File N.Y. Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action, "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc.
and Prudential Insurance Co. of America," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey in October 2006.

The suit claims that the company failed to pay overtime to
insurance agents who were registered representatives in
violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions
were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law.

Plaintiffs are Brian C. Kennedy, Carol Kennedy, and Jeffrey
Bouder.

The suit is Case No. 2:06-cv-04359-DMC-MF BOUDER under Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is James V. Bashian, Law Office of
James V. Bashian, PC, Fairfield Commons, 271 Route 46 West
Suite F207, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone: (973) 227-6330, E-mail:
jbashian@bashianlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Tara S. Smith Williams, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, 1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2500, New York, NY
10020, Phone: 212-218-5500, E-mail: tawilliams@seyfarth.com.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Plaintiffs Amend Md. Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the mutual fund action, "Saunders v. Putnam
American Government Income Fund, et al.," filed a second amended
complaint in August.

In October 2004, Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Securities, Inc. were named as defendants in several class
actions brought on behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in
a number of mutual fund complexes.  

The actions were consolidated as part of the multi-district
proceeding, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-
1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863,
and 04-md-15864," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.  

The complaints allege that purchasers and holders of mutual
funds were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive
fees caused by market timing and late trading.  It is seeking
unspecified damages.  

In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of the
actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but
remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated
proceeding.  

In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions,  
"Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,"
the court granted plaintiffs leave to re-file their federal
securities law claims against PSI.  Motions to dismiss the other
actions are pending.

In August 2006, in the multi-district proceeding, a second
amended complaint was filed in "Saunders v. Putnam American
Government Income Fund, et al.," alleging federal securities law
claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of mutual fund
investors seeking compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Named in N.Y. Stockbrokers Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Securities Inc. is named defendant in "Badain v.
Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York.  

The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay
overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law,
and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers'
wages in violation of state law.

The suit was originally filed on June 27, 2006.  Prudential
Securities was sued September 2006.

Representing the defendant is Lorie E. Almon, Seyfarth Shaw,
1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2500, New York, NY 10020-
1801, Phone: (212) 218-5500, Fax: (212) 218-5526, E-mail:
lalmon@seyfarth.com.

Representing plaintiff Charles Badain is K. Wade Eaton,
Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, 1600 Crossroads
Building, Two State Street, Rochester, NY 14614, Phone: 585-232-
3730, Fax: 585-232-3882, E-mail: kwe@cdlawyers.com.

Representing Prudential Securities Inc. is Christopher A. Parlo,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor, New
York, NY 10178-0060, Phone: 212-309-6000, Fax: 212-309-6001, E-
mail: cparlo@morganlewis.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Colo. Court to Hear $33M ERISA Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 17 hearing is set to consider final approval of the
proposed settlement in the consolidated class action filed
against Qwest Communications International, Inc. on behalf of
all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans.

Seven putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans from Mar. 7, 1999 until
Jan. 12, 2004 were later consolidated into a single action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  

Other defendants in this action include current and former
directors of Qwest, former officers and employees of Qwest and
Deutsche Bank.  These suits also purport to seek relief on
behalf of the Plan.  

The first of these actions was filed in March 2002.  Plaintiffs
assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against the company and
others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of  
1974, as amended, alleging, among other things, various
improprieties in managing holdings of the company's stock in the  
Plan.  Plaintiffs sought damages, equitable and declaratory
relief, along with attorneys' fees and costs and restitution.   
Counsel for plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would
seek billions of dollars of damages.  
  
On Apr. 26, 2006, the company, the other defendants, and the
putative class representatives entered into a stipulation of
settlement that, if implemented, will settle the consolidated  
ERISA action.  

Qwest Communications International has deposited $33 million in
cash into a settlement fund for the benefit of the Plan in
connection with the proposed settlement.  Deutsche Bank has
deposited $4.5 million in cash into a settlement fund for the
benefit of the Plan to settle the claims against it in
connection with the proposed settlement.  No parties admit any
wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement.

Qwest Communications International received certain insurance
proceeds as a contribution by individual defendants to this
settlement, which offset $10 million of the company's $33
million payment.  If the settlement is not ultimately effected,
Qwest Communications International will repay these insurance
proceeds.

In addition to the $33 million cash settlement, Qwest
Communications International has also agreed to pay, subject to
certain contingencies, the amount (if any) by which the Plan's
recovery from the settlement of the consolidated securities
action is less than $20 million.

If approved by the district court, the proposed settlement will
settle and release the claims of the class against Qwest
Communications International and all other defendants in the
consolidated ERISA action.

The federal district court in Colorado has issued orders:

     -- preliminarily approving the proposed settlement;

     -- setting a hearing for Nov. 17, 2006 to consider final
        approval of the proposed settlement; and

     -- certifying a settlement class on behalf of participants
        in and beneficiaries of the Plan who owned, bought, sold
        or held shares or units of the Qwest Shares Fund, U S
        WEST Shares Fund or QCII common stock in their Plan
        accounts from March 7, 1999 until Jan. 12, 2004.

The proposed settlement is subject to review on appeal if the
district court were finally to approve it.

The suit is "Stuhr v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-02120-REB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Robert E. Blackburn.   
Representing the plaintiffs is Josiah Oakes Hatch, III of  
Ducker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, P.C., 1560 Broadway #1400,  
Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-2828, Fax: 303-861-
4017, E-mail: jhatch@duckerlaw.com.  

Representing the company are William T. Hankinson and William  
Albert Wright of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- 17th Street Denver  
CO, U.S. District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth Street, #3000,  
Denver, CO 80202 U.S.A., Phone: 303-299-8468 and 303-299-8086,  
Fax: 303-298-0940, E-mail: bhankinson@sah.com or  
wwright@sah.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Rights-of-Way Suits in State Court Remain
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. continues to face
several putative class actions in state and federal courts in
relation to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain
rights-of-way.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest Communications, and its consolidated subsidiaries, on
behalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts in
California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Texas.

For the most part, the complaints challenge Qwest
Communications's right to install its fiber optic cable in
railroad rights-of-way.  Complaints in Colorado, Illinois and
Texas, also challenge Qwest Communications's right to install
fiber optic cable in utility and pipeline rights-of-way.  The
complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline
companies own the right-of-way as an easement that did not
include the right to permit Qwest Communications to install its
fiber optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs'
consent.

Most actions -- filed in California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Texas -- purport to be brought on behalf of statewide classes in
the named plaintiffs' respective states.  Several actions
purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes.

The Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.  The Illinois federal court action
purports to be on behalf of landowners in Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,
Montana and Oregon.  The Indiana action purports to be on behalf
of a national class of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-
of-way over which QCII's network passes.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

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


SARA LEE: Recalls Burger Buns Over Undeclared Milk Content
----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Food & Beverage, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, is conducting a voluntary recall of its 12
oz. Sara Lee Premium White Hamburger Buns produced at its
Valdese, North Carolina bakery.

This limited recall is being conducted as a precaution because
the 4,826 packages included may contain undeclared milk, posing
a potential risk to milk-allergic individuals because the
ingredient statement does not include milk.

The product was sold and distributed to retailers and grocery
stores in North Carolina and South Carolina and includes Sara
Lee Premium White Hamburger Buns with the UPC Code 7294575177
and the production code SEPT 10 3452401226.

These products are highly unlikely to be on store shelves as
they are past the expiration date, but some may remain in
consumer possession.  The recall does not apply to any other
Sara Lee brand bakery products in any other locations; it only
applies to this specific product with the production code SEPT
10 3452401226.  Consumers may return affected product to the
store where it was purchased for a full refund.

To date, the company has received one report of an adverse
reaction to the above product from a person with a known milk
allergy.

The company initiated the recall after it discovered that this
product contained milk that was distributed in packaging that
did not include milk in its ingredient list.

Consumers who may have questions or concerns should call Sara
Lee's toll-free consumer line at 1.800.889.3556.  The consumer
line is available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time,
Monday through Friday.


SOUTH CAROLINA: 2007 Trial Set for Right-of-Way Lawsuit in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative 2007 trial was slated for the class action
purported, "Collins v. Duke Energy Corp., Progress Energy
Services Co., and South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G)," which
was filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for
the 5th Judicial Circuit.  

Since its filing back in Aug. 21, 2003, the plaintiffs have
dismissed defendants Duke Energy and Progress Energy and are
proceeding against SCE&G only.  

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged improper use
of electric transmission and distribution easements but have not
asserted a dollar amount for their claims.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the licensing of
attachments on electric utility poles, towers and other
facilities to non-utility third parties or telecommunication
companies for other than the electric utilities internal use
along the electric transmission and distribution line right-of-
ways constitutes a trespass.  

It is anticipated that this case may go to trial in 2007,
according to the company's Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Appeal Right-of-Way Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina Supreme Court overruled the dismissal by the
Court of Common Pleas for the 9th Judicial Circuit of the
purported class action, "Douglas E. Gressette, et al., v. South
Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and SCANA Corp."

The case alleges the SCE&G made improper use of certain
easements and right-of-ways by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than the company's electricity-
related internal communications.  

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment,
trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment.  He did not
assert a specific dollar amount for the claims.

The company believes its actions are consistent with governing
law and the applicable documents granting easements and right-
of-ways, it stated in a regulatory filing.  

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss and issued an
order dismissing the case on June 29, 2005.  A decision that
plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court recently overruled the Circuit Court and
returned the case to the Circuit Court for further consideration
saying the question of assignability of the easements requires
construction of the easements themselves, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


TRIP ASSURED: Tenn. Travel Protection Firm Faces Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside, California lawyer John Tiedt filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Trip Assured Inc., the Fairview Observer reports.

The suit alleges the Tennessee travel protection company
routinely misled its customers, especially senior citizens.

The lawsuit says Trip Assured "marketed its trip-cancellation
product as insurance, but the company was not licensed to sell
insurance."

For a fee, Trip Assured agrees to protect travelers against
losing their money on trips they have to cancel or interrupt due
to medical and other emergencies, according to the report.

Tennessee and five other states have ordered the Crossville-
based company to stop selling travel insurance without a
license.  The company has maintained that its products aren't
insurance.

The suit also says Trip Assured used contract loopholes and
"unreasonable requirements" to avoid paying valid claims by
customers who had to cancel trips.

Trip Assured's owner, Mack Johnson, has said many of the claims
were fraudulent.  He argued that the company sells "travel
protection plans," not insurance.

The lawsuit seeks full payment of claims to customers who had to
cancel their trips for valid reasons but were denied
reimbursement by Trip Assured.  It also asks for full repayment
of premiums to all Trip Assured customers -- whether they filed
claims or not -- on the grounds that they thought they were
buying insurance, according to Mr. Tiedt.

Plaintiffs are represented by John E. Tiedt of the Law Offices
of John E. Tiedt, 10370 Hemet Street, Suite 390, Riverside,
California 92503, Phone: 951-343-3320, Fax: 951-343-3329, Web
Site: http://www.tiedtlaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Lawyers to Gather More Data on "Keepseagle" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
At a meeting scheduled for Nov. 16, 2006 in Fort Yates, North
Dakota, attorneys for American Indian farmers and ranchers in a
discrimination lawsuit against the federal government will begin
gathering more information and witnesses for their case, The
Associated Press reports.

Filed in 1999, the suit, "Keepseagle vs. Johanns, (formerly
Veneman)," alleges the U.S. Department of Agriculture
discriminated against American Indians in the granting of loans
beginning in 1981.  The case was granted class-action status in
2001.

The suit's plaintiff is Fort Yates rancher George Keepseagle,
while defendants are Ann Veneman, who was agriculture secretary
when the lawsuit was filed and her successor Mike Johanns.

According to Joseph M. Sellers, plaintiffs' lead attorney in
Washington, D.C., his firm is gathering about 100 ranchers and
farmers to serve as witnesses for a trial.  Mr. Sellers revealed
that as of the moment about 50 witnesses have been found, mostly
in North Dakota, Montana and Oklahoma.  

Mr. Sellers said the meeting will be held at Prairie Knights
Casino near Fort Yates.  

Attorneys Christine Webber and Anurag Varma, both of Washington,
D.C, will attend the meeting.  Ms. Varma was an attorney in a
similar civil rights case brought by black farmers in 1997 and
settled two years later.

In September, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said at a
hearing that he believes American Indian farmers and ranchers
are entitled to a trial.

Mr. Sellers revealed that he and USDA attorneys have been
meeting with a magistrate to resolve some of their differences
and decide on a trial date, however, no decision has been
forthcoming.

                      Specific Complaints

The suit claims that since at least 1981 the defendant has
engaged in a pattern of discriminating against Native American
farmers and ranchers in the provision of loans and loan
servicing because of their race (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 2,
2006).

The USDA allegedly committed this discrimination at various
stages of the loan and loan servicing process.  Native Americans
have been supposedly denied equal opportunity to obtain loan
applications and assistance in completing them, and the often-
inaccessible locations of USDA's offices have imposed obstacles
to obtaining credit on Native Americans not typically
encountered by other farmers and ranchers.

Those Native Americans who nevertheless applied for loans
allegedly received significantly fewer loans than were provided
to white farmers.  Further, when loans were provided, they often
included onerous terms that were not imposed on white farmers.
Defendant also allegedly discriminatorily denied Native
Americans access to loan servicing options that were made
available to non-Native American loan recipients.

The discrimination practiced by the USDA was allegedly
exacerbated by the USDA's wholesale failure to accept, process,
and redress complaints, made both orally and in writing, whether
individually or through a representative.  

At the same time, USDA advised aggrieved farmers that they could
challenge decisions believed to be discriminatory by lodging
complaints with the agency's civil rights office.

Together, the USDA's pattern and practice of denying Native
Americans equal access to opportunities to obtain credit, while
simultaneously depriving them of a meaningful way to challenge
the discrimination they faced, have allegedly deprived Native
American farmers of privileges afforded to non Native-American
farmers, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
the Administrative Procedure Act and has caused them substantial
damage, including in many cases the loss of land held by their
families for generations.

The plaintiffs is bringing the class action on behalf of
themselves and the following class, which already has been
certified by this court:

"All Native American farmers and ranchers who:

     -- farmed or ranched between Jan. 1, 1981 and November
        24, 1999;

     -- applied to the USDA for participation in a farm program
        during that time period; and

     -- filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA
        individually or through a representative during the time
        period.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among others:

     -- an order declaring, pursuant to section 2201 of the U.S.
        Judiciary Code, that plaintiffs and the class members
        were denied equal credit opportunities and other farm
        program benefits and the full and timely enforcement of
        their discrimination complaints;

     -- an order declaring Defendant's actions to be a breach of
        plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Credit Opportunity
        Act and the Administrative Procedures Act and awarding
        eligible plaintiffs and class members monetary and
        injunctive relief appropriate to the proof at trial; and

     -- an order granting plaintiffs and the class members an
        award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Equal
        Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedures
        Act.

The suit is "Keepseagle, et al. v. VENEMAN, et al., Case No.
1:99-cv-03119-EGS," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Phillip L. Fraas, 818 Connecticut Avenue, NW 12th Floor
         Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 223-1499, Fax: (202)
         223-1699, E-mail: philfraas@aol.com;

     (2) David Joseph Frantz of Conlon, Frantz, Phelan & Varma,
         LLP, 1818 N Street, NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: (202) 331-7050, Fax: (202) 331-9306, E-mail:
         dfrantz@conlonfrantz.com;

     (3) Alexander John Pires, Jr., 4401 Q St. NW, Washington,
         DC 20007, Phone: (202) 333-1134, Fax: (202) 338-3635,
         E-mail: dianecooley@comcast.net; and

     (4) Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West
         Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600,
         Fax: (202) 408-4699 or (888) 347-4600, Web site:
         http://www.cmht.com/.


WELLS FARGO: Claims in Suit Over Broker Kickbacks Due Nov. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered the law firm of Gutride
Safier LLP to file claims by other investors of H.D. Vest
Investment Services, subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Co., no later
than Nov. 17.

The judge ruled that the class action against stock broker H.D.
Vest, will not go forward unless some of its mutual fund
customers come forward by the end of this week.

Earlier, Judge Alsup allowed a class action against Wells  
Fargo & Co. and some of its subsidiaries to proceed, but
dismissed portions of the case (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 1,
2006).

The lawsuit, filed by mutual fund investors in 2005, seeks to
recover millions of dollars in alleged secret kickbacks earned
by brokers at Wells Fargo and a subsidiary, H.D. Vest Investment
Services.  

The suit claims that Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest brokers pushed
clients into pre-selected mutual funds in exchange for secret
payments.  

As summed up by the court in its Oct. 24 order: "investors
thought they were dealing with unbiased broker-dealers when in
fact they were not."  

The list of mutual funds includes Wells Fargo name-brand funds
and funds from Dreyfus, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford,
MFS, Oppenheimer, Putnam, and others.

Judge Alsup ruled that the plaintiff had asserted two forms of
illegal conduct:  

      -- the plaintiff received biased advice from broker-
         dealers when he thought he was getting impartial  
         recommendations; and  

      -- the fund assets were dissipated by paying excessive  
         fees to the investment advisers and distributors.

In 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers fined
Wells Fargo $6.99 million for mutual fund kickbacks.  

Judge Alsup also dismissed certain claims unless new investors
come forward.  The judge ruled that the current plaintiff could
not pursue claims against H.D. Vest, a Wells subsidiary, or
against other Wells funds he did not own.  

Judge Alsup gave plaintiff's counsel until Nov. 17 to come
forward with other investors who wish to pursue claims against
H.D. Vest and other Wells Fargo funds.   

In the past two years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission has issued fines for similar kickback arrangements
against at least five mutual fund companies.  Lawsuits against
others have led to settlements recovering more than $200 million
for investors.

Trial against Wells Fargo has been set for November 2007 in San
Francisco federal court.  

For more information, contact Gutride Safier LLP --
http://www.gutridesafier.com-- Michael Reese, Esq., Phone: +1-
212-579-4625, or Adam Gutride, Esq., +1-415-271-6469.

The suit is "Ronald Siemers v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-04518-WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California under Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bruce A. Ericson at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman  
         LLP, 50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880 San  
         Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone: (415) 983-1000, Fax:  
         (415) 983-1200, E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com;  
         and

     (2) Thomas O. Jacobs, Office of the General Counsel, Wells  
         Fargo & Co., 633 Folsom St., 7th Floor, San Francisco,  
         CA 94107 U.S., Phone: 415-622-6656, Fax: 415-975-7864,  
         E-mail: tojacob@wellsfargo.com.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Tip Sharing Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Las Vegas asked the Clark County District Court to dismiss
a motion to certify a suit filed by two of its dealers over the
resort's new tip-sharing policy, and to dismiss the case
entirely, The Las Vegas Business Press reports.

In a motion filed Nov. 1, the resort said the case is for the
Nevada Labor Commissioner and not the courts to resolve.

The motion to dismiss is to be heard on Dec. 5, 2006 before
Judge Douglas Herndon.  The plaintiff's response to the
dismissal motion was due on Nov. 14, 2006.

Dealers Daniel Baldonado and Joseph Cesarz filed the suit on
Sept. 13, 2006.  It is seeking damages for compensation lost
under the new tip-sharing arrangements, which gave casino
supervisors a share of dealers' tips (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 29, 2006).

Court documents show that the two Wynn Las Vegas dealers believe
the Wynn policy violates Nevada state law covering tip pooling
because employers are sharing in the tips.

The suit asks for class-action status to include more than the
500 dealers affected by the change in the tips policy at the
resort.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Thierman argued that the new tip-sharing
policy violates at least three Nevada laws:

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.100, which requires that
        dealers be paid what they've earned;

     -- another section of chapter 608 that prohibits improperly
        withholding earned; and

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.120 that outlaws charging
        workers illegal fee or commission to keep their jobs.

According to the lawsuit, the two dealers are seeking the wages
they lost because of the tip pooling and they want the program
stopped.

The suit states that the resort breached contracts of employment
by unilaterally, illegally, and without cause, withholding
certain portions of the casino dealers' tip pool and paying such
portions to other persons who were not casino dealers and were
not entitled to such payments.

The new tip-pooling program, announced to dealers during three
separate shift meetings on Aug. 21, was part of a table-games
division restructuring designed to lessen the wage disparity
between dealers and front-line supervisors.  On Sept. 1, Wynn
Las Vegas began allowing table game supervisors to share in the
tips earned by dealers.

For more details, contact Mark R. Thierman of Thierman Law Firm,
7287 Lakeside Drive, Reno, NV 89511-7652, (Wahsoe County),
Phone: 775-284-1500, Fax: 775-284-1506, E-mail:
laborlawyer@pacbell.net.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

KGS clarifies misconceptions perpetrated by Schoengold Sporn
Laitman & Lometti, P.C. in its press release dated Nov. 8, 2006,
which could mislead investors of their rights under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

The PSLRA does not require investors to file a suit as the
Schoengold firm has done on behalf of its client.  Rather, the
PSLRA permits shareholders who seek to be appointed lead
plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA to file a motion with the court
seeking such appointment, within 60 days of the date of the
announcement of the first-filed suit.

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


TIER TEHNOLOGIES: The Rosen Law Firm Files Va. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of purchasers
of Tier Technologies, Inc. common stock from Nov. 29, 2001
through and including Oct. 25, 2006.  The case is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia as Case
No. 1:06-CV-1276.

The complaint charges that Tier and certain of its present and
former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading financial statements filed with
the SEC during the class period by overstating company earnings
and underreporting company losses.

On Dec. 14, 2005, the company announced that its financial
statements for fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through Sept.
30, 2004 and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005, should no
longer be relied upon and announced that a restatement of those
financial statements would be required.

On April 19, 2006, the company announced that an internal
investigation revealed a "number of serious new allegations
relevant to the restatement-related issues."  

On May 24, 2006, the company announced that its stock would be
de-listed from NASDAQ.  On Oct. 25, 2006, the company finally
issued its long awaited restatement.

The complaint alleges that the company had over-reported its net
income and underreported its net losses for almost five years.
For example, the company previously reported diluted per share
net income for fiscal 2004, rather than the true restated net
loss for fiscal 2004.

The complaint asserts that these adverse disclosures have caused
the company's stock price to decline.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq., Phone: 866-767-3653, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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  * * *