CAR_Public/061121.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 231

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Appeal Dismissal of Ohio ERISA Breach Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Stock Suit by Schoengold Assigned Judge, Case No.
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: $8M Settlement Money to Be Disbursed to Class
AT&T INC: Calif. Court Allows Wiretapping Lawsuit to Proceed
CALIFORNIA: Judge Wanger Hears Suit by Homeless Fresno Residents

CALIFORNIA: Ventura County Seeks Review of Strip Search Lawsuit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Suits Over Intel-Gathering Activities
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Groups Get Money From Circulation Fraud Deal
CLEAR CHANNEL: Wechsler Harwood Files Shareholders' Suit in Tex.
DELAWARE: Judge Mulls Alleged "Double Dipping" By State Lawmaker

DELL INC: Keller Rohrback to File Amended 401(k) Complaint Jan.
GENESIS MICROCHIP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal
GUND INC: Recalls Woodles Activity Toys for Choking Hazard
H&R BLOCK: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees
HONORE MERCIER: Families of C. Difficile Victims Mull Lawsuit

IRWIN MORTGAGE: Ind. Court Orders Notices Publication in "Silke"
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settles Md. Consumer Act Violations Lawsuit
KENTUCKY: Deadline Set to Name Micro-City Suit Lead Plaintiff
NEWMONT MINING: Parties Settle Colo. Consolidated Stock Lawsuit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Butland"

ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Fla., Ga. Personal Injury Suits
PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Counties Join Negligence Lawsuit
PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Faces Rights Violation Lawsuit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Annuities Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Eighth Circuit Affirms Nixing of "Sofonia"

PUBLIX SUPER: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Benzene in Soda Drinks
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Court Affirms Insurance Entitlement
SCOTT ELECTRIC: Recalls Fake Circuit Breakers Due To Fire Hazard
THQ INC: Faces Litigation Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
TOWN SPORTS: Mediation ongoing in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.

WINDOW BLINDS CASES: Big Lots Requests Dismissal from Ill. Suit
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Court Approves Tellium Suit Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BODISEN BIOTECH: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
JABIL CIRCUIT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lockridge Grindal Files Stock Suit in Calif.
NATURAL HEALTH: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Appeal Dismissal of Ohio ERISA Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a suit alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by American Electric Power filed a notice to
appeal the denial of class certification to the suit by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class action lawsuits were filed against AEP,
certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.

Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American
Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V.
Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the Court entered judgment denying plaintiff's
motion for class certification and dismissing all claims without
prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Briefing of this
appeal is scheduled for completion in December 2006.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.  
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull and Brody, 6 East 45th  
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, E-
         mail: ssbny@aol.com;  

     (2) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott, 471  
         East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,  
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and

     (3) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal  
         Reserve Building, 150 E Fourth Street, 4th Floor,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, E-mail:
         jjbraun@strausstroy.com.   

Representing the defendants are Michael J. Chepiga, Charlie L.  
Divine, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Issa Mikel and George S. Wang of  
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York,  
NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502, Web site:  
http://www.stblaw.com/.


APOLLO GROUP: Stock Suit by Schoengold Assigned Judge, Case No.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed by the law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman &
Lometti, P.C. against Apollo Group on behalf of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds is
assigned to District Judge Robert C. Broomfield (Case No. 06-
2674-PHX-RCB).

On Nov. 2, filed a class action against Apollo Group Inc. and
certain key officers and/or directors in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

Since the filing, Apollo has announced that a restatement of its
historical financial statements will be certain "to record
additional charges for compensation expenses" relating to its
stock options granting practices.

On Oct.18, the company announced a restatement could be
"possible."  In addition, the company also announced that its
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Kenda B. Gonzales has
resigned and Chief Accounting Officer Dan Bachus has been placed
on "administrative leave."  Both Ms. Gonzales an M. Bachus are
named as individual defendants in the complaint.  

At its recent Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the company said it expects to restate
financial results at least as far back as 2001 and that it may
face "significant" tax liability.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension and
Welfare Funds  have brought the current lawsuit on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities
during the period between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.  

The deadline to seek lead plaintiff status in thw case expires
Jan. 2, 2007.


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: $8M Settlement Money to Be Disbursed to Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly $8 million in settlement checks are being distributed
this month to descendants of victims of the Armenian genocide as
part of a $20 million global settlement with New York Life
Insurance Co. in New York, according to BestWire Services.

The suit is "Martin Marootian, et al. v. New York Life Insurance
Company, Case No. C99-12073 CAS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The class action alleged the company owed unpaid life insurance
benefits to the class.  In February 2004, a $20 million
settlement was approved to settle the case.  The settlement
board reviewed claims and verified 2,515 that could be traced
legitimately to policies sold by New York Life.

The settlement includes:

     -- Claim fund: $11 million to pay class representatives and
        pay the individual class claims;

     -- The Unclaimed Benefits Fund of $3 million for
        contributions to Armenian charitable organizations;

     -- Administrative Fund: $2 million toward the cost of
        administering the settlement;

     -- Attorney Fee Fund: $4 million to class counsel as
        attorney fees and costs.

U.S. descendents will collect $2.6 million of the settlement
proceeds, while descendents living in Armenia will receive $3.4
million. The remaining $2 million will be distributed among
descendents living in 24 other countries, according to the
report.

Settlement Administrator  Marootian v. New York Class Action
                          Settlement
                          P.O. Box 5053
                          Portland, Oregon 97208-5053

Class Counsels:           Vartkes Yeghiayan, Esq.
                          Law Offices of Vartkes Yeghiayan
                          535 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale,
                          California 91203

New York Life's Counsel   John C. Holmes, Esq., Barger & Wolen
                          LLP, 633 West Fifth St., 47th Floor,
                          Los Angeles California 90071

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


AT&T INC: Calif. Court Allows Wiretapping Lawsuit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California allowed a class action to proceed against
AT&T Inc. and other telecommunications carriers accused of
unlawfully providing assistance to the National Security
Agency's wiretapping program, The Jurist reports.  A motion to
dismiss the case is on appeal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals.

On July 31, the U.S. government petitioned the court for
permission to appeal the district court's order denying the
government's motion to dismiss the action.  It said that the
case warrants an immediate appeal because the district court
has, in a highly unusual action, overruled the government's
assertion of the state secrets privilege, and has thereby placed
at risk particularly sensitive national security interests.

The question is presented for appeal is whether the district
court erred in rejecting an assertion of the state secrets
privilege by the director of National Intelligence, and
therefore in denying the government's motion to dismiss this
action.

                        Case Background  

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T and its holding company, AT&T Inc.,
are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a massive
warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks the
domestic and foreign communications and communication records of
millions of Americans.  

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that   
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:  

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution   
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by   
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or   
        using plaintiffs' communications;  

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence  
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by   
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of   
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;  

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control   
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101   
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act   
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and   
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using   
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;  

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of  
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized   
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'   
        communications;  

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored   
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)   
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of   
        plaintiffs' communications;  

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended   
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18   
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records   
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental   
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal   
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,   
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.  

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.  

Since the filing of this complaint, 20 additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.   

All 21 pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court, namely the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California, before the judge
presiding over the Hepting case.   The case is consolidated as:
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records
Litigation, MDL-1791."

To date, a small number of plaintiffs have objected to this
consolidation and their objections are pending before the joint
panel on multidistrict litigation.

Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. and two of its affiliates
moved the panel, pursuant to section 1407 of the U.S. Judicial
Code, for an order centralizing the MDL-1791 actions in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.   

In one of these 21 cases, "Terkel v. AT&T Corp. and Illinois  
Bell," (filed with the U.S. District Court in the Northern  
District of Illinois), a purported class action filed on behalf
of defendants' Illinois customers, the court, on July 25, 2006,
dismissed the case, acknowledging that the U.S. government's
state secrets privilege prohibited the plaintiffs' case from
proceeding.  

The Terkel case involved allegations that the defendants
supplied the U.S. government with calling records data in
violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act but did
not allege interception of communications.

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.
Walker.  Representing the plaintiffs are:         

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454   
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-  
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:   
         cindy@eff.org; and   

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman   
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San   
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-   
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.        

Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.        
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont        
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:        
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:        
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and        
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.   


CALIFORNIA: Judge Wanger Hears Suit by Homeless Fresno Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Oliver Wanger of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California is hearing arguments in a class-action
complaint over the alleged illegal confiscation and destruction
of personal property of homeless people in Fresno, The Fresno
Bee reports.

Judge Wanger issued a temporary order in October requiring
Fresno to keep personal belongings so homeless residents can
reclaim them when homeless settlements are torn down.

In October, Fresno was named as a defendant in a lawsuit over
allegations that work crews illegally confiscated and destroyed
their personal property when they tore down makeshift
settlements this year (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

The suit, "Kincaid, et al. v. City Of Fresno, et al.," was filed
on behalf six homeless Fresno residents who claim that their
civil rights were violated.

It seeks a permanent ban on the removal of personal belongings
during similar city actions, a judgment that the practice
violates state and federal constitutional provisions and
unspecified monetary damages for destruction of property.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is one
of two organizations that filed the suit on Oct. 17, 2006.  The
other is the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit are:

      -- California Department of Transportation,
      -- Fresno Mayor Alan Autry,
      -- Police Chief Jerry Dyer,
      -- Police Capt. Greg Garner,
      -- Caltrans director Will Kempton, and
      -- other city employees.

According to the suit, "for more than a year, defendants have
engaged in an ongoing and continuing policy and practice of
raids on those Fresno residents who are unsheltered, in which
they take and destroy the personal property of these
individuals."

The suit claims that the city violated the homeless residents'
Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure,
their 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection
under the law, and similar violations of the state constitution.

Attorneys for the homeless said that property was seized without
giving those residents a chance to reclaim it and the city
rarely gave notice that it was coming.

The hearing will conclude on Nov. 22, and Judge Wanger has
indicated that he will issue a ruling that same day, according
to the report.

The suit is "Kincaid, et al. v. City Of Fresno, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01445-OWW-SMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger with
referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder.

Representing the plaintiff is Paul Alexander of Heller Ehrman,
LLP, 275 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506, Phone:
(650) 324-7000 or 7015, Fax: (650) 324-0638, E-mail:
paul.alexander@hellerehrman.com.  

Representing the defendants are James B. Betts of Betts &
Wright, P.O. Box 28550, Fresno, Ca 93729, Phone: (559) 438-8500,
Fax: (559) 438-6959, E-mail: bettswrightlaw@sbcglobal.net.


CALIFORNIA: Ventura County Seeks Review of Strip Search Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing Ventura County in a civil case challenging
its strip search policy have filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court for review of the ruling by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that finds the policy
unconstitutional, The Ventura County Star reports.  

The lawyers contends that the jail's strip-search policy is
modeled on state laws and three Ninth Circuit decisions.  It is
also asking the Supreme Court to strike down the appeals court's
decision.  The justices set a case conference for Nov. 21.

The suit was brought on behalf of Noelle Way, former bartender,
who was arrested by a Ventura police officer in September 2000
on suspicions of being under the influence of a controlled
substance, a misdemeanor.  

The officer took her to Ventura County Jail, where she went
through the booking process, which, following jail security
policy, included a strip search (Class Action Reporter, July 28,
2006).  

Ms. Way tested negative for drugs, bailed out of jail and was
never charged.  In 2001, she sued the county over the strip
search policy in a class action, "Noelle Way v. Ventura County,
et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E."

Subsequently, a U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California ruled that a "blanket strip search" policy violated
Ms. Way's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and
seizure.  The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco upheld that
decision in a 16-page ruling in April.

The suit is "Noelle Way v. Ventura County, et al., Case No.
2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall
with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs is Earnest C.S. Bell, Earnest C.S.
Bell Law Offices, 3897 Market St., Ventura, CA 93003, Phone:
805-650-5458, Fax: 805-650-3778.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey Held and Alan E.
Wisotsky of Alan E. Wisotsky Law Offices, 300 Esplanade Dr.,
Ste. 1500, Oxnard, CA 93036, Phone: 805-278-0920, Fax: 805-278-
0289.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Suits Over Intel-Gathering Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership and a number of other telecommunications
companies is a defendant in a consolidated class action
concerning alleged participation in intelligence-gathering
activities.

These activities are allegedly carried out by the federal
government, at the direction of the U.S. President, as part of
the government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist
attacks.

Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon Wireless has
participated by permitting the government to gain access to the
content of its subscribers' telephone calls and/or records
concerning those calls and that such action violates federal
and/or state constitutional and statutory law.

On Aug. 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  

The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along"
actions also be transferred to the Northern District of
California.

That court entered an administrative stay of all proceedings
before it on Sept. 1, 2006, pending issuance of a consolidated
case management order.  Motions to set a case management order
are pending before the court.  Verizon Wireless has not answered
or otherwise responded to any of the complaints.  

Bedminster, New Jersey-based Cellco Partnership, --
http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- which does business as  
Verizon Wireless, serves nearly 55 million customers nationwide
and offers mobile voice services, including push-to-talk walkie-
talkie style service.  Other service offerings include text and
picture messaging, multimedia content, and mobile Web services.


CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Groups Get Money From Circulation Fraud Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal aid and other charitable groups are set to receive $4.9
million from the settlement of a circulation fraud scandal class
action that advertisers filed against The Chicago Sun-Times in
2004.

According to court officlas, Chicago Sun-Times officials agreed
to pay $32 million to settle claims that the newspaper had
inflated circulation figures and, as a result, overcharged
advertisers.

To compensate advertisers who paid for inflated circulation, The
Chicago Sun-Times has paid out most of the $24.5 million in cash
and $7.3 million in free or discounted ads.  

However, not all of the money could be distributed to the class
members, leaving the court with discretion as to how best to use
the money.

Thus, on Nov. 15, 2006, Judge Bernetta Bush of the Cook County
Circuit Court approved a deal that pays $2 million each to the
Chicago Bar Foundation and the Abraham Lincoln Marovitz Lend-a-
Hand Program and lesser amounts to eight other groups.

Others receiving grants ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 each
include legal programs conducted by DePaul and Loyola
Universities; research at Children's Memorial Hospital; and the
Teach For America program.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Wechsler Harwood Files Shareholders' Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, announces that a class action has been
commenced in a Texas state court on behalf of all shareholders
of Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

The complaint charges Clear Channel and its directors with
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with taking Clear
Channel private to the detriment of its shareholders and the
benefit of insiders, especially members of the Mays family, its
dominant shareholders and board members.

The plaintiff seeks an injunction against the going private
transaction, or, should the transaction be completed, damages on
behalf of Clear Channel's shareholders.  

For more details, contact Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler Harwood
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Phone: 877-
935-7400, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.


DELAWARE: Judge Mulls Alleged "Double Dipping" By State Lawmaker
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of Delaware recently heard a
purported class action over dual-employment public employees,
The Associated Press reports.

Newark resident Robert Reeder filed the suit, alleging that
state Rep. Nancy Wagner, R-Dover, has billed the Capital School
District, where she is a school-to-work coordinator, for time
spent on legislative duties.

Specifically, Mr. Reeder alleges that Rep. Wagner has engaged in
illegal "double dipping," being paid by the school district and
the legislature for the same work hours.  

Mr. Reeder's complaint cites four specific instances in which he
said Rep. Wagner billed the district for planning periods that
she actually spent attending legislative committee meetings, for
which she was compensated as a member of the General Assembly.

The case was filed as a class action based on the advice of a
court employee, according to Mr. Reeder, who is representing
himself.  

Mr. Reeder also pointed out that he filed the lawsuit only after
the attorney general's office, responding to his request for
clarification of a 1995 opinion on dual-employment public
employees, said it would not disclose whether legal action is
warranted based on a citizen's complaint.

The initial complaint asked the court to order Rep. Wagner to
return any money she received improperly to the state treasury.
Conceding that he may not have the standing to demand such
relief, Mr. Reeder asked the court for a summary judgment on the
impropriety of Rep. Wagner's alleged actions.

However, in asking Judge Richard Cooch to dismiss the complaint,
attorney John Brady argued that Mr. Reeder has no standing to
bring a lawsuit.


DELL INC: Keller Rohrback to File Amended 401(k) Complaint Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback, LLP is broadening its investigation of Dell
Inc. in light of the company's recent announcement that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced a formal
investigation into certain accounting and financial reporting
matters at Dell.

In August, the company had disclosed it was the subject of an
informal SEC investigation for unspecified accounting issues.

Additionally, Keller Rohrback said that it would file an amended
complaint on January 31, 2007, pursuant to a court order signed
on November 16, 2006.  

On Oct. 4, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
against Dell and various defendants on behalf of the
participants and beneficiaries of the Dell Inc. 401(k) Plan.

The complaint alleges that Dell and the various defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by:

      -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
         assets;

      -- failing to provide participants with complete, accurate
         and material information concerning the problems with
         Dell's business and financial condition necessary for
         Participants to make informed decisions concerning the
         prudence of directing the Plan to invest in the Dell
         stock fund; and

      -- failing to appoint and monitor the performance of the
         other fiduciaries.

For more information on the case, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Erin
Riley, Derek Loeser or Lynn Sarko all of Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Phone: (800) 776-6044, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com,  
Website: http://www.erisafraud.com.


GENESIS MICROCHIP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the class
action, "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip, et al., Case No. 02-CV-
05344."

In November 2002, a putative securities class action was filed
against the company, former Chief Executive Officer Amnon  
Fisher, and former Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric Erdman.  
The suit was amended in July 2003 to include Executive Vice  
President Anders Frisk.   

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.  
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated  
thereunder against Genesis and individual defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.  

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

In July 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the case, with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, on March 2006, parties signed an agreement to settle
the case.  In August 2006, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.

The suit is "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc., et al., Case   
No. 3:02-cv-05344-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP, 300   
         Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,   
         Phone: 415/982-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776, E-mail:  
         waudet@alexanderlaw.com;  

     (2) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third   
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax:  
         212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com; and  

     (3) Ryan M. Hagan of Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152   
         North Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112,   
         Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax: 408-287-1776, E-mail:  
         rhagan@alexanderlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Nina F. Locker, Ignacio E.   
Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &   
Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:   
650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com,   
isalceda@wsgr.com and bnoor@wsgr.com.


GUND INC: Recalls Woodles Activity Toys for Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Gund Inc., of Edison, New Jersey, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 18,900
units of Baby Gund Woodles Activity Toys.

The company said the wooden rings on the stuffed toy could
break, posing a small parts choking hazard to young children.

Gund has received four reports from consumers about the wooden
rings on the toys breaking, including one report of a child
mouthing small pieces.  No injuries were reported.

The product is a baby activity toy available in various animal
shapes.  It consists of a soft, stuffed body with a rattle
component inside the body and two smooth wooden rings attached
to loops at the end of each arm.  The product is available in
four different styles:

     -- Rumba Lion Activity Toy with style number 58553;
     -- Gazoo Giraffe Activity Toy with style number 58554;
     -- Wango Horse Activity Toy with style number 58555; and
     -- Tippy Cow Activity Toy with style number 58556.

"Woodles" and the style number are located on the sewn-in label.

Pictures of the recalled Woodles activity toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07030b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07030a.jpg

These recalled "Woodles" activity toys were manufactured in
Vietnam and are being sold by independent specialty toy stores
nationwide and in Canada from June 2005 through April 2006 for
about $12.

Consumers are advised to stop using these toys immediately, and
contact Gund for a free replacement product.

For more information, call Gund at (800) 448 4863 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or e-mail:
woodles@gund.com.  Information about this recall also can be
found on the firm's Web site: http://www.gund.com.


H&R BLOCK: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois dismissed a class
action filed against H&R Block over allegations it unfairly
charged a fee for electronically filing customers' tax returns,
Ann Knef of The Madison County Record reports.

In a dismissal order dated Nov. 9, 2006, Judge Don Weber wrote,
"Caveat Emptor--Let the buyer beware."  He explains that each
plaintiff could have accepted the requirement of electronic
filing or rejected it.  

Judge Weber thus pointed out that as long as the fee was
disclosed and as long as it was not clearly unreasonable, there
can be no claim of deception or unfairness in the transaction.

Madison County resident Lori Marshall filed the suit in 2003,
claiming that she was "victimized" by the company's deceptive
practice because she placed her trust in H&R Block's superior
knowledge of tax preparation.

The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Freed & Weiss of Chicago and
Macey Chern & Diab of Chicago are representing Ms. Marshall in
the case.

According to the suit, the electronic filing fee ranged from $10
to more than $30.  It alleges that H&R Block fails to inform
customers that tax returns could be filed for free using an IRS
program, or for the mere price of a stamp.

Instead, the suit alleges that H&R Block deceptively sells this
free service under the guise that it is an exclusive and unique
service that it offers.  

It also alleges that the company likewise attempts to increase
profits by cramming charges for electronic filing fees onto the
bills of unsuspecting clients.

In essence, Ms. Marshall alleged the acts and omissions of H&R
Block constituted breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach
of fiduciary duty, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Act.

The suit had sought to rescind plaintiffs' contracts and to be
reimbursed from the profits and proceeds generated from the
charges.

For more details, contact The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans
Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison
Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


HONORE MERCIER: Families of C. Difficile Victims Mull Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honore Mercier Hospital in St. Hyacinthe in Canada could
face a class action by families of C. difficile victims.

According to The Gazette, at least three families have already
approached lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard, who specializes in medical
law, to possibly file a collective action for negligence that
led to death.

Twelve deaths have been reported after a total of 31 people
contracted the disease at the hospital, the report said.  The
families of the victims, however, still have to wait for a
coroner's report next spring to decide whether there are grounds
for a class action.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Ind. Court Orders Notices Publication in "Silke"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Superior Court for Marion County ordered the
publication of class notices for the suit, "Silke v. Irwin
Mortgage Corp.," which was filed against Irwin Mortgage Corp.,
formerly Inland Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin
Financial Corp.

The complaint, which named the company as a defendant in April
2003, alleges that the company charged a document preparation
fee in violation of Indiana law for services performed by
clerical personnel in completing legal documents related to
mortgage loans.  

The company filed an answer on Jun. 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on Oct. 27, 2003.  On Jun. 18, 2004, the court
certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana borrowers who
were allegedly charged the fee by the company at any time after
Apr. 14, 1997.  This date was later clarified by stipulation of
the parties to be Apr. 17, 1997.  

In November 2004, the court heard arguments on the company's
motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion seeking to
send out class notice.  On Feb. 23, 2006, the court ordered that
class notice be mailed.   

On Sept. 7, 2006, the court ordered one-time publication of
class notice in Indiana newspapers.  


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settles Md. Consumer Act Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action filed against subsidiaries of Irwin
Mortgage Corp. alleging violations of the Maryland Mortgage
Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act reached
agreement to settle the suit.

The suit is "White v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company and
Irwin Home Equity Corp.  It was filed on January 5, in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the parties tentatively agreed to settle this
matter for a nonmaterial amount.


KENTUCKY: Deadline Set to Name Micro-City Suit Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman on Nov. 17 gave
plaintiff attorneys in a class action over sexual abuses by a
former youth program coordinator at the Lexington-Fayette Urban
County 30 days to name their representative, according to The
Herald-Leader.

Ron Berry, a founder of a youth jobs program called Micro-City
Government, was convicted of sodomy charges in 2000.  The suit
was filed in 1998.  It accuses the city and several former city
officials of ignoring abuses by Mr. Berry, and continuing to
fund the now-defunct program despite it.

Lawyers vying to become lead lawyer for more than 100 alleged
victims are Barbara Bonar of Covington and Lexington attorneys
William Huffman, James Morris of Morris & Morris and Gayle
Slaughter.  

Judge Bertelsman gave them nine months to begin finding
information about the victims that would support a certification
of the suit as a class action.


NEWMONT MINING: Parties Settle Colo. Consolidated Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached for a consolidated securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado against Newmont Mining Corp., according to its Nov.
1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 & Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action against the company
and Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and Bruce D. Hansen.  Zoe
Myerson filed similar purported class actions in the same court
on June 15, 2005; John S. Chapman filed his on June 20, 2005.  

Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the
company and the individual defendants violated certain antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
alleged operating deficiencies.  The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  

In November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in
March 2006, appointed a lead plaintiff.  

In April 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and
Robert Gallagher as additional defendants.  

It alleged, among other things, that Newmont and the individual
defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating
deficiencies and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On Oct. 20, 2006, lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from
Nov. 1, 2003, through and including March 23, 2006 (except
defendants and certain related persons), entered into a
stipulation of settlement with defendants.

If approved by the court, the settlement:

      -- would release all claims asserted, or that could have
         been asserted in the action;

      -- would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 million
         to be distributed to class members pursuant to a plan
         of allocation developed by lead plaintiff; and

      -- would provide that all defendants deny any wrongdoing
         or liability with respect to the settled matters.

The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension
Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046-
MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger with referral to Judge
Boyd N. Boland.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Darby K. Kennedy and Kip Brian
Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO
80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-
mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com and KShuman@DyerShuman.com.

Representing the defendants are, Pamela Robillard Mackey and Lee
David Foreman of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
Foreman, PC, 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-831-7364, Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail:
pmackey@hmflaw.com and lforeman@hmflaw.com.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Butland"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Second District Court of Appeals denied class-action
status for the purported class action, "Mark and Christine
Butland et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al."

The company, a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., was a named as
defendant in the case, which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida on March 1999.  The suit
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The court ruled in early April 2002, certifying the class action
against Orkin.  Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida Second
District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the
trial court for further findings.

In December 2004 the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  Orkin appealed this new ruling to the Florida
Second District Court of Appeals.  

In June 2006, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals
issued a ruling denying certification of the class.   Plaintiffs
have moved for a rehearing from the Florida Second District
Court of Appeals, which Orkin has opposed, according to its Oct.
31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com-- is an industry leader in  
essential pest control services and protection against termite
damage, rodents and insects in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Panama
and Costa Rica.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Fla., Ga. Personal Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co. remains a defendant in lawsuits that
allege the company, damaged plaintiffs as a result of its
services.

Some lawsuits or arbitrations have been filed, including,
"Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v. Orkin
Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.," and "Francis D. Petsch, et al.
v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al.," in which the
plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class.  The cases
originate in Georgia and Florida.

In Warren, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia,
ruled in August 2006, certifying the class action against Orkin.
Orkin is appealing this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals,
according to its Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com-- is an industry leader in  
essential pest control services and protection against termite
damage, rodents and insects in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Panama
and Costa Rica.


PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Counties Join Negligence Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Other counties are joining Santa Clara County in a class action
filed against paint companies in California for causing and
concealing health hazards of lead-containing paint, the RedNova
reports.

The suit was filed by Santa Clara county in Superior Court in
2000.  It alleges that several manufacturers and the Lead
Industries Association promoted the sale of lead-based paint for
decades while disregarding the health risks to children.  The
suit alleges a public nuisance, liability, fraud and negligence,
and demands the companies remove paint from buildings and pay
restitution.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Alameda, Solano and Santa Cruz
counties, the city and county of San Francisco and the city of
Oakland, along with their unified school districts, housing
authorities and Oakland's redevelopment agency.  Recently,
Monterey and San Mateo counties joined the suit.

Defendants in the case include:

     -- Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO),
     -- NL Industries Inc.,
     -- American Cyanamid Co.,
     -- ConAgra Grocery Products Cos.,
     -- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont),
     -- Millenium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.,
     -- The Sherwin-Williams Company and O'Brien Corporation

In 2003, the Santa Clara County Superior Judge Jack Komar
dismissed the suit saying that the public nuisance claim could
not be filed on a class action basis.  In March 2006, the
California 6th District Court of Appeals reinstated the suit.

Santa Clara County's complaint will be revised to include the
new plaintiffs and to conform to the parameters set by the
appeals court, said Bruce Simon, a Burlingame attorney at
Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy -- http://www.cpsmlaw.com/--  
who is assisting with the case.


PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Faces Rights Violation Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque, on
behalf of journalists, initiated a class action against the
Philippines' first gentleman, Mike Arroyo, the South China
Morning Post reports.

The suit claims Mr. Arroyo breached their rights under the civil
code, and will seek cash damages.

Professor Roque called the planned suit "unprecedented."  He
said they intended to make Mr. Arroyo "liable for damages" for
violating the Philippines Civil Code.

According to Prof. Roque, it is Article 32, in particular, that
makes "any public officer or employee, or any private
individual" liable for damages if he "directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs
any of the following rights and liberties of another person
including the freedom to write for the press or maintain a
periodical publication."

Prof. Roque, who prepared the petition, said all but one of the
43 journalists being sued for libel by Mr. Arroyo had agreed to
sign up to the lawsuit.

"When he sued the 43 journalists, it was Mr. Arroyo's intention
in fact to chill the freedom of the press," Professor Roque
said.

The high number of libel suits filed by Mr Arroyo showed "it is
not only an act directly against specific individuals but an act
directed to intimidate the entire profession," the report said.

Mr. Arroyo's lawyer, Ruy Rondain, dismissed the suit, saying, "I
can't imagine what course of action they might have against him
because he hasn't done anything that violates any of their
civil, political or criminal rights."

But the sued journalists said they were serious about standing
up for press freedom.  Mr. Roque said the 42 litigants would
publicly sign the petition and it would be filed next week.

Other journalists who have no pending libel cases against them
by Mr. Arroyo were also expected to sign up.

ABS-CBN journalist Ricky Carandang said he was signing up as "I
think Mr. Arroyo's actions have gone beyond that of an aggrieved
person seeking redress and they are trying to redefine libel."

He was then business editor at Newsbreak when it printed an
article alleging the first family hid assets in the United
States.

Newsbreak editor-in-chief Marites Vitug confirmed she and six
other staff members of the investigative news magazine who have
pending libel suits would join in, according to the report.

"We really want to make a statement that the first gentleman is
using libel not reasonably but to stop reporting about him," she
said.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Annuities Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Principal Financial
Group, Inc., Principal Life Insurance Co. and Principal
Financial Services, Inc., dismissed their case without
prejudice.

The lawsuit, "Dykes et al v. Principal Life Insurance Company,
et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00599-RP-TJS," was filed against the
defendants on Oct. 28, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.  

The claims and allegations in the lawsuit were substantially the
same as those of the class action, "Sofonia v. Principal Life
Insurance Company et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00040-RP-TJS."

Filed on Dec. 23, 2004, "Sofonia" was filed in Iowa state court
against the defendants on behalf of a proposed class comprised
of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices
class action settlement, which was approved in April 2001 by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

"Sofonia" claims that the treatment of the settlement costs of
that sales practices litigation in relation to the allocation of
demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders
was inappropriate.  

Demutualization allocation was done pursuant to the terms of a
plan of demutualization approved by the policyholders in July
2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Iowa in August
2001.

In "Dykes" though the proposed class was limited to those
members of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales
practices class action settlement who did not own annuities and
who received demutualization consideration in the form of cash
under the plan of demutualization.
  
However, on March 17, 2006, plaintiff dismissed the case without
prejudice, according to its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Dykes et al v. Principal Life Insurance Company, et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00599-RP-TJS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W.
Pratt with referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs is E. Ralph Walker of Baudino Law
Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA 50312,
Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 282 1066, E-mail: walker@baudino.com.

Representing the defendants is Carl Micarelli of Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212
909 6000, Fax: 212 909 6836, E-mail: cmicarelli@debevoise.com.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Eighth Circuit Affirms Nixing of "Sofonia"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa of the sales practices class action filed against
Principal Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal
Financial Services, Inc.

On Dec. 23, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in Iowa state court
against the defendants on behalf of a proposed class comprised
of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices
class action settlement, which was approved in April 2001 by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The suit, "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company, et al.,"
claims that the treatment of the settlement costs of that sales
practices litigation in relation to the allocation of
demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders
was inappropriate.  

Demutualization allocation was done pursuant to the terms of a
plan of demutualization approved by the policyholders in July
2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Iowa in August
2001.

The lawsuit further claims that such allocation was not
accurately described to policyholders during the demutualization
process and is a breach of the sales practices settlement.  

On Jan. 27, 2005, the Company filed a notice to remove the
action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.  

On Jul. 22, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to
state court was denied, and the company's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit was granted.

On Sept. 21, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
judgment was denied.  On Oct. 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

Oral argument was held on April 20, 2006.  On Oct. 20, 2006, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the company's motion to dismiss,
according to its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company et al.,
Case No. 4:05-cv-00040-RP-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt.  

Representing the plaintiffs is David J. Darrell of the Baudino
Law Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA
50312, Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 515 282 1066, E-mail:
darrell@baudino.com.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Brian L. Campbell of Faegre & Benson - DM, 801 Grand
         Avenue, Suite 3100, Des Moines, IA 50309-8002, Phone:
         515 248 9000, Fax: 515 248 9010, E-mail:
         bcampbell@faegre.com; and

     (2) Carl Micarelli of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 909 6000, Fax:
         212 909 6836, E-mail: cmicarelli@debevoise.com.


PUBLIX SUPER: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Benzene in Soda Drinks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets, Inc., faces a purported class action in
Tallahassee, Florida, claiming that two of its store-brand sodas
contain unsafe levels of the carcinogen benzene, according to
Kyle Kennedy of The Ledger.

Lisbeth Gordon filed the suit on Nov. 16, 2006.  She states in
the suit that she is a regular shopper at Publix and often
purchases Publix Diet Lemon-Lime and Publix Grape sodas.

According to Tim Howard, Ms. Gordon's attorney, independent
testing has verified unsafe levels of benzene in the two
aforementioned store-brand sodas and other beverages carried by
Lakeland-based Publix.

In addition, Mr. Howard states in the complaint that further
independent testing has revealed unsafe benzene levels in
numerous beverages sold by Publix, including Pepsi Diet Wild
Cherry, Tropicana Orangeade, Sunny Delight Citrus Punch, Shasta
Orange, and the two Publix-brand sodas.  

Mr. Howard pointed out that his client has not yet suffered any
health problems from consuming the Publix-brand sodas.

The suit is seeking damages from Publix for breach of warranty,
deceptive trade practices and is calling for an injunction
against the sale of the beverages until they have been
reformulated.  

Benzene is found in the air in emissions from burning coal and
oil, gas stations, and vehicle exhaust, according to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).  The cancer-causing chemical,
also used in industrial production to make plastics and
detergents, has been linked to leukemia.

The chemical can form in soft drinks made with Vitamin C and
sodium or potassium benzoate.  It's formation can also be
stimulated by way of elevated temperatures and light, which
means that not all cans of a particular brand of soda might
contain the chemical.

The FDA said it received private laboratory results in November
2005 reporting low levels of benzene in a small number of soft
drinks.  

Subsequent testing by the agency of more than 100 beverages
found four products that had benzene levels exceeding 5 parts
per billion (ppb), the maximum limit allowed to meet
Environmental Protection Agency quality standards for drinking
water.

For more details, contact Timothy Howard of Howard & Associates,
P.A., Tallahassee, FL, Phone: (850) 298-4455, Fax: (850) 216-
2537.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Court Affirms Insurance Entitlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that Samsung Electronics is
entitled to defense coverage for class actions based upon the
alleged harm caused by electromagnetic fields, or EMFs, The
Insurance Journal reports citing the company's lawyer.

The coverage action involves general liability policies that
provide defense coverage for claims that seek "damages" because
of "bodily injury."

The court ruled in four of five class actions that a member of
the Chubb Insurance Group must pay plaintiffs costs in defending
the suits.  The decisions were handed down on Aug. 21 and Oct.
18.  

A trial court earlier agreed with Chubb in ruling that the class
actions do not assert claims for damages due to diagnosed
injuries, but rather seek monetary and other relief based upon
allegations that EMFs from cell phones cause "biological injury"
to users.  However, the appeals court reversed the ruling,
saying that in four of the lawsuits the claims were premised
upon alleged bodily injury and therefore trigger the defense
obligation.

The suit is "Electronics America Inc., et al. v. Federal
Insurance Company, Case No. (05-04-01316-CV)."  It is also filed
against several other telephone manufacturers and service
providers.

The fifth suit was brought under a consumer protection statute
and contains atypical allegations, according to the report.  

Representing Samsung is Anderson Kill & Olick P.C. and the
Potter Minton law firm.


SCOTT ELECTRIC: Recalls Fake Circuit Breakers Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Electric Co. Inc., of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 30,000 units of counterfeit "Square D" circuit
breakers.

The recalled circuit breakers labeled "Square D" are counterfeit
and might not trip when they are overloaded, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

Scott Electric Co. is not aware of any incidents or injuries
associated with these counterfeit circuit breakers.

The counterfeit circuit breakers include Square D QO-series
models 115, 120, 130, 160, 215, 230, 260, 1515, and 1520.  
Actual Square D circuit breakers have:

      -- the amp rating written on the handle in white paint on
         the front of the breaker;

      -- on the side of the breaker, where wire terminal screw
         is located, the arc shoot opening should have squared
         corners with the bottom edge of the opening angled up;

      -- the mounting clip should be yellow chromate with half
         of the top of the clip visible; and

      -- the Square D insignia should be molded onto the
         breaker.

If your Square D breaker does not match this description, it
could be counterfeit.

Picture of recalled counterfeit circuit breaker:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07036.jpg

These counterfeit circuit breakers were manufactured in China
and are being sold through Scott Electric Co. distributor
locations throughout Pennsylvania and Texas from May 2005
through May 2006 for between $4 and $25.

Consumers are advised to contact Scott Electric Co. to arrange
for a free inspection and if necessary, replacement or refund.

To arrange for a free inspection or for additional information,
contact Scott Electric toll-free at (877) 222-0473 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or log on to
http://www.scottelectricusa.com- consumers and contractors can  
also obtain additional information by E-mail:
tdiorio@scottelectricusa.com.


THQ INC: Faces Litigation Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit has been commenced against certain members of the board
of directors and certain executive officers of THQ Inc.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director
stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock options).

Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and
directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the
company's internal documents (such as the company's stock option
plan), as well as state laws governing officer and director
fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and
taxation.

In addition, the practice results in lower payments to
companies, results in those companies under-reporting
compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or
executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of
dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate
coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the
company.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-
337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Website:
http://www.ssbny.com.


TOWN SPORTS: Mediation ongoing in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, has agreed to mediate a purported class action
alleging violations of various overtime provisions of the New
York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers.  

The suit, "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International,
Inc.," was filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County.  The plaintiffs are Sarah
Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell of Forest
Hills, New York.

Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime
because the company deliberately misclassified them as managers.  

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class-
action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve
hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at
65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York
City and on Long Island.

The suit covers the past six years.  It states that Ms. Cruz,
30, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked
13-hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr.
Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since 2002,
has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.

The lawsuit is stayed upon agreement of the parties pending
mediation.  Plaintiffs recently submitted to the company a
proposed second amended complaint, which seeks to add to the
class, all New York hourly employees.  Town Sports agreed to
mediate with respect to such employees.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLUB) --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an owner and operator of  
fitness clubs in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the
U.S.  It owns and operates fitness clubs in Switzerland.  


WINDOW BLINDS CASES: Big Lots Requests Dismissal from Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots Stores has filed a motion to be dismissed from a class
action filed against window blinds manufacturers in Madison
County, Illinois, The Madison County Record reports.

Attorneys for the company wrote that because of unreasonable
delay by plaintiffs to serve the company with the complaint, it
should be dismissed from the case.  The lawsuit was filed on
Feb. 18, 2005, but Big Lots was served with it only on Aug. 20,
2006.

Earlier, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. also filed the same application
for the same reason.  Other defendants asked Circuit Judge Andy
Matoesian to dismiss the suit against them for lack of personal
jurisdiction (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 1, 2006).

Plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Lowe of Clayton, who filed the
complaint last year, said in an Oct. 6 response, that Illinois
is the proper jurisdiction for the case because the defendants -
- manufacturers, distributors and retailers -- engaged in a
nationwide conspiracy.  He said the suit is a case of specific
jurisdiction.

There are 60 defendants in the suit, and the court's refusal to
hear the suit in Illinois would require the same lawsuit to be
litigated in numerous forums, he said.

Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court has not
set a hearing on the motions.

Ronald Alsup of Edwardsville and Robert Crews of Granite City
filed the suit against at least 60 manufacturers, distributors
and retailers.  

They allege that retailers conspired to conceal a risk that
dangling cords could strangle people.  Thus their suit seeks to
represent "hundreds of millions" of window blind buyers.  

Plaintiffs claim no personal injury, however they seek damages
equal to the difference between what they paid for window blinds
and what they would have paid if they had known the risk.

For more information, contact Jeffrey C. Lowe, Associate at
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 71 S. Wacker, Chicago, Illinois
60606-4637 (Cook Co.), Phone: 202-263-3821, Fax: 312-701-7711
Telex: 190404.

Big Lots attorney is Charles L. Joley of Donovan, Rose, Nester &
Joley, P.C., 8 East Washington Street, Belleville, Illinois
62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-235-2020, Telecopier: 618-235-
9632.


ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Court Approves Tellium Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
final approval to the suit "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003,
numerous class action securities complaints were filed against  
Tellium.  

On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing
all of the actions was filed.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Tellium and its then-current directors and
executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements
or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating
to the securities offered in the initial public offering.  

The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the  
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or
intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or
omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock.  

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including
compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law
or equity.  

On Mar. 31, 2004, the court granted Tellium's and the
underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint.  On May 14,  
2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended
complaint.  

On Jun. 25, 2004, the company, as Tellium's successor-in-
interest, and the underwriters again moved to dismiss the
complaint.   

On Jun. 30, 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
but denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that portion of the
court's Jun. 30, 2005 decision dismissing their claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On Aug. 26, 2005, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  The case
proceeded to discovery.  

On or about March 10, 2006, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case.  The court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement on or about May 30, 2006.  
Notice of the proposed settlement is being sent to the affected
stockholders to determine whether those stockholders wish to
participate in or object to the proposed settlement.

The court provided its final approval of the settlement and
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in an order and final
judgment dated September 7, 2006.

The suit is "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with
referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert J. Berg of Bernstein  
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort  
Lee, NJ 07024, Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com.   

Representing the defendants is Joseph T. Boccassini of Mccarter  
& English, LLP, Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street,  
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070, E-
mail: jboccassini@mccarter.com.    


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BODISEN BIOTECH: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 15, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Bodisen Biotech, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Aug. 26, 2005 through Nov. 14, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later that Jan. 15,
2007, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

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


JABIL CIRCUIT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, filed a class action on Nov. 17,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Jabil Circuit, Inc.
between Sept. 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed
against Jabil and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b), 78n(a), and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
as well as 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Jabil and certain
officers and directors manipulated the prices of stock option
grants and made materially false and misleading statements and
or omitted material facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading.

The practice of backdating its stock options caused the company
to understate its compensation expense and thereby overstated
its reported earnings.  When the truth about the company's stock
options backdating emerged publicly, Jabil's stock declined as a
result.

Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than
Nov. 20, 2006.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of The Law
Firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476,
Web site: http://www.labaton.com.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lockridge Grindal Files Stock Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the publicly traded common stock of Marvell between
Feb. 24, 2005 and Oct. 2, 2006.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results, thus causing Marvell's publicly traded common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's financial status, business, and prospects.

Specifically, defendants are alleged to have failed to disclose:

      -- that the actual date of significant stock option grants
         to company executives were purposely concealed by the
         company;

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principles;

      -- that the company failed to have in place the personnel
         and controls necessary to issue accurate financial
         reports and projections; and

      -- that, as a result, the company's financial results were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On Oct. 2, 2006, after the close of trading, Marvell filed a
Form 8-K with the SEC which set forth the conclusion of its
special committee that Marvell's financial statements and all
earning press releases and similar communications issued by the
company relating to periods beginning on or after its initial
public offering in June 2000 should no longer be relied on.

The company announced that it would restate historical financial
statements to record additional non-cash charges for stock-based
compensation expense related to certain past option grants.

On Oct. 3, 2006, based in substantial part on these revelations,
Marvell stock plummeted, closing at $16.80 per share, a decline
of $2.29 per share or approximately 12%.

Also, during the class period, it is alleged that Marvell
insiders sold approximately 4 million artificially inflated
Marvell shares for proceeds of approximately $175 million.

Interested parties move the court no later than Dec. 5, 2006 to
for appointment as lead plaintiff for the case.

For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite
2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail:
khriebel@locklaw.com.


NATURAL HEALTH: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announces that shareholders of Natural
Health Trends Corp. common stock who purchased their shares
during the period from March 31, 2003 through Aug. 11, 2006, may
now move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud
class action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  No class has yet been certified
in this action.

The complaint alleges that Natural Health and certain of its
officers and directors violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements.

In particular, the complaint alleges that during the class
period defendants:

      -- reported revenues and earnings were artificially
         inflated due to phantom sales;

      -- failed to institute adequate internal controls and
         procedures;

      -- failed to disclose that earnings were significantly
         impacted from returns by its distributors; and

      -- defendants failed to disclose that the company's
         financial statements filed with the SEC were not
         prepared in accordance with GAAP.

When these adverse facts became know to investors, the price of
Natural Health shares declined precipitously.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100, or (cell phone) 504-301-7900, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.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  * * *