---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 228

                            Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Resolve Col. Stock Fraud Suit
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits in Mass., Penn.
CREDIT CARD COS: N.Y. Court Okays $336M Settlement in MDL-1409
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Saws to Repair Blade Guard Mounting
FAIRPOINT COMMS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger" Lawsuit

FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Continue to Face Suits Over Reporting
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Stock, ERISA, Derivative Suits Consolidated
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. High Court Yet to Rule on Cam Bearing Suit
IMAGITAS INC: Faces Drivers Privacy Act Violation Suit in Mass.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Motions to Appeal La. Workers' Lawsuit

KRISPY KREME: Awaits Approval of $4.75M ERISA Suit Deal in N.C.
LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Ohio Suits Over Title Insurance Policy Rate
MONSANTO CO: Del. Suit Over Alleged Monopoly Denied Class Status
NOBLE ENERGY: April 2007 Trial Set for Patina Oil Case in Colo.
NORTH CAROLINA: Tenants Suit Against RHA Denied Class Status

OHIO: MWCD Suit Over Assessment Plan on Hold, New Judge Sought
PEGASUS WIRELESS: KGS Suit Influenced by Motley Fool, Firm Says
QC HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.C.
QC HOLDINGS: Faces Payday Loans, Interest Rates Suit in Missouri
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Mulls Appeal of "Tips" Suit Dismissal

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Crew Files Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Still Faces Intellectual Rights Suit in N.Y.
SONICWALL INC: Awaits N.Y. Court's Ruling in IPO Suit Settlement
SPIN MASTER: Recalls RC Micro Helicopter Toys Posing Burn Hazard
STONE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of La. Securities Fraud Lawsuits

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Stock Suit Plaintiff Amends Complaint
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Two Suits Related to Motorola Merger
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit in Idaho Over Contract Termination Fees
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Review Tobacco Ad Lawsuit
WARN INDUSTRIES: Recalls 8-Post ATV Winch Kits that Overheat

WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Motions to Junk Mass. Rewards Program Suit
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Morelock Antitrust Case in Ore. Still Stayed
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Nov. Hearing Set for Arguments in Ore. Ruling
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Still Faces Pa. Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit

         
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in Tex.
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS Federman & Sherwood Announces Suit Filing


                            *********


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Resolve Col. Stock Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics Inc. is in discussions to settle the
purported securities class action filed in May 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado against the company
and one of its former officers.

An amended complaint was filed in August 2004.  The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's securities during the period from May 29, 2003 to
April 29, 2004, and sought unspecified damages relating to the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
EFAPROXYN during this period and subsequent declines in the
company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held discussions to settle the
matter, although the terms of any such potential settlement
remain subject to negotiation and no binding agreement has been
reached.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,  
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer &  
Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A,  
Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:  
jberens@dyershuman.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Tara L. Acton of Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.,
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800, Denver, CO
         80202-5698, U.S.A., Phone: 303-825-0800, Fax: 303-629-
         7610, E-mail: tacton@bw-legal.com; and

     (2) Paul Howard Schwartz of Cooley Godward, LLP, Colorado  
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900, Broomfield, CO80021-
         8023, U.S.A, Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax: 720-566-4099, E-
         mail: schwartzph@cooley.com.   


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits in Mass., Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. remains a defendant in two purported antitrust
class actions pending in the U.S. District Courts for the
District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case consists of the
company's subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the
potential class in the Pennsylvania case is company's subscriber
base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago clusters," as those terms
are defined in the complaints.

In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
"horizontal market restraints" in those areas and seek damages
pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

As a result of recent events in both cases relating to the
procedural issue of whether plaintiffs' claims could proceed in
court or, alternatively, whether plaintiffs should be compelled
to arbitrate their claims pursuant to arbitration clauses in
their subscriber agreements, it has become more likely that
these cases will proceed in court.

The company's motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the
pleadings was denied, and plaintiffs have moved to certify a
class action.  It is opposing plaintiffs' motion and is
proceeding with class discovery.  The company also has moved to
dismiss the Massachusetts case.

Comcast Corp. on the Net: http://www.comcast.com.


CREDIT CARD COS: N.Y. Court Okays $336M Settlement in MDL-1409
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave preliminary approval to a $336 million settlement for a
class action accusing several banks and credit card groups of
conspiring to charge excessive fees on foreign currency
transactions, according to Jonathan Stempel of Reuters.

The consolidated federal class action is known as "In re Foreign
Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1409)."  It
accuses defendants of colluding to fix charges and of poor
disclosure.

Plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, in San Francisco, explains that
every time a consumer go overseas, he/she would be charged 1
percent by VISA or MasterCard and another 2 or 3 percent by
their bank to convert a transaction into U.S. dollars.  He adds,
that the cost to defendants to do these transactions was about
one-quarter of 1 percent.

Defendants in the five-year-old case include credit card groups:

      -- VISA,
      -- MasterCard Inc.,
      -- Bank of America Corp.,
      -- Citigroup Inc.,
      -- HSBC Holdings Plc,
      -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
      -- Washington Mutual, Inc. and several affiliates.

Under the settlement, defendants will pay $336 million to create
a settlement fund to pay monetary claims by eligible
cardholders, the costs of administering the settlement and
notice to cardholders, and any court-approved fees and expenses
to attorneys for the class and awards to the class
representatives (Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2006).

The settlement also includes provisions relating to disclosures
on billing statements and other documents.  Implementation of
the claims process will involve a third party administrator.

Covered under the settlement are cardholders of U.S.-issued
MasterCard or Visa credit cards or debit cards, and Diners Club
credit cards who made foreign transactions from Feb. 1, 1996 to
the present.

In approving the settlement, Judge William Pauley, stated that
it appeared to be the result of serious negotiations by
experienced counsel, and was "fair, reasonable and adequate."

Mr. Coughlin also added that one benefit of the litigation was
that card issuers now break out currency charges as a separate
item on customer bills.  "This makes banks competitive in
setting those charges," he explains.

Plaintiffs' attorneys had announced a pending settlement in
July.  A hearing to enter a final judgment was set for Nov. 2,
2007.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David J. Bershad and Michael Morris Buchman of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300 and
         212-946-9387, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         mbuchman@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Patrick Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-
         7423; and

     (3) Sheldon V. Burman of Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman,
         PC, 110 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 935-1600.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark Bruce Blocker of Sidley Austin, Brown & Wood, Bank
         One Plaza, 10 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
         Phone: (312) 853-7000; and

    (ii) Charles E. Buffon of Covington and Burling, 1201
         Pennsylvania Avenue, P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC
         20044, Phone: (202) 662-6000.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Saws to Repair Blade Guard Mounting
--------------------------------------------------------------
DeWalt Industrial Tool Co., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 97,000 framing saws and 37,000 circular saws.

The company said the lower blade guard can fail to close,
leaving the blade exposed and presenting a laceration hazard to
consumers.

DeWalt has received four reports of the lower guard failing to
close, including three reports of lacerations.  One consumer
received lacerations to the hand and two others received
lacerations to the leg, all required medical attention.

This recall involves DeWalt DW378G and DW378GT 7 1/4-inch
framing saws with date codes 200301-49 through 200637-49.  The
model numbers for the framing saws are located on the side of
the housing.  The date code is located either on the name plate
or under the handle near the power cord exit.  

Circular saws involved in this recall have model number DC300
with date codes 200601-49 through 200637-49.  The model number
on the circular saw is located on the name plate on the top of
the motor housing.  The date code on the circular saw is located
on the underside of the motor housing.  Framing saws marked with
a "V" on the underside of the handle near the cord set and
circular saws marked with a "V" on the underside of the motor
housing or under the handle where the battery is inserted have
already been repaired and are not involved in this recall.

These framing and circular saws were manufactured in Mexico and
are being sold at major home centers and hardware stores
nationwide from January 2003 through August 2006 for about $170
for the framing saw.  The circular saw was sold from May 2006
through September 2006 for between $380 and $800, depending on
the kit.

Picture of the recalled framing and circular saws:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07026.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the saws immediately and
contact DeWalt for a free repair.

For additional information, consumers can contact DeWalt toll-
free at (866) 854-5214 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.dewalt.com


FAIRPOINT COMMS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on either motion to remand or to
dismiss the stockholder class action, "Lowinger v. Johnson, et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00316," which names Fairpoint
Communications, Inc. as defendant.

On June 6, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the
State of North Carolina by Robert Lowinger on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons against the company,
the company's chairman and chief executive officer, certain of
the company's current and former directors and certain of the
company's stockholders.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and
liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act.  It also
alleged that the company's registration statement on Form S-1
(which was declared effective by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2005) and the related prospectus
dated Feb. 3, 2005, each relating to the company 's initial
public offering of common stock, contained certain material
misstatements and omitted certain material information necessary
to be included relating to the company 's broadband products and
access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several other
securities cases, sought rescission rights and unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
common stock "issued pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
IPO during the period from Feb. 3, 2005 through March 21, 2005."

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.  The plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the action to the North Carolina State Court,
which was denied by the Federal Magistrate.  The plaintiff
objected to and appealed the Magistrate's decision to the
district court judge.

The company contested the appeal and filed a motion to dismiss
the action.  The Magistrate, on Feb. 9, 2006, issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation to the district court Judge that
the motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Objection to the
Magistrate's Recommendation.  Both the appeal of denial of the
motion to remand and the motion to dismiss are pending before
the district court judge, 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.  

The suit is "Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
00316," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey S. Abraham and Lawrence D. Levit of Abraham,
         Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805,
         New York, NY 10119, US, Phone: 212-279-5050, Fax: 212-
         279-3655; and

     (2) John Thurston O'Neal of O'Neal Law Office, 7
         Battleground Court, Suite 212, Greensboro, NC 27408,
         US, Phone: 336-510-7904, Fax: 336-510-7965, E-mail:
         oneallaw@triadbiz.rr.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Brian S. Appel and Charles E. Davidow of Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 2445 M. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20037, US, Phone: 202-663-6000; and

    (ii) James Patrick McLoughlin, Jr. of Moore & Van Allen,
         Suite 4700, 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC
         28202, Phone: 704-331-1054, Fax: 704-378-2054, E-mail:
         jimmcloughlin@mvalaw.com.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Continue to Face Suits Over Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. remain defendants in
several class actions that are pending in New York federal court
and California state court.  

In the New York action, the plaintiffs allege that the
subsidiary, directly and through its agents, violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act and
New York's Deceptive Practices Act by failing to use reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy when issuing
tenant reports.  

The action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.  

In California, two subsidiaries of the company are defendants in
separate class actions.  The plaintiffs in both cases allege
that the company's subsidiaries, directly and through their
agents, violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act and California Business and Professions Code by
failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum
possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports.

The actions seek injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution,
statutory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs. The company does not believe that the ultimate
resolution of these actions will have a material adverse affect
on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The company did not report material development in the case at
its Nov. 8 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

St. Petersburg, Florda-based First Advantage Corp. (NASDAQ:
FADV) -- http://www.fadv.com/-- provides risk mitigation,  
screening services and credit reporting to enterprise and
consumer customers.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Stock, ERISA, Derivative Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
ordered the consolidatiion of federal derivative lawsuits with
securities and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violations class action filed against Harley-Davidson, Inc. and
certain of its officers.

Initially, the company was faced with several shareholder class
actions filed between May 18, 2005 and July 1, 2005.  The suits
named as defendants several company officers, including:  

      -- Jeffrey L. Bleustein,  
      -- James M. Brostowitz,  
      -- R. Jon Flickinger,
      -- John A. Hevey,  
      -- Ronald M. Hutchinson,  
      -- Gail A. Lione,  
      -- James A. McCaslin,  
      -- W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr.,  
      -- Donna F. Zarcone, and  
      -- James L. Ziemer

The complaints allege securities law violations and seek
unspecified damages relating generally to the company's April
13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term production
growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments from last
year's 317,000 units to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units
compared to its original target of 339,000 units.  

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court ordered the actions consolidated and
appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On April 24, 2006, the state court ordered that a consolidated
state court derivative action be stayed until after motions to
dismiss the federal securities class action are decided.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the federal court consolidated the federal
derivative lawsuits with the securities and a class action over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act filed in the same court.

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. 24.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Raymond  
Kadagian, et al. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-
CV-00547," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin under Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 W Broadway - Ste. 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423; and  

     (2) Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton  
         Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-
         482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Sari M. Alamuddin of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77 W.  
         Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-
         324-1158, Fax: 312-324-1001, E-mail:
         salamuddin@morganlewis.com; and

     (2) Nancy J. Sennett of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 777 E.  
         Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300, Phone: 414-
         297-5522, Fax: 414-297-4900, E-mail:  
         nsennett@foley.com.   


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. High Court Yet to Rule on Cam Bearing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments in a consumer class action filed against Harley-
Davidson, Inc. over its 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-
Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B
engines, were heard in September.  The company is awaiting a
decision from the court.  

In January 2001, the company, on its own initiative, notified
each owner of 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson
motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines
that the company was extending the warranty for a rear cam
bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.   

Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class
action was filed against the company in state court in Milwaukee  
County, Wisconsin.  The suit was amended Sept. 28, 2001.   

The complaint alleged that this cam bearing is defective and
asserted various legal theories.  The complaint sought
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for affected
owners, an order compelling the company to repair the engines,
and other relief.  

On Feb. 27, 2002, the company's s motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted by the court and the amended complaint was
dismissed in its entirety.  An appeal was filed with the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals.   

On April 12, 2002, the same attorneys filed a second putative
nationwide class action against the company in state court in  
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue
and asserting different legal theories than in the first action.   

The complaint sought:

      -- unspecified compensatory damages;  

      -- an order compelling the company to repair the engines;  
         and  

      -- other relief.   

On Sept. 23, 2002, the company's motion to dismiss was granted
by the court, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and
no appeal was taken.  

On Jan. 14, 2003, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's Feb. 27, 2002 dismissal of the complaint in the
first action, and the company petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme  
Court for review.   

On March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the  
Court of Appeals decision and dismissed the remaining claims in
the action.  On April 12, 2004, the same attorneys filed a third
action in the state court in Milwaukee County, on behalf of the
same plaintiffs from the action dismissed by the Wisconsin  
Supreme Court.  The court dismissed this third action on July
26, 2004.   

In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to reopen
that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes of action,
which motion was denied on Aug. 23, 2004.  The plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from the
latter dismissal.

On Sept. 9, 2004, Milwaukee County Circuit Court refused to
allow the reopening or amendment.  Plaintiffs again appealed to
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and on Dec. 13, 2005, the Court
of Appeals again reversed the trial court.  

On Jan. 12, 2006, the company filed a petition for review with
the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was granted.  Oral arguments
were heard on Sept. 7, 2006 and the company is awaiting a
decision from the court, according to its Oct. 31 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 24.


IMAGITAS INC: Faces Drivers Privacy Act Violation Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas Inc. is named defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts over alleged
invasion of the privacy of millions of drivers, the CourtHouse
News reports.

The class includes all persons who were mailed vehicle
registration notices and advertisements by defendant using
personal information obtained from any state department of motor
vehicles (DMV) -- including, without limitation, those in Ohio,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri and New York -- excluding
employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs,
successors and assignees of the defendant.

The suit claims Imagitas abuses a state contract to handle mail-
in vehicle registration renewals to send unsolicited ads along
with the registration papers.

Lead plaintiff Neil Mathias, alleges the company makes its money
by stuffing the envelopes with ads from profit-seeking
companies, including Sirius Satellite Radio, Dish Network and
ADT Security.

Mr. Mathias claims this violates the U.S. Drivers Privacy
Protection Act.  More than 5 million people in Ohio are
reportedly affected.

He seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including:

     -- an order enjoining Imagitas from continuing to acquire
        and use personal information obtained from the state
        DMVs;

     -- an award of statutory damages of $2,500 to each and
        every vehicle owner whose personal information has been
        used by Imagitas to mail its advertisements;

     -- punitive damages; and

     -- attorneys' fees.

A copy of the suit is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?151d

The suit is "Mathias v. Imagitas, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-12061-
NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

Representing plaintiffs is David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor,
LLP, 225 Franklin Street, 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:
dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Motions to Appeal La. Workers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court has yet to rule on a writ filed by
International Business Machines Corp. seeking discretionary
appeal of a class action by former employees of the company.

In May 2005, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the company's
motion to review and reverse a Louisiana state court's
certification of a nationwide class in a case filed against the
company in 1995.

The class consists of certain former employees who left the
company in 1992, and their spouses.  They claim damages based on
the company's termination of an education assistance program.

On April 4, 2006, the trial court denied the company's motion
for summary judgment.  On June 26, 2006, the Louisiana Court of
Appeals denied IBM's writ seeking an interlocutory appeal of the
trial court's decision to deny summary judgment.

On July 26, 2006 IBM filed a writ seeking a discretionary appeal
with the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The court has not yet ruled
on the writ.  No date has been set for trial, according to the
company's Oct. 31 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.


KRISPY KREME: Awaits Approval of $4.75M ERISA Suit Deal in N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to approve a $4.75 million settlement in a
class action alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp.

On March 16, 2005, the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Krispy
Kreme Doughnut Corp. (KKDC), was served with a purported class
action filed that asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty
under ERISA against KKDC and certain of its current and former
officers and employees.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of KKDC's retirement savings
plan or profit sharing stock ownership plan between Jan. 1, 2003
and the date of filing and whose accounts included investments
in the company's common stock.

They contended that defendants:

      -- failed to manage prudently and loyally the assets of
         the plans by continuing to offer the company's common
         stock as an investment option and to hold large
         percentages of the plans' assets in the company's
         common stock;

      -- failed to provide complete and accurate information
         about the risks of the company's common stock; failed
         to monitor the performance of fiduciary appointees; and

      -- breached duties and responsibilities as co-fiduciaries.

On May 15, 2006, the company announced that a proposed
settlement had been reached for the case.  The settlement would
include a one-time cash payment to be made to the settlement
class by the company's insurer in the amount of $4,750,000.

The company and the individual defendants deny any and all
wrongdoing and would pay no money in the settlement.  

Several contingent events must be satisfied before the
settlement becomes final, including final approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, where
the matter is pending.

It is anticipated that if the court gives final approval to the
proposed settlement, this matter will be resolved finally by the
end of calendar 2007, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jun 29, 2006.

The suit is "Smith v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-00187-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L. Osteen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) T. David Copley of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 3rd.
         Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-
         623-3384, E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Gary V. Mauney of Lewis & Roberts, 5960 Fairview Rd.,
         Ste. 102, Charlotte, NC 28210-3102, US, Phone: 704-347-
         8990, Fax: 704-347-8929, E-mail:
         garymauney@lewis-roberts.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Adam H. Charnes of Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P., 1001 W.
         Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone: 336-607-
         7382, Fax: 336-734-2602, E-mail:
         acharnes@kilpatrickstockton.com;

     (2) Stacey Cerrone of Proskauer Rose, LLP, 909 Poydras St.,
         Ste. 1100, New Orleans, LA 70112, US, Phone: 504-310-
         4089, Fax: 504-310-2022, E-mail:
         scerrone@proskauer.com; and

     (3) Michael Scott Fox of Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A.,
         P.O.B. 2888, Greensboro, NC 27402, Phone: 336-271-5244,
         Fax: 336-274-6590, E-mail: mfox@tuggleduggins.com.


LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Ohio Suits Over Title Insurance Policy Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. is facing two lawsuits in the
Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio alleging the
company overcharges owners title insurance policy rates.

On Jan. 25, 2002, Miles R. Henderson and Patricia A. Henderson
filed a putative class action against Lawyers Title in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Lawyers Title removed the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 6, 2002, and the plaintiffs
amended the complaint on March 8, 2002.  On June 28, 2002, the
District Court remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas
for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

A similar putative class action was filed against Commonwealth
Land Title Insurance Co., by Rodney P. Simon and Tracy L. Simon
in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio on March
5, 2003.

The plaintiffs in both suits alleged that the defendants had a
practice of charging original rates for owners title insurance
policies when lower, reissue rates should have been charged.  
Both defendants initially responded by demanding that the
actions be arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme
Court, the Court ruled that arbitration was not required for
either suit.

On remand to the trial court, the plaintiffs in the Henderson
Suit are now seeking to have the case certified as a class
action on behalf of all sellers and buyers of residential
property in Ohio who paid the higher original rate from 1992 to
the present.  The hearing on class certification has been
scheduled for April 16, 2007.

The plaintiffs in the Simon Suit are seeking to have the case
certified as a class action on behalf of all sellers of
residential property in Ohio, who paid the original rate from
1993 to the present, as requested in the original complaint,
although no hearing date on the class certification has been
scheduled.

The plaintiffs in both cases have demanded an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  


MONSANTO CO: Del. Suit Over Alleged Monopoly Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied
class-action status to a suit filed against Monsanto Co. over
alleged monopoly of the biotech corn seed market, STLtoday.com
reports.

American Seed Co. of Spring Grove, Pennsylvania filed the suit
on July 26, 2005, supposedly on behalf of direct purchasers of
corn seed containing the company's transgenic traits.  American  
Seed alleges that the company have monopolized or attempted to
monopolize markets for glyphosate-tolerant corn seed, European
corn borer-protected corn seed and foundation corn seed.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.  On Dec. 6, 2005, the court denied the company's motion
to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri and to consolidate it with an action the
company already has pending against American Seed for unpaid
royalties.  The case was set for trial on Oct. 15, 2007 (Class  
Action Reporter, Jan. 24. 2006).

The suit is "American Seed Co. Inc. v. Monsanto Co. et al.  
Case No. 1:05-cv-00535-SLR," filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, under Judge Sue L. Robinson.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Richard L. Horwitz of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box  
         951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000,  
         E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; and  

     (2) Joelle Eileen Polesky of Smith, Katzenstein, & Furlow,  
         The Corporate Plaza, 800 Delaware Ave., P.O. Box 410,
         Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 652-8400, E-mail:
         jpolesky@skfdelaware.com.   
   
Representing the defendants are Steven D. De Salvo, Peter E.  
Moll and John J. Rosenthal, Pro Hac Vice, E-mail:  
desalvos@howrey.com, Mollp@howrey.com and rosenthalj@howrey.com.   


NOBLE ENERGY: April 2007 Trial Set for Patina Oil Case in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 24, 2007 trial is scheduled for the class action, "Jack
Holman, et al. v. Patina Oil & Gas Corp., Case No. 03-CV-09,"
which was filed in the District Court for Weld County, Colorado.  
Patina Oil has since merged with Noble Energy, Inc.

The suit was initially filed in January 2003.  Plaintiff sought
to certify the case as a class action based upon the Colorado
Supreme Court's ruling in "Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co."  The
suit alleges that the company had improperly deducted certain
costs in connection with its calculation of royalty payments
relating to its Colorado operations.  

Essentially, the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in
"Rogers," back in July 2001 resulted in uncertainty regarding
the deductibility of certain post-production costs from payments
to be made to royalty interest owners.

In May 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint narrowing
the class of potential plaintiffs, and thereafter filed a motion
seeking to certify the narrowed class as described in the
amended complaint.   

The class certification motion was heard on Sept. 22, 2005 and
granted on Oct. 13, 2005.  The Colorado Supreme Court denied the
defendant's petition for review on Nov. 23, 2005.

The matter has been set for trial scheduled to commence April
24, 2007, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Noble Energy, Inc. in the Net: http://www.nobleenergyinc.com/.


NORTH CAROLINA: Tenants Suit Against RHA Denied Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Judge Carl Fox refused to certify as class action a
lawsuit filed against the Raleigh Housing Authority on behalf of
people denied Section 8 housing program for misrepresenting
their income in order to qualify, The News&Observer reports.

The suit was filed by attorneys Chris Graebe and Jack Holtzman
on behalf of Valerie Harris, a single mother of five in Wendell,
who was dropped from the Section 8 housing program in 2004 for
allegedly failing to report more than $2,000 in income.  The
lawyers sought to represent about 600 people in the same
situation.

In denying certification to the suit, Judge Fox said 55 cases is
not that numerous to warrant a class action.  He also said
attorneys need to present more evidence to support their claim.  
He also expressed concern that most of those people have not
been contacted personally.

Wake District Court Judge James R. Fullwood issued a preliminary
injunction in the case in 2004.

For more information contact Mr. Holtzman, Washington, Illinois
(Tazewell Co.), and Mr. Graebe, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
PLLC, Wachovia Capital Center, 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite
2100, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (Wake Co.), Phone: 919-755-
2100, Fax: 919-755-2150.


OHIO: MWCD Suit Over Assessment Plan on Hold, New Judge Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against the Muskingum Watershed
Conservancy District (MWCD) and its Conservancy Court has been
temporarily postponed after a judge assigned to the case removed
himself from it, according to Renee Brown of The New
Philadelphia Times Reporter.

Judge Edward O'Farrell, to whom the case initially was assigned,
is a member of the Conservancy Court and thus asked the Ohio
Supreme Court to appoint another judge from outside the district
to hear the case.

Attorney William E. Walker filed the suit on behalf of his
mother, N. Kathryn Walker of Massillon, who owns property in
Stark County.  It was filed in Tuscarawas County Common Pleas
Court at New Philadelphia.  Mrs. Walker claims the conservancy
court violated the "executive session" provision of the Ohio's
Open Meetings Act, commonly known as the Sunshine Law, on
occasions in June 2005 and in January and February 2006 when
decisions regarding a 20-year, $270-million assessment plan were
made.

Mr. Walker said the private deliberations held after hearing
comments from various individuals do not qualify under
conditions that allow a public body to go into executive
session.

The suit asks for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction as well as civil forfeiture payment of
$500 for each violation.

Meanwhile, district attorney James J. Pringle has filed a
request to dismiss the case on the grounds that the open meeting
statute does not apply to the conservancy court.  Mr. Pringle
stated that the court functions as a Court of Common Pleas and
so is not subject to the Ohio open meetings law.  The
conservatory court consists of one Common Pleas Court judge from
each of the 18 counties in the MWCD region.


PEGASUS WIRELESS: KGS Suit Influenced by Motley Fool, Firm Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pegasus Wireless Corp. said that Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC's
accusations in a class action the law firm purportedly filed
against the company, have cited claims that have previously been
stated in malicious articles published by The Motley Fool.

A press release stating that Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed
a class action against Pegasus Wireless on behalf of its
shareholders was released on the evening of Nov. 8, 2006.  As at
Nov. 9, Pegasus Wireless said it has not been served with any
paperwork regarding such a lawsuit and wishes to comment on the
allegations raised.

                The Kahn Gauthier Swick Lawsuit

KGS state in the press release issued this month that it has
filed a class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pegasus
Wireless Corp. between Dec. 22, 2005 and Sept. 5, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006).

Pegasus and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Beginning with an Aug. 24, 2006 report published by The
MotleyFool.com, investors were shocked and alarmed to learn a
series of disturbing reports on Pegasus and its management,
including:

      -- Pegasus failed to disclose CEO Jasper Knabb's and CFO
         Stephen Durland's close business ties with convicted
         felons, securities fraudsters and the like;

      -- Pegasus failed to disclose a series of related party
         transactions and the manner in which Knabb purchased
         more than $26 million in Pegasus stock;

      -- Pegasus withheld pertinent information involving
         Knabb's history with penny stock companies with
         suspicious trading patterns.

The revelation of this news caused Pegasus shares to decline
almost 25% on volume of almost 2 million shares from the closing
price of $7.60 per share two days earlier.

At the close of the class period, over Labor Day weekend, a
report by Barron's revealed that:

      -- Knabb had previously been arrested for possible
         insurance fraud;

      -- Two former Knabb companies -- BIFS Technologies,        
         formerly Biofiltration Systems, and Wireless Frontier -
         - evidenced suspected stock and market manipulation;

      -- Pegasus failed to disclose the truth concerning the
         novelty and uniqueness of its products and the
         foreseeability to compete in the current marketplace.

Following the Barron's report, on Sept. 5, 2006, the first day
of trading after the Labor Day weekend, shares of Pegasus
plummeted to a trading low of $1.10 per share, falling over
36.5% on huge volume of almost 18 million shares.

                   Pegasus Wireless' Comments

"KGS has cited accusations that have previously been stated in
malicious articles published by The Motley Fool, all of which
the company and its management have categorically denied.  Other
misrepresented facts and personal attacks on Pegasus and its
administration have been published in Barron's, which KGS has
also mentioned in its announcement.  The company has only been
contacted for interviews by one reporter, Elizabeth Moyer from
Forbes.

"Ms. Moyer has since published three articles that have brought
to light much of the suspicious activity that has taken place in
the trading of Pegasus Wireless securities.  The press release
from KGS failed to mention the Forbes articles; however, the law
firm has ties to other lawsuits against publicly traded
companies, which have fallen victim to negative press from The
Motley Fool.

"One of Ms. Moyer's articles was an explanation as to why
Pegasus Wireless chose to voluntarily delist its securities from
the Nasdaq Global Market Exchange.  The company had been
suffering from severely volatile and suspicious trading patterns
evident of short selling on the exchange, and felt that it was
in the best interest of all parties involved to move its
securities to a less vulnerable exchange.  

"Pegasus announced on Nov. 3, 2006 that it is temporarily
listing its securities on the OTC Bulletin Board and are
actively engaged in talks with other exchanges on which to list.

"Since trading commenced on the OTC Bulletin Board, the trading
patterns began to settle into what was considered typical for
the stock.  However; [on Nov. 8] the suspicious activity seemed
to have returned, and a press release was issued that evening
announcing a lawsuit against Pegasus Wireless of which the
company has no knowledge.

"Pegasus Wireless has been receiving numerous calls from
shareholders in recent weeks claiming to have been contacted by
an unknown party in an attempt to lure them out of their
positions in the company.  Pegasus Wireless urges its
shareholders to report any such calls, and assures them that the
company is fighting for them against this malicious attack on a
sound investment."

       Statement of Jasper Knabb, Chief Executive Officer

"I find it extremely coincidental and unfortunate that this has
been brought back into public view during a very exciting time
for Pegasus Wireless.  We are in the process of filing our third
quarter earnings, which have exceeded our expectations, and the
outlook for the fourth quarter is extremely positive with the
shipment of CynaLynx that began in October.  We are also in the
late stages of selecting a new exchange on which to list our
securities, and are being diligent in this effort to ensure that
any person who invests in our company has the safest trading
conditions possible."

The company announced in September that they had an agreement
with an Asian distributor that would purchase Pegasus Wireless'
patent-pending CynaLynx products.  That order commenced shipment
as planned, and the company has realized a need to expand its
manufacturing operations in order to meet the growing demand for
its ground-breaking technology.  

"There is a large disconnect between the public's perception of
Pegasus Wireless and the every day operations of the company.  
We are growing every day, and are currently in negotiations to
expand our manufacturing facilities so that they are
strategically placed in geographic locations that are conducive
to shipping in large quantities to other regions, including the
U.S.," Knabb went on to say.

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank those
shareholders who have remained loyal throughout the recent
controversy, and ask them to be vigilant as we at Pegasus are
directly focused on growing our business and proving to the
world that we are the leader in wireless."

Pegasus Wireless Corp. -- http://www.pegasuswirelesscorp.com/--  
is a leading provider of advanced wireless solutions.  Pegasus
creates hardware and software solutions for broadband wireless
networking and Internet access applications through its
manufacturing facilities located in China and Taiwan.

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


QC HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative consumer
fraud class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover
County, North Carolina.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
its chairman of the board and chief executive officer, were sued
in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a
putative class action filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben
Hubert Cline.  The two were customers of a Delaware state-
chartered bank for whom the company provided certain services in
connection with the bank's origination of payday loans in North
Carolina, prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina
branches in fourth quarter 2005.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

It also alleged that the company made the payday loans to the
plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if
the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of
the payday loans, the company's services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.  They have not sued the bank
in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint
that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks
to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates
as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law.  This case is in the preliminary
stages.  

There are three similar purported class actions filed in North
Carolina against Advance America and two other companies
unrelated to the company.  In December 2005, the judge in those
cases:  

     -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported  
        class actions and to compel arbitration in  
        accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions  
        contained in the consumer loan contracts;  

     -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer  
        loan contracts are valid; and  

     -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.  

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company' have appealed that ruling.  The judge handling the
lawsuit against the company in North Carolina is the same judge
who issued these three orders in December.

The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions
by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case.
There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the
outcome of the appeal in the other three North Carolina cases
concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in
the consumer contracts.

Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to
enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of
that appeal.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 8 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

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.


QC HOLDINGS: Faces Payday Loans, Interest Rates Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. has not yet responded to a purported class
action filed against it in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County
alleging it violated state laws by renewing payday loans an
excessive number of times and charging exorbitant interest
rates.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, QC  
Holdings revealed that it does plan to have the suit dismissed
and an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff enforced.

Filed on Oct. 13, 2006, 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 (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 14, 2006).

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.

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.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Mulls Appeal of "Tips" Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' motion seeking a review of a dismissal of a
purported class action against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and
one of its cruise brands.

Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, the suit alleges that the company's
Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards
to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards.  

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under
46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the suit.  In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. on the Net:
http://www.royalcaribbean.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Crew Files Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. faces a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that it failed to timely pay crew wages and
failed to pay proper crew overtime.

Filed in July 2006, the suit seeks payment of damages, including
penalty wages under 46 USC Section 10313 and equitable relief
damages under the California Unfair Competition Law, according
to its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Stephen V. Wilson with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph S. Farzam of Farzam and
Associates, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345, Los Angleles, CA
90067, Phone: 310-226-6890, E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com.

Representing the defendants is Sanford L. Bohrer of Holland &
Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone:
305-374-8500, E-mail: sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Still Faces Intellectual Rights Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on January 2006, alleging that the company
infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual
property by presenting performances on company cruise ships
without securing the necessary licenses.  

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a
permanent injunction against future infringement, according to
its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Howard J. Schwartz Porzio,
Bromberg & Newman, P.C., (NJ), 156 West 56th St., New York, NY
10019-3800, Phone: (212) 265-6888, E-mail:
hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Frank W. Ryan of Nixon Peabody,
LLP, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 940-
3129, Fax: (866) 947-2289, E-mail: fryan@nixonpeabody.com.

  
SONICWALL INC: Awaits N.Y. Court's Ruling in IPO Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on the proposed settlement of a securities class
action against SonicWALL, Inc. in relation to its initial public
offering in November 1999 and its follow-on offering in March
2000.

On Dec. 5, 2001, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, three of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters in the company's initial public
offering in November 1999 and its follow-on offering in March
2000.  

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock since
the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin.  

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages
or rescission for misrepresentations or omissions in the
prospectuses relating to, among other things, the alleged
receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the
underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the company's public offerings.  

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
Oct. 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to all
of the individual defendants in the SonicWALL IPO litigation,
without prejudice.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
company's claims.  A tentative agreement has been reached with
plaintiff's counsel and the insurers for the settlement and
release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the
company, in exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the
issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims.  

Papers formalizing the settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer
defendants, including the company, and insurers were presented
to the Court on Sept. 14, 2004.  The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, including approval of the proposed
settling parties and the Court.  

On July 14, 2004, underwriter defendants filed with the Court a
memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with defendant issuers and
individuals.  Plaintiffs and issuers subsequently filed papers
with the Court in further support of the settlement and
addressing issues raised in the underwriter's opposition.  

On Feb. 15, 2005 the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, subject to the parties fulfilling certain
conditions.  To address the concerns raised by the Court, the
parties submitted revised settlement documents that contained a
more limited "bar order" that would not preclude claims by the
underwriters for indemnification for an issuer pursuant to the
IPO underwriting agreement.  

On Aug. 31, 2005, the Court entered an order confirming its
preliminary approval of the settlement.  The court held a
hearing on the fairness of the settlement to the shareholder
class on April 24, 2006.  The company provided no development in
the case at its Nov. 3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.


SPIN MASTER: Recalls RC Micro Helicopter Toys Posing Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spin Master Toys, of Toronto, Canada, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
46,200 units of Helix remote control micro helicopter toys.

The company said the power supply controller can overheat posing
a burn hazard to consumers.  Spin Master has received 11 reports
of the toy overheating, including two fires and one report of a
consumer receiving minor skin burns.

The recalled remote control toy helicopters are lightweight,
made of plastic, and measure 7 inches from end-to-end. Designs
are printed on the helicopter's body.  The helicopter comes with
a control unit and a charger and rechargeable batteries are pre-
installed in the fuselage.  

This recall involves toys one of the following date codes:
06XXXXHM2, 06XXXXHM8, 06XXXXHM186.  The date codes are located
on a sticker on the bottom of the helicopter's body and on the
inside of the controller's battery compartment.  Toys currently
on retail shelves or having a date code ending in 386 are not
included in this recall.

Picture of the recalled Helix remote control micro helicopters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07031.jpg

These recalled Helix remote control micro helicopters were
manufactured in China and are being sold at national retailers
from July 2006 through early November 2006 for about $100.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled toy
helicopters and contact Spin Master to receive a free
replacement product.

For more information, call Spin Master at (800) 622-8339 between
9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.spinmaster.com.


STONE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of La. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. and several of its officers are seeking the
dismissal of a consolidated class action pending against them in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H. Beer, D.
Peter Canty and James H. Prince.  Three similar complaints were
filed after.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005 and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, defendants,
among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:

      -- that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were
consolidated into "In re: Stone Energy Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on or
about June 14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims
similar to those described above and expands the putative class
period to commence on May 2, 2001 and to end on March 10, 2006.

On Sept. 13, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions seeking dismissal of that action, according to the
company's Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker
L. Melancon with referral Mildred E. Methvin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lewis S. Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, 650 Poydras
         St., Ste. 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-648-
         1850, Fax: 504-455-1498, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com;
         and

     (2) Mitchell J. Hoffman of Lowe Stein, et al., 701 Poydras
         St., Ste. 3600, New Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: 504-581-
         2450, Fax: 504-581-2461, E-mail: mhoffman@lshah.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Walter B. Stuart, IV, of Vinson & Elkins, 666 5th Ave.,
         26th Fl., New York, NY 10103, US, Phone: 212-237-0000,
         Fax: 212-237-0100, E-mail: wstuart@velaw.com; and

    (ii) Amy E. Allums of Johnson Gray McNamara, P.O. Box 51165,
         Lafayette, LA 70505, Phone: 337-412-6003, Fax: 337-412-
         6037, E-mail: aea@jgmclaw.com.
  

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Stock Suit Plaintiff Amends Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund, the lead plaintiff in a
consolidated securities class action against Symbol
Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers, filed an
amended complaint in August.

On Aug. 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended class action complaint, which alleges that the
defendants misrepresented that, in connection with settlements
of earlier criminal and civil investigations, the company had
implemented processes to improve its internal controls when, in
fact, its internal controls were insufficient.

Initially, on Aug. 16, 2005, Robert Waring filed a purported
federal class action.  Since the filing of the Waring action,
several additional purported class actions have been filed
against the company and the same former officers making
substantially similar allegations.  

The new class actions have been consolidated for all purposes
and a Consolidated Amended complaint will be filed after the
appointment of a lead plaintiff.  The plaintiffs in the new
class actions allege that the defendants misrepresented that, in
connection with settlements of earlier criminal and civil
investigations, the company had implemented processes to improve
its internal controls when, in fact, its internal controls were
insufficient.  

In addition, plaintiffs in the new class actions allege that as
a result of the insufficient internal controls, the company
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
statements concerning its prospects, financial results and
financial controls that were allegedly false and misleading.  

Plaintiffs allege that they were damaged by the decline in the
price of the company's stock on Aug. 1, 2005, the date the
company released its results for the second quarter of 2005.  
The complaints seek unspecified damages.  

On Apr. 24, 2006, the court appointed the Iron Workers Local #  
580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved their retention
of lead counsel on behalf of the putative plaintiff.

On Aug. 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended class action complaint, which alleges that the
defendants misrepresented that, in connection with settlements
of earlier criminal and civil investigations, the company had
implemented processes to improve its internal controls when, in
fact, its internal controls were insufficient.

In addition, the lead plaintiff in the New Class Actions alleges
that as a result of the insufficient internal controls, the
company violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing statements concerning its prospects, financial results
and financial controls that were allegedly false and misleading.

The plaintiffs allege that they were damaged by, among other
things, the decline in the price of the company's stock on Aug.
1, 2005, the date the company released its results for the
second quarter of 2005.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages.

The lead suit is "Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al.,  
Case No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court  
for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Denis R.  
Hurley.  Representing the plaintiffs are Samuel H. Rudman of  
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200  
Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-
7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@cauleygeller.com.    

Representing the company are William Kennedy Dodds and Andrew J.  
Levander of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New  
York, NY 10112, Phone: (212) 698-3500, Fax: (212) 698-3599, E-
mail: william.dodds@dechert.com or Andrew.levander@dechert.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Two Suits Related to Motorola Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies, Inc. faces two lawsuits filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York opposing its planned
merger with Motorola Inc.

On Sept. 21, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
entitled, "Afuape v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al."

On Sept. 26, 2006, a second putative class action was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk,
entitled, "Market Street Securities, Inc. v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al."

The suits also name each directors of the company as defendant.   
The second suit names two former directors.

Each of the lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in approving the contemplated Merger Agreement with
Motorola Inc.

On Sept. 19, 2006, Motorola and Symbol signed a definitive
merger agreement, under which Motorola has agreed to acquire all  
of the outstanding shares of Symbol for $15 per share in cash.

These two lawsuits challenge and seek to enjoin the completion
of the merger.  Additionally, among other things, the lawsuits
seek class action status, rescission of the merger in the event
it is consummated, or in the alternative, damages and attorneys'
and experts' fees.  


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit in Idaho Over Contract Termination Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA is facing a suit filed in the U.S. District Court
in Idaho over its early contract-termination fees, Associated
Press reports.

The suit was filed by the law firm Greener, Banducci, Shoemaker,
which was charged a termination fee after ending its T-Mobile
subscription after discovering it could not get service in
remote parts of Idaho.  

The $200 flat fee for canceling the contract may be illegal when
customers cancel because of inadequate service, according to Ben
Schwartzman, an attorney with the firm.  It violates consumer
protection laws in 13 states including North Carolina, the firm
said.

If T-Mobile can figure out how much damage it incurs from a
broken contract on a case-by-case basis, it can't charge a
standard fee, the lawsuit says, according to the report.  The
suit accuses T-Mobile of using the fees to bind subscribers,
preventing them from looking at the services of rival companies.

The suit is seeking certification as a class action.  If
certified it would cover customers in Idaho, Washington, North
Carolina, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, New Jersey and Tennessee.

The suit is "Greener Banducci Shoemaker PA v. T-Mobile USA Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00452-EJL," filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho under Judge Edward J. Lodge.

Representing the plaintiff is Curtis D. McKenzie, McKenzie Law
Offices, PLLC, 1004 W. Fort Street, Boise, ID 83702, Phone:
(208) 344-4379, Fax: (208) 947-0014, E-mail:
cdm@mckenzielawoffices.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Review Tobacco Ad Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court will consider reinstating a class
action that seeks to force several tobacco companies to refund
almost a decade's worth of proceeds from cigarette sales in the
state, The Sacramento Bee reports.

Specifically, the justices voted to review the decertified class
action, "In re Tobacco II Cases, D046435 (JCCP No. 4042)," which
is being pursued on behalf of all cigarette buyers who were
exposed to tobacco marketing and advertising in California
between June 1993 and April 2001 and were led to believe they
could safely smoke.

Plaintiffs Willard R. Brown, Damien Bierly and Michelle Denise
Buller-Seymore filed the suit against defendants (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006):

     -- Phillip Morris USA Inc.,  
     -- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
     -- Lorillard Tobacco Co.,  
     -- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,  
     -- The Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc.,  
     -- Liggett Group, Inc.,  
     -- Liggett & Myers, Inc., and  
     -- The Tobacco Institute, Inc.  

The suit alleges violations under the California Unfair
Competition Law, a truth-in-advertising measure that has been
applied in a broad variety of consumer rights cases.

In March 2005, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Praeger
decertified the suit for claims under the UCL and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.  The judge also issued an order granting summary
adjudication of some issues in favor of defendants.

In September 2006, the state Court of Appeal in San Diego agreed
with Judge Praeger ruling and affirmed it.  The three-judge
panel pointed out that under Proposition 64 the suit was barred
from proceeding.  

The 2004 initiative basically limits private class actions under
the unfair competition law to injured plaintiffs who have lost
money or property as a result of alleged unfair competition.

The state Court of Appeal ruling is the likely focus of the
Supreme Court's review, which was ordered without explanation or
dissent after the justices' weekly closed-door meeting on
pending petitions.

In the wake of the high court's decision to tackle the case,
legal representatives from both sides expressed confidence that
they will prevail.  

Attorney Joseph Escher, who represents Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
said "the plain meaning of the words" of Proposition 64 is on
his client's side.

Thomas Haklar, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, on the other
hand counters that the voters passed the ballot measure to end
shakedown lawsuits against businesses by class representatives
who had suffered no injury.  He explains pointedly that
Proposition 64 was not meant to thwart the named plaintiffs in
his case, who can prove injury.

One other significant question raised in the lower courts was if
a class action is an appropriate legal vehicle for plaintiffs
whose motivations and reactions may be more significant than
their common dispute with the tobacco industry.

For more details, contact Thomas D. Haklar of Dougherty, Hildre
& Haklar, 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92103-6624,
Phone: (619) 817-8024, Fax: (619) 232-7317, Web site:
http://www.consumerrights.com.


WARN INDUSTRIES: Recalls 8-Post ATV Winch Kits that Overheat
------------------------------------------------------------
Warn Industries Inc., of Clackamas, Oregon, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
218,000 units of Warn ATV and utility vehicle winch kits.

The company said a component of the winch kit, the eight-post
contactor, can continue to pull current when in the "off"
position, which can cause it to overheat and pose a fire hazard.

Warn Industries has received one report of a contactor failure
resulting in excessive heat and melting damage to the contactor.  
No injuries were reported.

This recall involves eight-post contactors used on certain 2,500
to 3,500 lb Warn ATV and Utility Vehicle Winch Kits.  The black
contactors were sold as a part of winch kits and have a "WARN"
logo on the top and bottom of the contactor.  Warn part number
62135 is printed on the bottom. Contactors are found on the
vehicle attached to the power wires, between the battery and the
winch.  The contactor has four holes for securing it to the
vehicle.  A complete listing of winch kit part numbers involved
in this recall can be found at http://www.warn.com.

These ATV and utility vehicle winch kits were manufactured in
the U.S., but the contractors were manufactured in Japan, are
being sold by ATV dealers, ATV accessory retailers, mail order
catalogs, and Web retailers nationwide from May 2001 through
September 2005 for $700.

Pictures of the recalled ATV and utility vehicle winch kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07027a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07027b.jpg

Consumers with winch kits containing these eight-post contactors
are advised to immediately disconnect the contactor wires from
the battery and contact Warn Industries or their local dealer
for a free replacement contactor.

For additional information, consumers can contact Warn toll-free
at (866) 408-3767 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or e-mail Warn: contact@warn.com.  Consumers also can
visit http://www.warn.com.


WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Motions to Junk Mass. Rewards Program Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Webloyalty.com Inc. and Fandango Inc. filed a motion for summary
judgment in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts over the company's Reservations
Rewards program, DMNews reports.

The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
Lee & Amtzis, P.L., and Phillips & Garcia filed the suit against
the company in September.

The suit accuses the company of illegally obtaining personal,
private information, including credit card information, of
visitors from its partners' websites.  It then allegedly
automatically charges consumers monthly fees for a membership in
one of its services without the consent of the consumer (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006).

The complaint charges that consumers who purchase movie tickets
from e-commerce company Fandango.com, are presented with a "pop-
up" advertisement upon completion of the transaction with
Fandango which offers the consumer $10.00 off their next
purchase.

However, once the consumer enters their e-mail address to redeem
the coupon, Fandango allegedly transfers the consumer's private
credit card information to Webloyalty, which begins charging a
monthly fee of up to $10.00 for membership in Webloyalty's
reservation rewards program, which shows up on the consumer's
credit card statement as "WLI Reservation Rewards."

The complaint alleges violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unfair and deceptive acts and
practices, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, money had and
received, and civil theft.

The lawsuit also alleges that Fandango and Webloyalty have
violated consumers' federally protected privacy rights by
disclosing and using their private credit card information, and
are engaging in deliberately deceptive business practices,
illegally netting the company substantial sums of money from the
consuming public.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction on the claims, compensation for
consumers and other remedies.

In recent developments, the company denied in its motion that
the program is in any way deceptive, fraudulent, or misleading
or that customers are not fully informed of the terms and
substantial benefits of the program before joining.

The companies also said customers are fully and accurately
informed of the method by which they can elect to join the
program, and that customers affirmatively and voluntarily
consent to joining the program and to the use of their credit or
debit card information, according to the report.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1163

The suit is "Kuefler et al. v. Webloyalty.com et al.," filed in
the U.S. District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew J. Garcia and Carlin J. Phillips both of
         Phillips & Garcia, LLP, 13 Ventura Drive, North
         Dartmouth, MA 02747, Phone: 508/998-0800, Fax: 508/998-
         0919;
  
     (2) David J. George, Stuart A. Davidson, Marisa N. Demato
         and Michael Greenwald all of Lerach Couglin Stoia
         Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561/750-3000,
         Fax: 661/750-3364; and

     (3) Eric A. Lee of Lee & Amtzis, P.L., 5550 Glades Road,
         Suite 401, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/ 981-9988,
         Fax: 561/981-9980.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Morelock Antitrust Case in Ore. Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The civil class action antitrust case against Weyerhaeuser Co.
remains stayed pending the resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court
of the Initial Alder Case.

In April 2004, the lawsuit, "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v.
Weyerhaeuser Co.," was filed against the company in U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon claiming that as a
result of its alleged monopolization of the alder sawlog market
in the Pacific Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder
Case, the company monopolized the market for finished alder and
charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.  

In December 2004, the Judge issued an order certifying the
plaintiff as a class representative for all U.S. purchasers of
finished alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31,
2004, for purposes of awarding monetary damages.  The company
denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to
vigorously defend the matter.

In February 2005, class counsel notified the court that
approximately 5 percent of the class members opted out of the
class action.  

The company has no litigation pending with any entity that has
opted out of the class, but it is possible that entities that
have opted out may file lawsuits against the company in the
future.  

The case was stayed in the fourth quarter of 2005 pending the
U.S. Supreme Court entering a final opinion in the Initial Alder
Case.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 24, 2006.

The suit is "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00583-PA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon under Judge Owen M. Panner.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory Baruch and R. Stephen Berry of Berry &
         Leftwich, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 450,
         Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 296-3020, Fax: (202)
         296-3038, E-mail: gbaruch@berry-leftwich.com and
         sberry@berry-leftwich.com; and

     (2) Charles E. Corrigan of Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP, 1727
         N.W. Hoyt Street, Portland, OR 97209, Phone: (503) 222-
         4402, Fax: (503) 243-2944, E-mail:
         chuckc@rcclawyers.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kevin J. Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 455-
         7680, Fax: (212) 455-2502, E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com;
         and

    (ii) George J. Cooper, III of Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &
         Tongue, LLP, 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500, Portland,
         OR 97204-1357, US, Phone: (503) 224-6440, Fax: (503)
         224-7324, E-mail: gjc@dunn-carney.com.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Nov. Hearing Set for Arguments in Ore. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled a tentative November 2006
discretionary review of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling upholding an order to deny summary judgment against
plaintiffs in a class action filed against Weyerhaeuser Co.

The suit (known as the Initial Alder Case) was initially filed
in the U.S. District Court in Oregon back in December 2000 and
is alleging that from 1996 to the present, the company had
monopoly power or attempted to gain monopoly power in the
Pacific Northwest market for alder logs and finished alder
lumber.  

A jury verdict of trebled damages of $79 million was appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the
decision was upheld.

In September 2005, the company asked for discretionary review of
the Initial Alder Case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme
Court accepted review of the Ninth Circuit opinion and has
scheduled an oral argument in November 2006, according to its
Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 24, 2006.

Weyerhaeuser Co. on the Net: http://www.weyerhaeuser.com.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Still Faces Pa. Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. and several companies remain defendants in a
consolidated antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to its
Nov. 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 24, 2006.  

In February and March 2006, seven lawsuits were filed seeking
class action status for persons and entities that purchased
oriented strand boards (OSB) directly from the company,
Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific, Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber,
Norbord and J.M. Huber Corp. from June 2002 through the present.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired to fix and raise
OSB prices in the U.S. during the class period and as a result,
class members paid artificially inflated prices for OSB during
that period.

Additional lawsuits have also been filed and have been
consolidated in the same court for discovery purposes on behalf
of "indirect purchasers" of OSB in different states that have
laws permitting such actions on behalf of indirect purchasers.
No specific damage amounts have been claimed.  

In the third quarter 2006, the court refused to dismiss the
claims of the direct and indirect purchasers, with the exception
of the indirect purchaser claims of Pennsylvania, which were
dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Paul S. Diamond.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) William P. Butterfield of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500,
         Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: 202-408-4600, E-mail:
         wbutterfield@cmht.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey J. Corrigan of Spector Roseman and Kodroff,
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Barack S. Echols, James Howard Mutchnik and James H.
         Schink of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East Randolph
         Drive, Suite 7500, Chicago, IL 60601, US, Phone: 312-
         861-3144 and 312-861-2350, E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
         and jmutchnik@kirkland.com; and

    (ii) Sherry A. Swirsky of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis,
         LLP, 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600, Philadelphia, PA
         19103, Phone: 215-751-2000, Fax: 215-972-7475, E-mail:
         sswirsky@schnader.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.
between Feb. 19, 2004 and March 24, 2006.

The complaint charges Encysive and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Encysive's business and prospects caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Encysive is a biopharmaceutical company, which engages in the
discovery, development and commercialization of novel, synthetic
and small molecule compounds.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
made false and misleading statements to the investing public
concerning Encysive's lead product candidate, Thelin
(sitaxsentan), a drug being developed to treat Pulmonary
Arterial Hypertension (PAH), and that the company's shares were
valued based upon the apparent success of Thelin.

Plaintiff claims that during the class period Encysive claimed
it had completed Phase III development of Thelin, causing
Encysive's share price to reach new highs.

After the company completed two successful public offerings,
investors learned that defendants had been misrepresenting the
actual prospects for Thelin.

On March 27, 2006, Encysive shares fell 49% after U.S.
regulators delayed approving Thelin until they could get more
data.

The Food and Drug Administration sent the company a letter
asking for information and possibly more studies to determine if
Thelin is safe and effective for use in treating PAH.

Prior to the March 27, 2006 revelations, defendants had led
shareholders and analysts to believe that FDA approval was
imminent and that such approval would make Thelin a competitor
to Bosentan, another treatment for PAH.

On July 24, 2006, the company revealed that material issues
raised in the March 2006 FDA statements remained "unresolved,"
rendering FDA approval uncertain, at best - contrary to
defendants' previous claims.

In response, the company's shares plummeted again, this time by
40%, trading as low as $3.90 per share in after-hours trading.

Interested parties you may move the Court, not later than Nov.
27, 2006, for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS Federman & Sherwood Announces Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 6, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ikanos Communications, Inc. (IKAN).

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 the Initial Public Offering on Sept.
22, 2005 through its Secondary Public Offering on March 8, 2006.

Interested parties you may move the Court, not later than Jan.
5, 2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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.


                            *********


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  * * *