CAR_Public/061120.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 230

                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Appeals Ohio Court Ruling in ERISA Violations Suit
AK STEEL: Jan. 2008 Trial Set For Ohio Healthcare Litigation
AK STEEL: No Trial Set for Ohio Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
ALLIED WASTE: 9th Circuit Mulls Appeal for Dismissed Stock Suit
ARIZONA: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Seizure of Smuggling Monies

COLORADO: Group Sues DMV, CDR Over "Strict" ID Requirements
DOWNEY SAVINGS: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
ETHYLENE PROPYLENE: Nov. Final Hearing Set for $32M Settlement
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Nixing of Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
FIRST BANKS: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Check Cashing Fee

HERSHEY CO: Recalls Reese's Shell Topping Due to Salmonella
ICOS CORP: Faces Suits in Wash. Superior Court Over Eli Merger
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Jan. 2007 Trial Set for OOIDA Lawsuit in Fla.
MCLEODUSA INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
MEDICAL COLLEGES: Court Orders Revamp of MSAT Disability Policy

MEDICAL INFORMATION: Mass. Court Nixes Some Claims in "Hubert"
MERRILL LYNCH: Nov. 28 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Agreement
NEW YORK: Low-Income Tenants File Lawsuit Over Rent Increase
PERRY JOHNSON: Reaches Settlement in Calif. TCPA Act Lawsuit
PIPER JAFFRAY: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal of N.Y. IPO Fee Suit

PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Faces Suit Over Stock Allocations in IPO
PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Faces Suits Over Underwriters' Discounts
TARGET STORES: Recalls Puzzles for Choking, Laceration Hazards
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
SHAW GROUP: Retirement System Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

SLAVERY REPARATIONS: Trust Fund Demanded in "Farmer-Paellmann"
SPX CORP: Settles Stock, ERISA Act Violations Suits for $5.1M
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court to Review Scwab Certification
UNITED RENTALS: Files Motion to Dismiss Conn. Securities Suit
UST INC: "Davis v. U.S. Tobacco" Class Sues Over Settlement

UST INC: Lawyers in Third Party Tobacco Suits Ask $8.5M More
WAL-MART STORES: Ex-Employee Files Wage Violations Suit in N.D.
WORLDCOM INC: Asks Bankruptcy Court to Deny Class in Tex. Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BODISEN BIOTECH: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
IKANOS COMMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AK STEEL: Appeals Ohio Court Ruling in ERISA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corp. Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP),
and the AK Steel Corp. Benefit Plans Administrative Committee
(AK BPAC) intend to appeal a final judgment by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the class action,
"West v. AK Steel Retirement, et al."

On Jan. 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed the
class action, claiming that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class
members.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the court entered a final judgment against the
defendants in the approximate amount of $37.6 million in damages
and $8.6 million in prejudgment interest, for a total of
approximately $46.2 million, with post judgment interest
accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until paid.

Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider the method by which prejudgment interest was
determined.  On Mar. 29, 2006, the court granted the defendants'
motion and entered an amended final judgment, which had the
effect of reducing the prejudgment interest by approximately
$1.3 million.

After entry of the amended final judgment, the total liability
of the defendants was approximately $44.9 million, with post
judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until
paid.  

The defendants have appealed and intend to continue to contest
this matter vigorously, according to the AK Steel Corp's Oct.
31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "West v. AK Steel Retirement, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-00001-SSB-TSB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Black.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas R. Theado of Gary, Naegele
& Theado, LLC, 446 Broadway, Lorain, Ohio 44052, (Lorain Co.),
Phone: 216-244-4809, Fax: 440-244-3462.

Representing AK Steel is Robert Wick of Covington & Burling,
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia
20004-2401, Phone: 202-662-6000, Fax: 202-662-6291.


AK STEEL: Jan. 2008 Trial Set For Ohio Healthcare Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 14, 2008 trial is slated for the class action against AK
Steel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio over changes implemented by the company in existing
healthcare insurance benefits plan of certain employees.

On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its
current retirees who formerly were hourly and salaried members
of the Armco Employees Independent Federation (AEIF) that AK
Steel was terminating their existing healthcare insurance
benefits plan and implementing a new plan more consistent with
current steel industry practices which would require the
retirees to contribute to the cost of their healthcare benefits,
effective Oct. 1, 2006.

Subsequent to that notice, the AEIF stated publicly that it
would file a legal action against AK Steel challenging its right
to modify the retirees' healthcare benefits.

On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried
members of the AEIF filed a separate purported class action in
the, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes
to their healthcare benefits.  

The named plaintiffs in the suit seek injunctive relief
(including an order retroactively rescinding the changes) and
unspecified monetary relief for themselves and the other members
of the putative class.

On Aug. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to prevent AK Steel from implementing the
previously announced changes to healthcare benefits with respect
to the AEIF-represented hourly employees.

AK Steel opposed that motion, but on Sept. 22, 2006 the trial
court issued an order granting the motion.  On that same day, AK
Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to grant
the preliminary injunction.  

To date no discovery has been commenced in the suit.  The trial
in that action is scheduled to commence Jan. 14, 2008, according
to the company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The complaint is available free of charge at:
             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfa

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corporation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing the plaintiffs are David Marvin Cook and Stephen A.  
Simon, 22 West Ninth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
721-6500 and 513-721-7500, E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com and  
ssimon@dmcllc.com.


AK STEEL: No Trial Set for Ohio Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
No trial has been set for the purported racial discrimination
class action against AK Steel Holding Corp. that is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Seventeen individuals filed the suit on Jun. 26, 2002.  As
subsequently amended, the complaint alleges that the company
discriminates against African-Americans in its hiring practices
and that it discriminates against all of its employees by
preventing its employees from working in a racially integrated
environment free from racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory, injunctive and
unspecified monetary relief, including back pay, front pay, lost
benefits, lost seniority and punitive damages, for themselves
and unsuccessful African-American candidates for employment at
the company.  

Defendants have responded to the complaint and discovery is
ongoing.  No trial date was yet slated, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "Bert, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00467-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Donald Kammer and Paul Henry Tobias of Tobias,
         Kraus & Torchia, Phone: 513-241-8137, Fax: 513-241-
         7863, E-mail: davek@tktlaw.com and tkt@tktlaw.com; and

     (2) Allison W. Lowell of Wiggin Childs Quinn & Pantazis,          
         301 19th Street, N. Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-
         314-0575, Fax: 205/254-1500, E-mail: awl@wcqp.com.

Representing the defendants are Lawrence James Barty, Patricia
Anderson Pryor and Gregory Parker Rogers of Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, 1800 Firstar Tower, 425 Walnut St., Cincinnati, OH
45202-3597, Phone: 513-381-2838, 513-357-9409 and 513-357-9344,
Fax: 513-381-0205, E-mail: barty@taftlaw.com, Pryor@Taftlaw.com
and Rogers@Taftlaw.com.


ALLIED WASTE: 9th Circuit Mulls Appeal for Dismissed Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal regarding the dismissal of the
consolidated securities fraud class action against Allied Waste
Industries, Inc. by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.

A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against
the company and five of its current and former officers on March
31, 2005, consolidating three lawsuits previously filed on
August 9, 2004, Aug. 27, 2004 and Sept. 30, 2004.  

The amended complaint asserted claims against all defendants
under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against the
officers under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act.

The complaint alleged that from Feb. 10, 2004 to Sept. 13, 2004,
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be
issued in the company's public filings and public statements
regarding the company's anticipated results for fiscal year
2004.  The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 2,
2005.  On Dec. 15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona granted the company's motion and dismissed
the case with prejudice.  

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, 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 "Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01640-MHM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Mary H.
Murguia.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com;
         and

     (2) Richard Glenn Himelrick of Tiffany & Bosco, PA,
         Camelback Esplanade II, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd
         Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85016, Phone: 602-255-6021, Fax:
         602-255-0103, E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David Hennes and Shahzeb Lari of Fried Frank Harris
         Shriver & Jacobson, 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY
         10004, Phone: (212) 859-8000; and

    (ii) Doug C. Northup of Fennemore Craig, P.C., 3003 N.
         Central Ave., Ste. 2600, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913, Phone:
         602-916-5000, Fax: 602-916-5562, E-mail:
         dnorthup@fclaw.com.


ARIZONA: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Seizure of Smuggling Monies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Terry Goddard is facing a class action
complaint filed by three people whose money transfers were
seized on suspicions they were linked to drug or human
smuggling, In These Times reports.

The suit was filed by Illinois resident Javier Torres, North
Carolina resident Alma Santiago, and Lia Rivadeneyra.  According
to the report, the only "evidence" Mr. Goddard's office had
linking the monies to drug and human smuggling was that the
amounts were over $500 and came from one of 26 states identified
in a broad search warrant targeting wire transfers through
Western Union and other companies.  

The suit was filed on Oct. 18 in federal court in Arizona.  It
alleges that Mr. Goddard and his staffer Cameron Holmes violated
constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.

The lawsuit also charges that the attorney general violated the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with
interstate and international commerce.  

The office had also seized funds destined for Sonora, Mexico,
and funds transferred between other states by people who had
previously made transfers involving Arizona, according to the
report.

The suit is "Torres et al. v. Goddard, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
02482-PGR," filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona under Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt.

Plaintiffs' counsel includes:

     (1) Jean-Jacques Cabou, Osborn Maledon PA, P.O. Box 36379,
         Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379, Phone: 602-640-9000, Fax: 602-
         664-2064, E-mail: jcabou@omlaw.com; and

     (2) Alex R. Montgomery at Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym
         Ltd., 70 W Madison St., Ste 4000, Chicago, IL 60602,
         U.S., Phone: 312-604-2674, Fax: 312-580-1994, E-mail:
         amontgomery@hsplegal.com.

One of the defendants representatives is William August
Richards, Office of the Attorney General, Capital Litigation
Section, 1275 W Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007-2997, Phone:
602-542-8355, E-mail: Bill.Richards@azag.gov.


COLORADO: Group Sues DMV, CDR Over "Strict" ID Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colorado's Division of Motor Vehicles faces a purported class
action in Denver District Court over its identification rules,
which is claimed to be illegal and unconstitutional, according
to TheDenverChannel.com.

The state requires two forms of identification to get an state
ID card or a driver's license, and that's more than what's
required to get a passport, which is federal document that takes
only a birth certificate.  The two-document rule was meant to
crack down on illegal immigrants obtaining a driver's license or
a state ID.

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) along with three
individuals filed the suit both against the DMV and the Colorado
Department of Revenue (CDR).  

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the rules
must be overturned since officials didn't follow the law in
adopting them.  

It was filed on behalf of all people who can prove their
identity under state law but cannot under the more restrictive
rules.

According to the suit, Diana Galliano, 42, one of three named
plaintiffs has tried three times to obtain a Colorado license,
but has failed.  Ms. Galliano of Fort Collins has a valid U.S.
passport and a New York driver's license.  

Under the DMV's rules, any individual with a U.S. passport must
present another document such as a certified marriage
certificate to obtain a driver's license or a state ID card.  A
driver's license or an ID card issued by other states does not
count as a second form of ID when used with a passport.

According to the lawsuit, the strict requirement is unduly
restrictive and constantly changing.  It also alleges that the
'two-document' rule has never been subjected to public notice or
comment and is found only on the DMV Web site.

Thus, the suit seeks:

     -- for a judge to invalidate the rule,
     -- to block the state from enforcing it, and
     -- an order that requires the Revenue Department's DMVs to
        issue identification to the plaintiffs and other people
        who can prove their identity under the law, which calls
        for a valid birth certificate or other proof of age and
        identity as defined by the department.

Identification is needed to obtain access to "fundamental rights
and necessities" such as employment, housing, government
benefits, health care, travel and voting, the suit states.

However, CCH President John Parvensky said in an affidavit that
without a photo ID, homeless persons couldn't obtain lawful
employment, creating a virtually insurmountable barrier to
returning to the mainstream.

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, Phone: 303-
         293-2217, E-mail: cch@coloradocoalition.org, Web site:
         http://www.coloradocoalition.org;and

     (2) Sean Connelly of Reilly Pozner Connelly, LLP, The
         Kittredge Building, 511 Sixteenth Street, Suite 700,
         Denver, Colorado 80202, Phone: 303 893 6100, Fax 303
         893 6110, E-mail: sconnelly@litigationcolorado.com, Web
         site: http://www.litigationcolorado.com/.


DOWNEY SAVINGS: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A., a subsidiary of
Downey Financial Corp., remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed by a former loan-underwriting employee in Contra
Costa Superior Court, 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.

Filed on June 21, 2005, the suit, "Teresa Sims, et al. v. Downey
Savings and Loan Association, Case No. C05-01293," seeks
unspecified damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages and
bonuses, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and related claims.  

It is seeking class action status to represent all other current
and former Downey Savings employees that held the position of
loan underwriter, including, but not limited to, the job title
of Senior Loan Underwriter within the State of California at any
time during the four years prior to June 21, 2005 and/or who was
employed by Downey Savings on or about Sept. 30, 2002, when the
company terminated an annual bonus program.  

Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. in the Net:
http://www.downeysavings.com/.


ETHYLENE PROPYLENE: Nov. Final Hearing Set for $32M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $32,000,000 settlement by Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and
Bayer MaterialScience, LLC in the matter, "In Re: Ethylene
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
3:03 MD 1542 (PCD)."

The court will hold a hearing at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Courtroom No. 1, 141 Church Street, New
Haven, Connecticut.

Any exclusion from the settlement must be made by October 12,
2006.  Deadline for submitting proof of claim must be submitted
by November 30, 2006.

The case covers all persons and entities in the United States
and its territories that directly purchased EPDM from defendants
at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001.

Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws within the EPDM
industry were filed in multiple federal courts.  Motions were
made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
centralize the cases in a single court to promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.

On August 12, 2003, the JPML entered a Transfer Order
centralizing the cases in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut and recommending that they be assigned
to Judge Peter Dorsey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

By Order dated September 11, 2003, the Court appointed Class
Counsel to conduct the litigation on behalf of the Class.  The
operative complaint in this Action is the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants conspired to fix or
maintain the prices of, and/or allocate markets for, EPDM sold
in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

The Complaint further alleges that, as part of the conspiracy,
the defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM and to
allocate markets and customers for the sale of EPDM.  As a
result of this conduct, the Complaint alleges that members of
the Class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and,
therefore, have suffered injury.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re EPDM Antitrust Litigation (Bayer) c/o Gilardi &
         Co., LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San
         Rafael, CA 94912-8060. Phone: 415-461-0410, Fax: 415-
         461-0412;

     (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
         York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: (202)
         408-4600 and (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web
         site: http://www.cmht.com/;  

     (3) Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, 595 Market Street,
         Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 800-778-
         1822, E-mail: info@gbcslaw.com;

     (4) Bolognese & Associates, LLC, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK
         Blvd., Suite 650, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
         814-6750; and

     (5) Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street,
         Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215) 592-
         1500, Fax: (215) 592-4663.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Nixing of Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
the securities fraud class action against Faro Technologies,
Inc., according to the company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical
securities fraud suits were filed against the company and of its
certain officers.

On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead
plaintiff.  

On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint against the company and the individual
defendants.  

The amended complaint also names Grant Thornton LLP, the
company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an
additional defendant.

In the amended complaint, Kornitzer seeks to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004
and March 15, 2006.

On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant
made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during
the class period in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

The Kornitzer suit alleges:

      -- that the company's reported gross margins and net
         income were knowingly overstated as a result of
         manipulation of the company's inventory levels;

      -- that the company failed to disclose deficiencies
         associated with the company's implementation and use of
         its enterprise resource planning system and material
         requirements planning system;

      -- made false and misleading statements regarding the
         company's internal controls;

      -- failed to disclose the fact that the company was
         accruing commissions and bonuses which would have a
         material, adverse effect upon the company's
         profitability; and

      -- improperly reported sales and net income based, in
         part, on sales and new orders obtained in violation of
         the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 31, 2006.  On Aug. 30, 2006, Kornitzer filed its memorandum
in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the parties' counsel presented oral argument
on the motion to dismiss to the court, which has yet to rule on
it.

The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al, Case
No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway
and with referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John F. Edgar and John M. Edgar of Edgar Law Firm, LLC,
         4520 Main St., Suite 1650, Kansas City, MO 64111, US,
         Phone: 816/531-0033, Fax: 816/531-3322, E-mail:
         jfe@edgarlawfirm.com and jme@edgarlawfirm.com.

     (2) Patrick A. Klingman, Karen M. Leser, James E. Miller,
         James C. Shah, Nathan Zipperian and Scott R. Shepherd
         of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191, Fax: 860-526-
         1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com, kleser@sfmslaw.com,    
         jmiller@sfmslaw.com, jshah@classactioncounsel.com,
         nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com and
         sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Richard S. Davis and Robert A. Scher of Foley &
         Lardner, LLP, Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474,
         Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329, E-mail:
         rdavis@foley.com; and

    (ii) Daniel A. Casey and Jeffrey T. Kucera of Kirkpatrick &
         Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd.,
         Suite 2000, Miami, FL 33131-2399, Phone: 305-539-3324
         and 305-539-3322, Fax: 305-358-7095, E-mail:
         dcasey@klng.com and jkucera@kl.com.


FIRST BANKS: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Check Cashing Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois dismissed a check
cashing fee class action complaint against First Banks,
according to The Madison County Record.

In reluctantly dismissing the case, Judge Don Weber stated that
it seems to be unwise policy to allow a bank to charge a fee to
cash a check drawn on the bank, however, unwise this policy
seems, it appears to be the law.

The Lakin Law Firm filed the suit on March 9, 2004, on behalf of
Darryl Johnson of Collinsville in the court of Circuit Judge
Phillip Kardis.  It alleges that Mr. Johnson paid $5 each time
he cashed a check drawn on First Banks, because he had no
account there.

Attorney Gail Renshaw of the Lakin Law Firm claimed that by
charging a fee the bank wrongfully dishonored the check.  She
moved to certify a class action, with Mr. Johnson representing
thousands who had paid the fee in the U.S. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 6, 2006).

First Banks attorney Troy Bozarth moved to dismiss the suit in
2004.  In July 2004, Paul Marks of the Lakin Firm proposed an
amended complaint and was granted leave by Judge Kardis to file
it.

The new complaint added a claim that the fee did not relate to
any cost at the bank, and thus amounts to a penalty.  It also
revised the complaint to state that the plaintiff was forced to
pay so that the defendant would honor the check, and that the
fee was regularly charged to persons not just those who were
without an account.

Mr. Bozarth moved to dismiss the suit in March 2005 arguing that
Mr. Johnson lacked standing to sue, because he was not a
customer.  The next month, he asked for a hearing on the motion
to dismiss.  The hearing was set Sept. 29, but Judge Kardis
retired before then and his cases passed to Judge Weber.

The Lakin attorneys tried to remove Judge Weber from the cases
it had brought before Judge Kardis, accusing him of bias.  Chief
Judge Edward Ferguson denied the motion in March, and retained
Judge Weber.  

Later on, Mr. Bozarth Bozarth wrote in seeking for the dismissal
of the case that Mr. Johnson had no claim because he paid
voluntarily.

But, Judge Weber ruled that the voluntary payment doctrine does
not apply since the act to refuse to honor a check drawn on the
bank under these circumstances is coercive.  He pointed out that
a reasonable consumer should be able to cash a check drawn on
First Bank at First Bank without a fee.

As to whether Mr. Johnson was a "customer," Judge Weber relied
on the appellate court case, "Kronemeyer v. U.S. Bank," a case
in which Mr. Johnson was also a named plaintiff and which the
justices unanimously ruled the word "customer" has two opposite
meanings in this context.

In the other case, Kenneth Kronemeyer of New Memphis and Mr.
Johnson, also represented by the Lakin Law Firm, sought to
establish a nationwide class of individuals who paid U.S. Bank a
fee when presenting for payment a check drawn on a U.S. Bank
account

They claimed that U.S. Bank charged $10 to cash checks drawn by
the bank's depositors and payable to them.  They charged
consumer fraud, wrongful dishonor and unjust enrichment.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a decision by Judge
Nicholas Byron of the Madison County Circuit Court that denied
U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss the 2003 class action.  The July 7
decision, which effectively dissolves the case, asserted the
plaintiffs "do not have standing."

Judge Weber pointed out that the Kronemeyer case held that the
payee of a check lacks standing to bring a claim for wrongful
dishonor when a bank charges a fee and also points out federal
regulations authorize the fee and therefore federal preemption
precludes this suit based on the check cashing fee.

For more details, contact The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Ave.,
P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127,
Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/.


HERSHEY CO: Recalls Reese's Shell Topping Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company is recalling seven 7.25-ounce bottles of
REESE'S Shell Topping manufactured in Canada on October 27,
2006, due to possible contamination with Salmonella.

The seven 7.25 ounce bottles of REESE'S Shell Topping have the
code 30MXB printed on the back of the bottle below the cap.  The
UPC/Bar Code is 346010.  No other Hershey's shell toppings or
other Hershey confectionery items are involved in this recall.
No illnesses have been reported to date.

The product in question was available for purchase only in the
state of Michigan after Nov. 5, 2006.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled.
Consumption of a food contaminated with Salmonella may cause
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, vomiting, nausea,
abdominal pain, and diarrhea.

Long-term complications may include severe arthritis.  These
symptoms could be serious and life-threatening in young
children, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.

The recall is the result of routine manufacturing quality checks
by the company during which an externally sourced ingredient
tested positive for Salmonella.

The company has ceased production and distribution of this
product, and is working with FDA.

Consumers who have purchased the item in question should contact
Hershey Consumer Relations at 1-800-468-1714.


ICOS CORP: Faces Suits in Wash. Superior Court Over Eli Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Icos Corp. is facing two purported shareholder class actions
filed on Oct. 18, 2006 in Snohomish County, Washington Superior
Court on behalf of ICOS shareholders concerning the proposed
acquisition of all of ICOS' outstanding common stock by Eli
Lilly and Company.

The suits are:

      -- "Max Kaiser v. ICOS Corp., et al. (Case No. 06-2-11897-
         7);" and

      -- "Michael Boteler v. ICOS Corp., et al. (Case No. 06-2-
         11898-5)."

The complaints name as defendants ICOS, certain of its officers
and directors, and Lilly.  They allege that the ICOS defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement
and approving the proposed transaction.  Both cases are seeking
an injunction preventing the completion of the proposed
transaction, and to recover unspecified damages.

On Oct. 16, 2006, ICOS Corporation and Lilly, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lilly will
acquire all of the outstanding stock of ICOS for a purchase
price of $32 per share in cash, without interest.  

The merger is expected to close near the end of 2006.  Upon
execution of the merger agreement, ICOS incurred $2.0 million in
financial advisory fees, which will be expensed in the 2006
fourth quarter.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Jan. 2007 Trial Set for OOIDA Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A January 2007 jury trial is set for the class action, "Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., et al. v.
Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR,"
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.

On Nov. 1, 2002, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six individual independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company under
exclusive lease arrangement filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company.

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs amended the complaint.  Claims are
currently pending against the following company entities:

      -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
      -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
      -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the court granted a motion by plaintiffs to
certify the case as a class action.  The amended complaint
alleges that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier
leases and related practices violate certain federal leasing
regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount
of damages and attorney's fees.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the company has violated
the federal regulations by:  

      -- making undisclosed and/or undocumented reductions from
         revenue derived from freight before calculating
         compensation, thereby unlawfully reducing Plaintiffs'
         compensation (Revenue Claim),

      -- making charge-backs to the Plaintiffs' for certain
         products or services that were in excess of sums
         actually paid by the Company for such products and
         services (Charge-Back Margin Claim), and

      -- failing to provide the Plaintiffs with proper
         disclosure with respect to the methodology for
         calculating such charge-back amounts (Charge-Back
         Disclosure Claim).

On Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit denied the defendants' petition for permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

In May 2006, plaintiffs served defendants with a report,
prepared by their consultant, asserting that as a result of the
alleged violations by the defendants of the federal leasing
regulations, class members suffered damages, excluding interest,
during the period ending April 30, 2006 of approximately $39.1
million in the aggregate (Plaintiffs' Report).  

Plaintiffs allege that the damages of the class members will
continue to accrue through the pendency of this litigation and
the amended complaint also asserts alternative damage theories,
including claims for equitable relief.  Defendants had no role
in preparing the Plaintiffs' Report.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the defendants filed a motion, which is
pending, asking that the court bifurcate the proceedings such
that only common issues of law would be decided on a classwide
basis and any remaining issues of fact, including whether any
class member can prove liability or damages, would be tried on
an individualized basis.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court issued rulings on all summary
judgment motions then pending that were previously filed by
either the plaintiffs or the defendants.  

In these rulings, the court:

      -- denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on
         the Revenue Claim,

      -- granted the defendants' motion, and denied the
         plaintiffs' motion, for summary judgment on the Charge-
         Back Margin Claim,

      -- granted the plaintiffs' motion, and denied the
         defendants motion, for summary judgment on the Charge-
         Back Disclosure Claim, and

      -- concluded that it need not determine at this time
         whether any plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of
         any of the alleged violation of the federal leasing
         regulations and that the issue of any such damages will
         be unique to each class member and subject to
         individualized proof.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion, which is pending, requesting the
court to reconsider the denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on the Revenue Claim.  The case is currently scheduled
for a jury trial in January 2007.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary  
         Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of  
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite  
         300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or  
         202/965-6100; and  

     (2) Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,  
         Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110,  
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax:  
         904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,  
         P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036-
         5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:  
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;

    (ii) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.  
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10  
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968,  
         Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; and

   (iii) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of  
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,  
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:  
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


MCLEODUSA INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 29, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. for the
proposed $30 million settlement in the matter, "In Re McLeodUSA
Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. C02-0001-MWB."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa courthouse in Sioux City, Iowa.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Nov. 15, 2006.  Deadline for submission of claim form is
on Jan. 16, 2007.

The settlement covers:

      -- all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
         McLeodUSA common stock during the period from and
         including January 3, 2001 through and including Dec. 3,
         2001, and were damaged thereby; and

      -- all persons who acquired McLeodUSA common stock
         pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
         issued in connection with McLeodUSA's June 1, 2001
         stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc., and
         were damaged thereby.

                          Case Background

At the beginning of the class period, McLeodUSA was an ambitious
competitive local exchange carrier, which competed with
traditional phone companies by leasing lines, switches and
capacity.  

According to McLeodUSA, it provided "selected telecommunications
services to customers nationwide."  In addition, McLeodUSA
planned to establish a national voice and data network and had
begun its national expansion through the acquisition of
Splitrock Services, Inc., CapRock Communications Corp., and
Intelispan, Inc., when this lawsuit was commenced.

The lawsuit asserted that defendants intentionally or recklessly
misled investors regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and
financial condition.

Specifically, the lawsuit asserted that the defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements and
omissions including, among other things:

      -- that McLeodUSA failed to timely and properly recognize
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in
         connection with certain acquisitions;

      -- that McLeodUSA did not have the funds necessary to
         complete its national network and would soon have to
         abandon its plans;

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to service its substantial
         debt and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to
         avoid bankruptcy; and

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to successfully integrate the
         Splitrock and CapRock acquisitions.

The lawsuit further alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
caused the price of McLeodUSA securities to be artificially
inflated, causing damage to the class members when McLeodUSA
began to disclose its true financial condition.  

The lawsuit seeks money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws. The defendants deny
Lead Plaintiffs' allegations.

On and after Jan. 11, 2002, thirteen class action complaints
were filed against McLeodUSA and/or certain of McLeodUSA's
present or former officers and directors - Clark E. McLeod,
Stephen C. Gray, J. Lyle Patrick and Chris A. Davis, on behalf
of a class of public investors who either:

      -- purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock
         (between Jan. 3, 2001 and Dec. 3, 2001 inclusive); or
       
      -- acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the
         Registration and Prospectus issued in connection with
         McLeodUSA's stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan,
         Inc. By order dated April 16, 2002, the court
         consolidated all thirteen cases, selected lead
         plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of
         counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on June 17, 2002.  McLeodUSA was not named as a
defendant in the Complaint due to its filing for bankruptcy in
January 2002.  

As stated above, the complaint alleged that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial
condition including, among other things, McLeodUSA's plan to
build a national network, the purported successful integration
of Splitrock Services, Inc. and CapRock Communications Corp.,
McLeodUSA's financial forecasts and results, whether McLeodUSA's
financial statements had been prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and whether or
not McLeodUSA expected to file for bankruptcy.

The complaint also alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
artificially inflated the value of McLeodUSA securities,
injuring McLeodUSA shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock at inflated prices during the class
period when the true state of affairs became known.

On Aug. 30, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum on Nov. 4,
2002, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on Nov. 22,
2002.  

The court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants'
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2003.  Both Parties submitted
responses to the report, and on March 31, 2004 the court
accepted the findings of the report and denied defendants'
motion in full.  On May 3, 2004, defendants filed their answers
to the complaint.

Thereafter, in the spring of 2004, lead plaintiffs initiated
merits discovery.  This discovery was extremely complicated and
contentious, involving many motions to compel and numerous
hearings before the court.  

The lead plaintiffs conducted extensive written discovery,
serving multiple sets of formal document requests and
interrogatories, and many subpoenas on third-parties.

As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, Lead
Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 2.4 million pages of
documents produced by McLeodUSA, the Defendants and third
parties.  The parties also deposed ten witnesses in locations
throughout the U.S.

As discovery was ongoing, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, and the Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to loss causation, based
on the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v.
Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005).  Each of these motions was fully
briefed by the parties.

In the interim, on Oct. 28, 2005, McLeodUSA filed its second
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, and the Action was stayed pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision.

The court lifted the stay on March 16, 2006 pursuant to a motion
filed with the court.  Lead plaintiffs filed a new motion for
class certification, and defendants filed a new motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  These motions were fully briefed and
pending at the time the parties reached the tentative agreement
to resolve the action.

The Parties first discussed the possibility of settling the
Action in June 2002.  However, it was obvious at that time that
they were too far apart to reach agreement, and it was not until
Nov. 17, 2003 that the Parties again met to discuss a
resolution.

Thereafter, the parties participated in three formal mediation
sessions - on July 28, 2004 and Sept. 22, 2005 with the
assistance of the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.) and on
May 3, 2006 with the assistance of the Honorable Herbert
Stettin.  It was shortly after this third mediation session that
the parties reached the basic terms of the settlement.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;

     (2) David Kessler, Esq., and Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone (610) 667-7706, E-mail:
         info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., and Joseph D. Cohen, Esq., Weiss
         & Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY
         10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Web site:
         http://www.infony@weisslurie;and  

     (4) McLeodUSA Securities Litigation Exclusions c/o
         Analytics, Inc., Claims AdministratorP.O. Box 2006
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006, Phone: 1-888-212-3057, Web
         site: http://www.mcleodusasecuritieslitigation.com/.


MEDICAL COLLEGES: Court Orders Revamp of MSAT Disability Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald Sabraw of the Superior Court of the state of
California in and for the County of Alameda ruled against
American Association of Medical Colleges in a class action
challenging its policies used to review requests for disability
accommodations on the Medical School Admissions Test.

Judge Sabraw found that the policies are too stringent and do
not comply with civil rights laws.  In a statement of decision
issued Nov. 2, 2006, the California Superior Court ordered the
Association of American Medical Colleges, the administrator of
the exam, to revamp its accommodation review procedures within
60 days.

Because the MCAT is similar in design to other standardized
admissions tests, including the SAT and the Law School
Admissions Test, the decision is expected to have a ripple
effect across the testing industry, the Disability Rights
Advocates, who filed the suit, said.

                        Case Background

The case, "Turner, et al. v. American Association of Medical
Colleges, Case No. RG 04166148," was initially brought in 2004
by four college graduates with dyslexia and other learning
disabilities who sought a medical education, but who were denied
the accommodation of extra time on the MCAT.   

Plaintiffs allege that the AAMC's procedures and criteria
violate California laws protecting people with disabilities.  
Among other practices, the plaintiffs are challenging the AAMC's
blanket denial of accommodations to individuals that have
achieved past academic success, the AAMC's practice of second-
guessing the diagnoses and recommendations of qualified
physicians, and the AAMC's reliance on unqualified employees to
make accommodations decisions.

In September 2005, Judge Sabraw certified the case as a class
action and expanded it to cover all disabled test takers in
California.

                          The Trial

During the subsequent weeklong trial, the plaintiffs submitted
extensive testimony challenging what they described as common
misconceptions about learning disabilities.  

The evidence, which AAMC's witnesses did not challenge, showed
that while a learning disability slows reading speed by
impacting certain neurological pathways, the condition does not
impair intelligence or the other cognitive abilities necessary
to complete a medical education or become a successful
physician.

"Until this trial, the Association of American Medical Colleges
was out of touch with the medical facts regarding learning
disabilities and why accommodations like extra time make sense,"
said Roger Heller, an attorney from Disability Rights Advocates
and one of the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case.

By the end of the trial, however, AAMC admitted that individuals
with learning disabilities could succeed in the profession, but
that they need extra time on standardized tests to have a fair
opportunity to demonstrate their actual knowledge, skills and
potential for success.  

In fact, AAMC's final witness at the end of the trial -- the
Director of the MCAT, Dr. Ellen Julian -- eventually admitted
that providing accommodations is not only legally mandated, but
also "the right thing to do."

"I am thrilled with the court's decision," said Brendan Pierce,
one of the named plaintiffs in the case.  "Hopefully, the
suspicion that I faced when I applied for accommodations on the
MCAT will go away and people with learning disabilities will now
be able to take the MCAT and other national tests on a level
playing field with their non-disabled peers."

AAMC had defended its procedures by claiming that providing
extra time to disabled test-takers would change what the MCAT
tests and could provide disabled test takers with a potentially
unfair advantage.  

At the conclusion of the trial, however, the court found that
the AAMC failed to submit any evidence to prove either of those
contentions.  

To the contrary, the evidence showed that the MCAT -- like most
other standardized admissions tests in the U.S. -- was not
designed to measure reading speed, but rather knowledge and
problem solving skills.

In addition, the plaintiffs submitted a research article
published by the director of the MCAT program, which
acknowledged that extra time could make the scores of disabled
test takers a more accurate reflection of their knowledge and
skills.

AAMC also claimed that some individuals might "malinger" in
order to obtain a learning disability diagnosis simply to get an
"edge on a difficult exam."  But AAMC failed to present a single
fact or research study to support this alleged concern.

A copy of the court's decision is available for free at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?154e


MEDICAL INFORMATION: Mass. Court Nixes Some Claims in "Hubert"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed certain claims in a purported class action against
Medical Information Technology, Inc. (Meditech), which was filed
by a former employee over the company's profit sharing plan.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee,
filed a complaint against the Medical Information Technology
Profit Sharing Plan, A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company
Director, and the other five company Directors, Lawrence A.
Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E.
Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente (Class Action Reporter, May 17,
2006).

The complaint is purportedly brought on Plaintiff's own behalf
and on behalf of a purported class consisting of "all
participants in the [Plan] who have received any distribution
since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair value of
their benefits."  The complaint alleges that:

     -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the
        Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of
        redemption and payment of a participant's benefits
        under the Plan;

     -- the Directors, in connection with an annual
        contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan,
        have undervalued the company's common stock and have
        not paid retiring or terminating participants in the
        Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan;

     -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders,
        including some of the Directors, have been buyers of
        Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low
        price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved
        without adequate care by the other Directors;

     -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither
        he nor the other Directors have relied upon an
        independent appraiser;

     -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each
        employee participating in the Plan upon his or her
        termination, that all of the defendants violated their
        fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and
        that as a result Plaintiff and members of the purported
        class are due benefits from the Plan; and

     -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the
        participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee
        Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment
against the defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan
to consult an outside appraiser in valuing the plan's assets,
removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan Trustee, and damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs (Class Action Reporter Feb.
6, 2006).

On Mar. 20, 2006, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary
duty claims brought against the individual defendants.  

The remaining claim is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan,
the plan's trustee, and the company.  The judge did not rule on
the plaintiff's request for the complaint to be a class action,
according to the company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit
Sharing Plan, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Rya W. Zobel.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A. Collora of Dwyer &
Collora, LLP, Federal Reserve Building, 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th
Floor, Boston, MA 02210, Phone: 617-371-1002, Fax: 617-371-1037,
E-mail: mcollora@dwyercollora.com.  

Representing the defendants are Kevin P. Martin and Stephen D.
Poss of Goodwin Proctor, LLP, Phone: 617-570-1000 and 617-570-
1886, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com and
sposs@goodwinprocter.com.


MERRILL LYNCH: Nov. 28 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of New York
will hold a fairness hearing On Nov. 28, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., for
the proposed $39 million settlement in the matters:

      -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports
         Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 MDL 1484 (JFK);"

      -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Internet Strategies
         Fund Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 3176 (JFK);"

      -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund
         Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 7854 (JFK);" and

      -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund
         Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 10221 (JFK)."

Objections to the settlement must be made on or before Nov. 13,
2006.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the:

      -- "Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. (ISF)
         from March 16, 2000 through and including Oct. 12, 2001
         (ISF CLASS);"

      -- "Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund, Inc. (GLOBAL
         TECHNOLOGY FUND) From Oct. 2, 1999 through and
         including Oct. 1, 2002 (GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY FUND CLASS);
         and/or

      -- Merrill Lynch Focus Twenty Fund, Inc. (FOCUS TWENTY
         FUND) from March 3, 2000 through and Including Dec. 23,
         2002 (FOCUS TWENTY FUND CLASS).


                      LITIGATION BACKGROUND

The Global Technology Fund Litigation

On or about Oct. 1, 2002, Michal N. Merritt filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of herself and the Global Technology Fund
Class alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and section 34(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (ICA) against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (ML
& Co.), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., (MLPF&S),
Global Technology Fund, Princeton Funds Distributor, Inc., FAM
Distributors, Inc., Princeton Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch
Asset Management, L.P., Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P.
(MLIM) and the Global Technology Fund's officers and directors
Terry K. Glenn, Donald C. Burke, Donald Cecil, Roland M.
Machold, Edward H. Meyer, Charles C. Reilly, Richard D. West,
Arthur Zeikel, Edward D. Zinbarg, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Ronald W.
Forbes, Cynthia A. Montgomery and Kevin A. Ryan (Global
Technology Fund Defendants).

On Feb. 5, 2003, the court appointed Michal N. Merritt as lead
plaintiff for the Global Technology Fund Class (Global
Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff) and appointed Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, as lead counsel (Global Technology
Fund Lead Counsel).

On or about March 14, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
(Global Technology Fund Complaint), asserting claims under
sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and section 34(b) of
the ICA.

She alleged that the Registration Statement/Prospectus for the
Global Technology Fund failed to disclose that:

      -- a material percentage of the companies in which Global
         Technology Fund invested were companies which defendant
         MLPF&S had represented as lead or co-lead underwriter
         or investment banker;

      -- MLPF&S allegedly issued misleading research reports on
         many of the securities held in Global Technology Fund's
         portfolio;

      -- Global Technology Fund invested in companies at prices
         allegedly inflated by MLPF&S' research reports in order
         to enhance MLPF&S' ability to obtain investment banking
         business from those companies;

      -- MLPF&S allegedly issued research reports on over 80% of
         the companies whose securities were in the Global
         Technology Fund; and
  
      -- MLPF&S research analysts allegedly received the
         majority of their compensation from generating
         investment banking business.

The Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff asserted that the
Global Technology Fund Defendants were liable for the decline in
the trading price of the Global Technology Fund, which allegedly
resulted from the conduct alleged in the Global Technology Fund
Complaint.

On July 2, 2003, the district court granted the Global
Technology Fund Defendants' motions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed the Global Technology Fund
Complaint with prejudice on the grounds that:

      -- there was no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted
         information;

      -- the claims were barred by the statute of limitations;

      -- the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff could not
         plead loss causation;

      -- the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff lacked
         standing to assert a violation of section 12(a)(2) of
         the Securities Act;

      -- there is no private right of action under section 34(b)
         of the ICA and even if there was, it would have to be
         brought derivatively;

      -- the claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
         failed for the additional reasons that the claims were
         insufficiently particularized and no facts supporting
         an intent to defraud had been pled.

On July 17, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff
moved the Court to alter its judgment and allow her to file a
second consolidated amended complaint on the ground that the
claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.  That
motion was denied.

On Sept. 17, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff
filed her notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  That appeal was fully briefed and the parties
were awaiting oral argument at the time this proposed settlement
was reached.

The ISF Litigation

Beginning on April 24, 2002, at least nine securities class
actions relating to ISF were filed in the district court against
the ISF Defendants alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.

On June 25, 2002, five motions for the consolidation of all the
related ISF cases, and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel were filed.

On Feb. 5, 2003, the court appointed Ruth Manton as Lead
Plaintiff for the ISF class and appointed Abbey Gardy, LLP as
lead counsel. Subsequently, Abbey Gardy, LLP, changed its name
to Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP.

On March 14, 2003, the ISF Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint asserting claims under sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and section 34(b) of
the ICA on behalf of herself and the ISF class against ML & Co.,
MLPF&S, ISF, Master Internet Strategies Trust, Global Technology
Fund, Fund Asset Management, L.P., Princeton Services, Inc., FAM
Distributors, Inc., Paul G. Meeks, and the Fund's officers and
directors, Donald C. Burke, Terry K. Glenn, Charles C. Reilly,
Roscoe S. Suddarth, Richard R. West, Edward D. Zinbarg and
Arthur Zeikel.

The ISF Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things that the
Registration Statement/Prospectus for the ISF failed to disclose
that:

      -- the ISF allegedly invested in the securities of
         companies with which MLPF&S had or sought investment
         banking business;

      -- that MLPF&S allegedly issued misleading research
         reports on many of the securities held in the ISF's
         portfolio; and

      -- that the ISF invested in companies at prices allegedly
         inflated by MLPF&S' research reports in order to
         enhance MLPF&S' ability to obtain investment banking
         business from those companies.

The ISF Lead Plaintiff further alleged that the ISF Defendants
were liable for the decline in the trading price of the ISF
shares, which allegedly resulted from the alleged conduct of the
ISF Defendants.

On Oct. 29, 2003, the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed the ISF Complaint with
prejudice on the grounds that:

      -- there was no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted
         information;

      -- the claims were barred by the statute of limitations;

      -- the ISF Lead Plaintiff failed to allege losses
         recoverable under sections 11 or 12(a)(2);

      -- there is no private right of action under section 34(b)
         of the ICA and even if there was, it would have to be
         brought derivatively.

On Nov. 24, 2003, the ISF Lead Plaintiff filed her notice of
appeal from the district court's Oct. 29, 2003 decision in the
Second Circuit.  That appeal was fully briefed and the parties
were awaiting oral argument at the time this proposed settlement
was reached.

The Focus Twenty Fund Litigation

On Dec. 23, 2002, Cynthia McGinnes filed the first class action
complaint involving the Focus Twenty Fund in the district court,
alleging violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
By order dated July 22, 2003, the court consolidated the
McGinnes complaint with several other actions alleging
violations of the securities laws in connection with purchases
of Focus Twenty Fund.

On July 22, 2003, the court appointed Archie Lofberg as Lead
Plaintiff for the Focus Twenty Fund class (Focus Twenty Fund
Lead Plaintiff) and appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, LLP, as Lead Counsel (Focus Twenty Fund Lead Counsel).

On or about Aug. 25, 2003, the Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (Focus
Twenty Fund Complaint), against ML & Co., MLPF&S, Focus Twenty
Fund, Fund Asset Management, L.P., Princeton Funds Distributor,
Inc., FAM Distributors, Inc. and Princeton Services, Inc.
(collectively the Focus Twenty Fund Defendants), making
essentially the same allegations as made in the Global
Technology Fund Complaint by the Global Technology Fund Lead
Plaintiff.

The Focus Twenty Fund Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the Focus Twenty Fund Complaint on the basis of the district
court's decisions in the coordinated cases, particularly the
decisions on essentially the same grounds as in the Global
Technology Fund action.

In its Oct. 22, 2003 decision on defendants' motions to dismiss,
the court struck certain allegations as irrelevant and
dismissed, without prejudice, those portions of the Amended
Complaint that were not stricken.

The Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint on Nov. 5, 2003, which defendants moved to dismiss.
That motion was fully briefed and was awaiting oral argument at
the time the parties reached this proposed settlement.

During the spring and summer of 2006, settlement negotiations
occurred between Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants.  On
Sept. 22, 2006, the parties presented to the district court a
proposed Stipulation of Settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendants.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jill S. Abrams, Esq. of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
         Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New York,
         10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700;

     (2) Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
         York 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4740; and

     (3) Merrill Lynch Funds Securities Litigation, c/o The
         Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
         9000 #6449, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-327-
         3664 or 631-470-5000, Fax: 631-470-5100, E-mail:
         info@gardencitygroup.com, Web site:
         http://www.gardencitygroup.com/.


NEW YORK: Low-Income Tenants File Lawsuit Over Rent Increase
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a preliminary injunction suspending
the implementation of housing rent increases for low-income
supportive housing tenants with HIV and AIDS, the City Limits
Weekly reports.

About 2,200 low-income tenants were informed last month that
their rent would increase by at least 20% starting Nov. 1.  But
Judge Block ordered a preliminary injunction against the hike
two days before that date and gave the city and state 45 days to
respond to the class action challenging the increase.

The planned increase in rents were mandated by the state Office
of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which says it found in a
2004 audit that the guidelines used by the city Human Resources
Administration in the AIDS housing program were incongruent with
state law and the practice in the 57 counties outside of the
five boroughs.

If the policy change eventually is adopted, housing tenants
would be left with only $330 of their income each month after
paying rent.

Housing Works, an AIDS service organization, filed the suit on
behalf of nine plaintiffs, according to Housing Works Policy
Chief Terri Smith-Caronia.

Jennifer Flynn, executive director of the New York City AIDS
Housing Network told the City Limits the increase is illegal
because federal guidelines permit contracted housing providers
to charge no more than 30 percent of a tenant's adjusted income
or 10 percent of a tenant's gross income, whichever is greater,
where the resident has income other than welfare or public
assistance that includes a rent allowance.


PERRY JOHNSON: Reaches Settlement in Calif. TCPA Act Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald Buchwald of the San Mateo County Superior Court in
California tentatively approved a settlement by Perry Johnson,
Inc. in the suit, "Hypertouch Inc. v. Perry Johnson, Inc. Case
No. 418600."

Plaintiffs in the suit allege the company sent facsimile
transmissions to individuals and businesses without their
express permission between Oct. 5, 1997 and the present.

The settlement resolves various causes of action against Perry
Johnson, Inc. including claims of violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, Rule 47 of the U.S. Civil Code Section
227 et seq., in connection with the transmittal of alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements to members of the
Settlement Class between Oct. 5, 1997 and the present.  

Defendants in the suit are Perry Johnson, Inc. and Perry
Johnson Registrars, Inc.  The certified class in the suit
consists of all persons who at any time from Oct. 5, 1997 to the
present received unsolicited advertisement through facsimile
transmission from the defendants without the person's prior
express invitation or permission.  Perry Johnson continues to
deny any wrongdoing or liability.

Under the settlement, eligible members of the class will receive
a 25% credit coupon toward purchase of any Perry Johnson product
or service with an estimated retail value of up to $424.75.  

The coupon may be transferred to third parties, including for
example by sale via eBay and is valid the two-year period
following the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment.  

Plaintffs attorney is to receive $270,300 for fees and costs and
for costs alrady paid in the amount of $62,700.

Claim filing deadline is Dec. 29, 2006.  Deadline to file
objections is Dec. 14, 2006.

Fairness hearing is set Jan. 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Gerald Buchwald of the San Mateo Superior Court,
Department 10, 400 County Center, Redwood City,California 94063
Hypertouch, Inc, v. Perry Johnson, Inc. Case No. 418600.

For more information contact:

     (1) The Administrator: CPT Group, Inc., 16630 Aston St.,
         Irvine CA 92606;

     (2) Plaintiffs' counsel: John L. Fallat, Esq., Law Offices
         of John L. Fallat 523 Fourth St., Suite 210, San
         Rafael, CA 94901-3349; and

     (3) Defense counsel: Joseph D. Miller, Esq., Leslie J.
         Mann, Esq. Epsteini, Becker & Green, One California
         St., Suite 2600 San Francisco CA 94111-5427.

On the Net: http://www.junkfaxlawsuit.com.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal of N.Y. IPO Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court accepted
the plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class status in against Piper Jaffray Cos. along with
other leading securities firms.

In 1998 several purported class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
court's order, dated Feb. 11, 1999, consolidated these purported
class actions for all purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering
Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM)."

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief.  It
was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in certain
initial public offerings for U.S. companies and alleges that
defendants conspired in offerings of an amount between $20
million and $80 million to fix the underwriters' discount at 7.0
percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

The court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an
issuer plaintiff.  The court stated that its decision did not
affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
district court's decision on Dec. 13, 2002 and remanded the
action to the district court.  

A motion to dismiss was filed with the district court on March
26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this action and the issuer
plaintiff action described below in their entirety, based upon
the argument that the determination of underwriting fees is
implicitly immune from the antitrust laws because of the
extensive federal regulation of the securities markets.  On
April 25, 2003, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion
to dismiss.  

The underwriter defendants filed a motion for leave to file a
supplemental memorandum of law in further support of their
motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  

The court denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity in its memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003.  

A supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss,
applicable only to this action because the purported class
consists of indirect purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and
sought dismissal based upon the argument that the proposed class
members cannot state claims upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003, and defendants
filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on
July 25, 2003.

The court entered its memorandum and order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss on Feb. 24, 2004.
Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed because they were
indirect purchasers, but the motion to dismiss was denied with
respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.

The company filed its answer to the consolidated amended
complaint on April 22, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and supporting memorandum of law on Sept.
16, 2004.  

Class discovery concluded on April 11, 2005, and defendants
filed their brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on May 25, 2005.  

Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2005, and defendants filed a
surreply brief in opposition to class certification on Nov. 15,
2005.  Plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion on liability
on Oct. 25, 2005.  

The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its
Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006.  The Order further
requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14
days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of
purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect
of recovery of money damages.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class certification on May 1, 2006.  The court granted
their request that the response to Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on
the 23(f) application or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit rules on the appeal, whichever is later.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court accepted
the plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class certification.  The briefing on that issue is in
progress, 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.

Piper Jaffray Cos. in the Net: http://www.piperjaffray.com/.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Faces Suit Over Stock Allocations in IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Cos., along with other leading securities firms,
remains a defendant in several purported class actions filed in
2001 and 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York involving the allocation of securities in
certain initial public offerings.

The court's order, dated Aug. 8, 2001, transferred all related
class action complaints for coordination and pretrial purposes
as "In re Initial Public Offering Allocation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between
1998 and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of
certain initial public offerings of technology and Internet-
related companies, the company obtained excessive compensation
by allocating shares in these initial public offerings to
preferred customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay
additional compensation to the company in the form of excess
commissions that it failed to disclose.

The complaints also allege that our customers who received
favorable allocations of shares in initial public offerings
agreed to purchase additional shares of the same issuer in the
secondary market at pre-determined prices.  These complaints
seek unspecified damages.

Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints were filed on July
1, 2002, and oral argument on the motions to dismiss was heard
on Nov. 14, 2002.  

The court entered its order largely denying the motions to
dismiss on Feb. 19, 2003.  A status conference was held with the
court on July 11, 2003, for purposes of establishing a case
management plan setting forth discovery deadlines, selecting
focus cases and briefing class certification.

Seventeen focus cases were selected, including eleven cases for
purposes of merits discovery and six cases for purposes of class
certification.  The company was named as a defendant in two of
the merits focus cases and none of the class certification focus
cases.  

On Oct. 13, 2004, the court issued an opinion largely granting
plaintiffs' motions for class certification in the six class
certification focus cases.

Defendants filed a petition seeking leave to appeal the class
certification ruling on Oct. 27, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the petition on Nov. 8, 2004, and defendants filed
their reply in further support of the petition on Nov. 15, 2004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the
defendants' petition on June 30, 2005.  Defendants filed their
brief on Oct. 3, 2005.  Plaintiffs' response was filed on Dec.
19, 2005, and defendants filed their reply on Jan. 27, 2006.  

Oral argument on the class certification appeal was heard on
June 6, 2006.  A decision on the appeal is currently pending.
Discovery is proceeding at this time with respect to the
remaining eleven focus cases selected for merits discovery,
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.

Piper Jaffray Cos. in the Net: http://www.piperjaffray.com/.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Faces Suits Over Underwriters' Discounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Cos., along with other leading securities firms,
remains a defendant in several purported class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The purported class actions were against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of issuer plaintiffs asserting antitrust claims based upon
allegations that the 7.0 percent underwriters' discounts in
initial public offerings violate the Sherman Act.

These purported class actions were consolidated by the district
court as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23,
2001.  They seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001.  The district court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on Sept. 30, 2002.

Defendants filed a motion to certify the order for interlocutory
appeal on Oct. 15, 2002.  On March 26, 2003, a motion to dismiss
based upon implied immunity was also filed in connection with
this action.  The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26,
2003.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting
memorandum of law on Sept. 16, 2004.  Class discovery concluded
on April 11, 2005.  

Defendants filed their brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion
for class certification on May 25, 2005, and plaintiffs' reply
brief in support of their motion for class certification was
filed on Oct. 20, 2005.  

On Nov. 15, 2005, defendants filed a surreply brief in
opposition to class certification.  Plaintiffs filed a summary
judgment motion on liability on Oct. 25, 2005.  

The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its
Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006.  The Order further
requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14
days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of
purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect
of recovery of money damages.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class certification on May 1, 2006.  The court granted
their request that the response to Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on
the 23(f) application or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit rules on the appeal, whichever is later.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted the
Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) application with respect to the denial of
class certification.  The briefing on that issue is in progress,
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.

Piper Jaffray Cos. in the Net: http://www.piperjaffray.com/.


TARGET STORES: Recalls Puzzles for Choking, Laceration Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,100
units of "Play Wonder" puzzle tables.

The company said the handles on the puzzle pieces can come off,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  Also, the tips of
the nails on the inside shelf of the puzzle table could be
exposed, posing a laceration or puncture hazard.

Target has received two reports of the pegs coming off of the
puzzle pieces.  In one of these reports, a child was found to be
mouthing the pegs.  No other injuries were reported relating to
these hazards.

This recall involves a "Play Wonder" brand puzzle table that
contains three nine-piece wooden puzzles inside the table.  They
are light blue with paw prints painted across the top of the
table.  The table is about 13-inches high when assembled and has
green sides.  The "Play Wonder" logo is located in the front
lower right corner of the packaging.  Item number 204/12/0162 is
located in the front upper right corner of the packaging.

These puzzle tables were manufactured in China and are being
sold at Target stores nationwide and on http://www.target.com
from December 2005 through October 2006 for about $25.

Pictures of the recalled puzzle tables:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07034a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07034b.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the products from children
immediately and return the item to the nearest Target Store for
a full refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Target at (800) 440-
0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or log
on to the firm's Web site: http://www.target.com.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities fraud class action
against RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. requested permission from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
move for leave to file a second amended complaint, according to
the company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

Beginning in July 2005, seven putative class actions were filed
against the defendants.  In December 2005, these actions were
consolidated and in February 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased and/or acquired the publicly traded
securities of the company between April 22, 2003 and July 25,
2005.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants in
addition to the company, current and former officers of the
company as defendants.  

It alleges that the company and the other named defendants
violated the U.S. federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and failing to state material facts about the
company's business and financial condition in, among other
things, U.S. Securities and Exchange filings and public
statements.

In March 2006, defendants notified the court of their intention
to move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Thus on
June 2006, they filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

On Oct. 24, 2006, before those motions were ruled upon, counsel
for the lead plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
move for leave to file a second amended complaint.  On October
30, 2006, the defendants consented to that request.  Once the
new complaint is filed, it is expected that the defendants will
file motions to dismiss the new complaint.

The suit is "In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)," 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) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road,
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Christopher J. Keller of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow,
         LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: (212) 907-0853, Fax: (212) 883-7053, E-mail:
         ckeller@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants is Steven Robert Paradise of Vinson
& Elkins, L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor, New York 10103,
Phone: (917) 206-8000, Fax: (917) 849-5338, E-mail:
sparadise@velaw.com.


SHAW GROUP: Retirement System Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Shaw Group, Inc. and certain of its officers were named in a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

The suit is "City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw
Group Inc, et al., Case No. 06CV8245," was filed on Oct. 10,
2006.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
during the period from Jan. 6, 2006 to July 9, 2006.

It also alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the company falsely represented that internal controls
         were adequate and effective in the second quarter of
         fiscal 2006, and

      -- in the second quarter of 2006, materially overstated
         revenues and understated losses.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought,
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 Aug. 31, 2006.

The suit is "City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08245-RCC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Richard C. Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs are Alan Ian Ellman, Christopher J.
Keller and Andrei V. Rado of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 907-0877, (212)
907-0853 and (212) 907-0700, Fax: (212) 883-7077 and (212) 883-
7053, E-mail: aellman@labaton.com and ckeller@labaton.com.


SLAVERY REPARATIONS: Trust Fund Demanded in "Farmer-Paellmann"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Insurance Co. is faced with a national boycott of its
health insurance products as a result of their writing life
insurance policies on the lives of enslaved Africans in the
1850s.  

Boycott organizers are demanding that Aetna settle a
consolidated class action by creating a Trust Fund to benefit
descendants of enslaved Africans.

The lawsuit is "Farmer-Paellmann, et al. v. Brown & Williamson,
et al."  It is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in Chicago.  

News of the boycott comes just days before "open season" begins
-- a time during which government and private company employees
can change their insurance carriers.  Open season runs from
Monday, November 13 through Monday, Dec. 11, 2006 for some
institutions.

The boycott effort supports a resolution passed by Blacks In
Government (BIG).  BIG's resolution demands that Aetna create a
Trust Fund to benefit slave descendants with a portion of the
funds going to assist African American Healthcare Institutions
actively working to alleviate the health disparities plaguing
African American families and communities.

The resolution asks that government employees consider changing
their insurers if Aetna fails to create the Trust Fund.  The
resolution was introduced by Pat Swailes, Life Member of BIG,
and was passed at BIG's National Delegates Assembly in August
2006.

"Aetna benefited financially from insuring the lives of enslaved
Africans, with slave owners as the beneficiaries, as if the
Africans were farm animals or office equipment.  Now the company
refuses to pay restitution for that inhumane practice that
financed domestic slavery.  They left us no choice but to
boycott," said Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, executive director of
the Restitution Study Group and lead plaintiff in the pending
class action lawsuit.

                        Case Background

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit began to hear
the case, "Farmer-Paellmann, et al. v. Brown and Williamson,
Case No. CV 05-3265" on Sept. 27 (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
10, 2006).

The lawsuits, filed between March 2002 and January 2003,
targeted 18 corporations for causing injuries plaintiffs suffer
as a result of the enslavement of their ancestors, and for
consumer fraud injuries they recently incurred as a result of
defendants making false statements about their roles in slavery.  
The cases have since been consolidated.

Deadria Farmer-Paellmann is lead plaintiff in the cases, which
names as defendants:

     -- Aetna Inc.,
     -- American International Group (AIG),
     -- Lloyd's of London,
     -- New York Life Insurance Co.,
     -- Southern Mutual Insurance Co.,
     -- FleetBoston Financial Corp. (Bank of America),
     -- AFSA Data Corp.,
     -- Brown Brothers Harriman,
     -- JP Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank (Bank One),
     -- Lehman Brothers,
     -- RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
     -- Brown and Williamson,
     -- Liggett Group Inc.,
     -- Loews Corp. (Lorrilard),
     -- Canadian National Railway,
     -- CSX Corp.,
     -- Norfolk Southern Corp., and
     -- Union Pacific Railroad

Mrs. Farmer-Paellmann claims that Aetna wrote a life insurance
policy on her ancestor Abel who was enslaved in South Carolina.  
She obtained evidence of the policy from the California Slavery
Era Insurance Registry published in 2002 originating from a law
introduced by California Senator Tom Hayden.  

She also claims that she was a consumer of FleetBoston and CSX
and lost money as a result of being mislead about their roles in
slavery which, in her opinion, constitute recent consumer fraud.   


SPX CORP: Settles Stock, ERISA Act Violations Suits for $5.1M
-------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corp. reaches a $5.1 million agreement to settle class
actions alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints
seeking unspecified monetary damages, were filed or announced by
certain law firms representing or seeking to represent
purchasers of the company's common stock during a specified
period against the company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.  The suits allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the company made false and
misleading statements regarding the forecast of the company's
2003 fiscal year business and operating results in order to
artificially inflate the price of the company's stock.  

These complaints were consolidated into a single amended
complaint against the company and former chairman, chief
executive officer and president.  

On Sept. 20, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action in its entirety.

On April 23, 2004, an additional class complaint seeking
unspecified monetary damages was filed in the same court on
behalf of participants in the company's employee benefit plans,
alleging breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 by the company, the company's then general counsel and
the Administrative Committee regarding one of our 401(k) defined
contribution benefit plans arising from the plan's holding of
our stock.

On June 10, 2005, a first amended complaint was filed in the
ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current and former
directors and Administrative Committee members.  The first
amended complaint generally tracks the factual allegations in
the securities class action.  

On July 25, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended ERISA complaint in its entirety.  On September 8, 2005,
the plaintiffs moved the court to certify the proposed class in
the ERISA suit.  The company opposed that motion.

On Oct. 9, 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle both the securities class action and the tag-along
ERISA action.  

The settlement is subject to court approval, and the parties are
in the process of drafting the requisite documents and taking
the necessary actions to secure that approval.  The approval
process may take several additional months to complete.  

Under the terms of the pending settlement, both actions will be
dismissed with prejudice and our aggregate net settlement
payment, after reimbursement by our insurer, will be $5.1
million.  The company recorded a charge of $4.1 million in the
third quarter of 2006 relating to this pending settlement.  

The suit is "Belafey, et al. v. SPX Corporation, et al., Case  
No. 3:04cv99," 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) Mario Alba, Jr. of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747,  
         Phone: 631/367-7100; and

     (2) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th  
         St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/983-9330.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) David C. Wright, III, and Julian H. Wright of Robinson,  
         Bradshaw & Hinson, PA, Mail: 101 No Tryon St., Suite  
         1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 USA, Phone: 704-377-2536; and  

    (ii) Ross B. Bricker, Anton R. Valukas and Ronald L. Malmer  
         of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-
         3608, Phone: 312/923-4524.  


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court to Review Scwab Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay in all
proceedings in the suit filed by Barbara Schwab on behalf of
'light' cigarette smokers against tobacco companies, reports
say.

The court will review a September ruling by Judge Jack B.
Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York certifying the suit as a class action.

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product.

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;
     -- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;
     -- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;
     -- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and
     -- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco
        (Investments) Ltd.

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,
         North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-
         3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:
         mabelasic@jonesday.com;

     (2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup
         Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,
         Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:
         peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of
         Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;

     (3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth
         Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-
         5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or
         Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:
         212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;  
         and

     (4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.

Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005; and William P.
Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-
337-8090, E-mail: wpb@ftllaw.com.


UNITED RENTALS: Files Motion to Dismiss Conn. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc. moved to dismiss the consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against it and other
defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the
company.  Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf
of a purported class comprised of purchasers of the company's
securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to Aug. 30, 2004.

The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its
chairman, vice chairman, and chief executive officer, its former
president and chief financial officer, and its former corporate
controller.  

These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain of the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings and other public statements contained false and
misleading statements, which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.  

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action
asserted claims:  

      -- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule  
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and  

      -- against one or more of the individual defendants under  
         Section 20(a) of such Act.  

The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.  On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order
consolidating the three actions.   

On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's
and Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  

The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals,  
Inc. Securities Litigation."  The parties agreed upon, and the
court subsequently approved, a schedule for the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint in this action and the briefing
of any motions to dismiss directed to the operative complaint in
the action.  

On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which:

     -- adds allegations relating to, among other things, the
        conclusions of the Special Committee and to other
        matters disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K;

     -- amends the purported class period to include purchasers
        of the company's securities from Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug.
        30, 2004; and

     -- names as an additional defendant the company's first
        chief financial officer.

In Sept. 2006, the company and certain of the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in this action.  

Briefing with respect to these motions is in progress, the
company said in its Oct. 31 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30.

The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case NO. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Erin Green Comite of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave.,  
         PO Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,  
         Fax: 869-537-4432, E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com; and

     (2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, One Corporate  
         Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103,  
         Phone: 860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         nancy@snlaw.net.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David M. Bizar of Day, Berry & Howard, Cityplace,
         Hartford, CT 06103-3499, Phone: 860-275-0648, Fax: 860-
         275-0343, E-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com; and

    (ii) Alan R. Friedman of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel,
         1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:  
         212-715-9100, E-mail: afriedman@kramerlevin.com.  


UST INC: "Davis v. U.S. Tobacco" Class Sues Over Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
UST Inc., a holding company for wholly owned subsidiaries U.S.
Smokeless Tobacco Company and International Wine & Spirits Ltd.,
faces a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia over allegations it breached the
settlement agreement in the case, "Philip Edward Davis, et al.
v. United States Tobacco Co., et al."

In "Robert A. Martin, et al. v. Gordon Ball, et al., Case No.
5:06-CV-85," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, the company deemed service of the
complaint to have been effective as of July 17, 2006 and filed
an answer.

This action was brought by 15 individual plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of persons who filed claims for
coupons as part of the company's settlement of the action,
"Philip Edward Davis, et al. v. United States Tobacco Co., et
al.," filed in Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Tennessee.

The Martin plaintiffs allege that the company breached the
settlement agreement in the Davis action, and has been unjustly
enriched, because it failed to distribute to each of the
purported class members a denomination of coupons with an
aggregate value equal to the aggregate value of the coupons
distributed as part of the settlement in another indirect
purchaser action.

Plaintiffs also allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and conversion against the counsel who
represented the class members in the Davis action.  

They seek additional amounts purportedly consistent with
subsequent settlements of similar actions, estimated by
plaintiffs to be between $8.9 million and $214.2 million, as
well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Martin et al. v. Ball et al., Case No.
5:06-cv-00085-FPS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia under Judge Frederick P.
Stamp.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Allen D. Black at Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, 1835
         Market St., 28th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.,
         Phone: 215-567-6565, Fax: 215-568-5872, E-mail:
         ablack@finekaplan.com; and

     (2) Jennifer L. Giordano at Latham & Watkins, LLP - DC, 555
         11th St., NW, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-637-
         2200, Fax: 202-637-2201, E-mail:
         jennifer.giordano@lw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) J. Scott Kessinger, 7304 Michigan Ave., St. Louis, MO
         63111, U.S., Phone: 314-369-5115, Fax: 314-754-8370, E-
         mail: jskess@charter.net; and

     (2) John J. Pentz, Class Action Fairness Group, 2 Clock
         Tower Place, Suite 260G, Maynard, MA 01754, U.S.,
         Phone: 978-461-1548, Fax: 707-276-2925, E-mail:
         clasaxn@earthlink.net.


UST INC: Lawyers in Third Party Tobacco Suits Ask $8.5M More
------------------------------------------------------------
The court hearing the settlement of a class action in Kansas and
an action in New York against UST Inc., a holding company for
two tobacco manufacturing subsidiaries, has yet to rule on a
request by plaintiffs' attorneys for an additional $8.5 million
under the settlement of the suits.

UST Inc. is a holding company for wholly owned subsidiaries U.S.
Smokeless Tobacco Company and International Wine & Spirits Ltd.  
It has been named as a defendant in a number of purported class
actions brought by indirect purchasers (consumers and
retailers), and class actions brought by indirect purchasers of
its moist smokeless tobacco products in the states of
California, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.  

In the first quarter of 2006, the Company was named as a
defendant in a purported class action brought by indirect
purchasers in the state of Pennsylvania.

As indirect purchasers of the company's smokeless tobacco
products during various periods of time ranging from January
1990 to the date of certification or potential certification of
the proposed class, plaintiffs in those actions allege,
individually and on behalf of putative class members in a
particular state or individually and on behalf of class members
in the states of California, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, that
the company has violated the antitrust laws, unfair and
deceptive trade practices statutes and/or common law of those
states.

Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and statutory damages in
an amount not to exceed $75,000 per class member or per putative
class member, and certain other relief.  The indirect purchaser
actions are similar in all material respects.

The company has entered into a settlement with indirect
purchasers, which has been approved by the court, in the states
of Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia and in the
District of Columbia.  

Pursuant to the approved Settlement, adult consumers receive
coupons redeemable on future purchases of the company's moist
smokeless tobacco products.  The company will pay all
administrative costs of the Settlement and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.  

The company also intends to pursue settlement of other indirect
purchaser actions not covered by the Settlement on substantially
similar terms, with the exception of Pennsylvania, for which the
Company believes there is insufficient basis for such a claim.

In this regard, the company continues to make progress.  On
March 8, 2006, the court entered final approval of the
settlement of the Kansas class action and New York action.  

An evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for an additional
amount of approximately $8.5 million in attorneys' fees,
expenses and costs, plus interest, beyond the previously agreed-
upon amounts already paid by the Company was held April 4-5,
2006.  

The court has not ruled on the motion, according to the
company's Nov. 2 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30.

The company believes, and has been so advised by counsel
handling this case, that it has meritorious defenses in this
regard, and will continue to vigorously defend against this
motion.

As such, the company has not recognized a liability for the
additional amounts sought in this motion.  The company has had
settlements approved by the respective courts in connection with
indirect purchaser actions in approximately 80 percent of the
states in which they were filed.


WAL-MART STORES: Ex-Employee Files Wage Violations Suit in N.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota over
allegations that its stores engaged in widespread wage abuse
against hourly employees, Steven P. Wagner of The Forum reports.

Represented by Fargo attorney Mike Miller, Lori Kraemer, a 33-
year-old former worker at Sam's Club in Grand Forks, filed the
suit on Nov. 16, 2006.  

She claims hourly employees were forced to work off the clock
and through breaks to meet work requirements.  Wal-Mart owns and
operates 10 stores, including Sam's Club stores, in North
Dakota.

The 20-page lawsuit alleges that by systematically understaffing
its stores and setting impossible profit standards for each
department, the defendant deliberately attempted to skirt state
wage compensation laws.

Ms. Kraemer, who worked at the Grand Forks store from 1993 to
June 2002, claims the company a variety of methods to hold down
employee wages, including manipulating time and wage records.

The suit contends that managers earn financial bonuses by
holding down expenses and overhead costs.  It states that the
company's "nefarious" policy of failing to pay its hourly
employees for all time worked is, in part, facilitated through
its corporate culture.

There are potentially thousands of people, with losses of more
than $5 million, who may have claims against the company,
according to the suit.

Ms. Kraemer's complaint asks that the lawsuit be given class
action status and force the company to pay lost wages, interest,
attorney's fees and other expenses.

The suit is "Kraemer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00098-RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota under Judge Rodney S. Webb with
referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.

Representing the plaintiffs are Mike J. Miller and Stacey
Elizabeth Tjon of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, Ltd., P.O. BOX
1897, Fargo, ND 58107-1897, Phone: 701-237-3166, Fax: 701-237-
4627, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com and SET@solberglaw.com.


WORLDCOM INC: Asks Bankruptcy Court to Deny Class in Tex. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WorldCom, Inc. counsel, Mark M. Iba, Esq., at Stinson Morrison
Hecker, LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri, asserts in a response to
a summary judgment motion that a residential long distance
customer of the company, who filed a purported class action
petition in a Texas state, has no cause of action.

Richard Drew, who is a WorldCom customer from January through
June 1999, claims in the suit that:

     -- the company had committed fraud and violated the
        Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by
        charging customers a deceptively labeled Federal
        Universal Service Fee; and

     -- the FUSF charged to him was more than the actual fee and
        the filed tariff amount of the FUSF.

He is seeking damages under various state tort theories of
recovery.

In his response to the summary judgment motion by the plaintiff,
Mr. Iba stated Mr. Drew's claim is barred by the plain language
of the company's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, which required that
Federal Universal Service Fee be assessed in the manner that
both parties agree occurred in the case, Mr. Iba argues.  "Mr.
Drew has based his motion for summary judgment on a complete
misreading of the Tariff" (WorldCom Bankruptcy News Issue No.
127; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)  

The Tariff explicitly required the company to apply FUSF to the
total MCI Inc. (the emerging company after Worldcom's
reorganization) service usage charges.  

Usage charges refer to all tariffed charges appearing on a
customer's invoice.  "Mr. Drew ignores these clear provisions to
argue that the FUSF rate should not have applied to the monthly
plan fee and National Access Fee on his invoice," Mr. Iba
contends.

Both the monthly plan fee and the NAF, however, are tariffed
charges on Mr. Drew's invoice, Mr. Iba asserts.  Thus, Mr. Drew
cannot prove his claims as a matter of law.

Mr. Iba adds that Mr. Drew cannot show that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because he has provided no evidence
of a false representation, offered no evidence of wrongful
intent, and submitted no evidence of reliance.  

He notes hat Mr. Drew argued solely that fraud somehow exists
because MCI, purportedly charged 36 cents too much for the FUSF
on each bill when it applied the FUSF rate to the NAF and
monthly service fee.

WorldCom, Inc., a Clinton, MS-based global communications
company, filed for chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New York in 2002.  The Bankruptcy
Court confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr.
20, 2004, the Company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11
protection as MCI, Inc.  On Jan. 6, 2006, MCI merged with
Verizon Communications, Inc.  MCI is now known as Verizon
Business, a unit of Verizon Communications.

               Class Certification Is Not Warranted

Mr. Iba states that for a class action to proceed, Mr. Drew must
satisfy three requirements:

    (1) The Bankruptcy Court must direct Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure to apply pursuant to a timely
        filed motion;

   (2) The claim must satisfy Civil Rule 23's requirements; and

   (3) The benefits that generally support class certification
       in civil litigation must be realizable in the bankruptcy
       case.

"Mr. Drew's request for class certification fails to satisfy any
of these requirements," Mr. Iba avers.

Mr. Iba contends that having waited nearly two years since the
Debtors objected to his claim, Mr. Drew has not timely sought an
application under Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure to his claim.

Furthermore, Mr. Drew cannot meet the requirements of Civil Rule
23 because he failed to show that there is an ascertainable
class to which he would belong or that common issues of fact or
law predominate over individual issues, Mr. Iba adds.  Moreover,
Mr. Drew cannot represent a class when he cannot proceed on his
own claims and therefore, cannot show typicality nor that he is
an adequate representative.

Mr. Drew also failed to show how a class action is a superior
method for resolving his and other claims, Mr. Iba says.
Accordingly, the company asks the Bankruptcy Court to deny Mr.
Drew's Summary Judgment Motion.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BODISEN BIOTECH: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. between Aug.
26, 2005 and Nov. 14, 2006.  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's business, prospects and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Bodisen
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 16,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq., of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 at (888) 638-4847, E-
mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


IKANOS COMMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Ikanos
Communications, Inc. between Sept. 22, 2005 and Oct. 4, 2006,
inclusive including purchasers of Ikanos common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to Ikanos' initial public offering on Sept. 22,
2005 and its secondary public offering on March 8, 2006.

The complaint charges Ikanos and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

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

      -- that to artificially inflate the company's revenue
         stream and Far East business prospects, defendants
         flooded Japanese customers with the company's products,
         which defendants knew would cut into 2006 revenue
         results;

      -- that this practice was done to mask production problems
         that Ikanos was experiencing; and

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements concerning the company's future business and
         customer deployment prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On Oct. 4, 2006, after the market closed, Ikanos stunned
investors when the company announced that its preliminary third
quarter revenues would be $4-6 million lower than previously
anticipated due to Japanese carriers "working through their
existing equipment levels."

On this news, shares of Ikanos plunged $3.18 or 29.1 percent, to
close, on Oct. 5, 2006, at $7.76 per share, on unusually heavy
volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 5,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

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


                            *********


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  * * *