CAR_Public/061123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 233

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces ERISA Suits Over 1999 Restructuring
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ariz. Court Stays Proceedings in "Haritos"
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer," "You"
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Miscalculating Advisors' Fees
ARCHDIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA: Suit by Sex Abuse Victims Dismissed

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Certifies Mortgage Loan Fees Suit
BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Judge Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Asian Women Sue City of Oakland for Cop Harassment
CBCL INC: Lawsuit Against Owners of Great Falls Mill Dismissed

DE BEERS: "Null" Litigation in Ill. Transferred to JPMDL in N.J.
DOMINION BRIDGE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
DYNEGY INC: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Cases in California
DYNEGY INC: Settles Nevada Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation
ENESCO GROUP: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers for Laceration Hazard

HEALTH NET: N.J. Court Certifies Suit by Employer Group Plans
HEALTH NET: Tag-Along Actions in Managed Care Suit Dismissed
KENNETH COLE: Plaintiffs in Calif. Labor Suit Dismiss Complaints
KENNETH COLE: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Managers' Suit
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review of "Williams" by 11th Circuit

NEW YORK: Ulster County Continues to Face Discrimination Suit
OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio
PUTNAM GENERAL: Patients Accuse W.Va. Hospital of Negligence
REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Faces Private Mortgage Insurance Suit in S.C.
TARGET STORES: Recalls Toys Due to Lead, Laceration Hazards

VERIZON COMMS: Faces Suit Over Intelligence-Gathering Activities
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Suit Over May 2006 AGM Proposals Junked
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Del. High Court Mulls Injunction Appeal
XEROX CORP: Conn. Court OKs Start of Discovery in ERISA Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal

XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SFBC INTL: Bernstein Litowitz Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
XETHANOL CORP: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces ERISA Suits Over 1999 Restructuring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. is defending several lawsuits alleging
Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations in relation
to its agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  These
matters include:

     -- a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal
        Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging retaliation
        under federal civil rights laws (EEOC I); and

     -- a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee
        agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under
        the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of
        contract and ERISA violations (Romero I).  

In March 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that,
among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release
is voidable at the option of the release signer.  

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in
exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated that,
"on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims
of age discrimination."  

The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order.  The case otherwise remains
pending.  

The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in October 2004 alleging age
discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of
agents affected by the agency program reorganization (EEOC II).  

In EEOC II, in October 2006, the court granted partial summary
judgment to the EEOC.  Although the court did not determine that
AIC was liable for age discrimination under the ADEA, it
determined that the rehire policy resulted in a disparate
impact, reserving for trial the determination on whether AIC had
reasonable factors other than age to support the rehire policy.  

AIC is also defending a certified class action filed by former
employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the
agency program reorganization.  These plaintiffs have asserted
breach of contract and ERISA claims.

Former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA,
including a worker classification issue, have also filed a
putative nationwide class action.  

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent
independent contractors treated as employees for benefit
purposes.  This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial
court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was
reversed and remanded to the trial court in April 2005.  

In all of these various matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory
and punitive damages, and equitable relief.  AIC has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ariz. Court Stays Proceedings in "Haritos"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
joint stipulation to stay the purported class action filed
against American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.

The suit, now captioned "Haritos et al. v. American Express
Financial Advisors Inc.," was filed in November 2002 by
plaintiffs who purport to represent a class of all persons that
have purchased financial plans from the Company's advisors from
November 1997 through July 2004.  Plaintiffs allege that the
sale of the plans violates the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of
the investment advisor plans and restitution of monies paid for
such plans.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the court granted the parties joint stipulation
to stay the action pending the approval of the proposed
settlement in the putative class action "In re American Express
Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-
01773-DAB," according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Nov. 6,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Haritos, et al. v. American Express Financial
Advisors, Inc., Case No. 2:02-cv-02255-PGR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Paul G.
Rosenblatt.  

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert C. Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan,  
         Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 501,  
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 341-0400;

     (2) Barry Grant Reed, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Zimmerman  
         Reed PLLP, 14646 N Kierland Blvd, Ste 145 Scottsdale,  
         AZ 85254-2762, Phone: (480) 348-6400; and  

     (3) Jon E. Drucker, Moss Gropen, Law Offices of Jon E  
         Drucker, 8306 Wilshire Blvd, #638 Beverly Hills, CA  
         90211, Phone: (323) 931-6363.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr  
         LLP, 2445 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone:  
         (202) 663-6000;

    (ii) Robert S Stern, Esq, James P Maniscalco, Joseph T Hahn,  
         Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los  
         Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: (213) 892-5200;

   (iii) Peter K Vigeland, David W Bowker, Wilmer Cutler  
         Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave, 31st Floor,  
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8800; and

    (iv) William J Maledon, Esq, Jeffrey Bryan Molinar, Osborn  
         Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379,  
         Phone: (602) 640-9000.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer," "You"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two lawsuits making similar allegations as in the
soon to be settled consolidated securities class action, "In re
American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," moved to remand both cases pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
state court.  

The court's decision on the remand motion is pending.  The suits
in question are:

     -- "Beer v. American Express Company and American Express
        Financial Advisors," and

     -- "You v. American Express Company and American Express
        Financial Advisors."  

In October 2005, the company reached a comprehensive settlement
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004
called.  

The settlement, under which the company denies any liability,
includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class
members.  

The class members include individuals who purchased mutual funds
in the company's Preferred Provider Program, Select Group
Program, or any similar revenue sharing program, purchased
mutual funds sold under the American Express or AXP brand; or
purchased for a fee financial plans or advice from the company
between March 10, 1999 and through April 1, 2006.  

The settlement will be submitted to the court for approval,
according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities
Litigation (1:04-cv-01773-DAB)," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Deborah
A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael Robert Reese of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, E-mail:
mreese@milberg.com.
   
Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,  
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,  
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:  
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Miscalculating Advisors' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss a purported class action filed
against Ameriprise Financial, Inc., which accuses it of
miscalculating advisors' fees.

The lawsuit, "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," was filed in March 2006.  It has been
brought as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to
represent all of the company's advisors who sold shares of Real
Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships
between March 22, 2000 and March 2006.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary
damages as well as injunctive relief, alleging that the company
incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of
these products.

The company's motion to dismiss certain claims in the complaint
is pending, according to its Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral
to Judge Susan R. Nelson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Bryan L. Crawford, Samuel D.
Heins, Stacey L. Mills, Brian L. Williams of Heins Mills &
Olson, PLC, 80 S 8th St Ste 3550, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-
338-4605, Fax: 612-338-4692, E-mail: bwilliams@heinsmills.com,
sheins@heinsmills.com, smills@heinsmills.com,
magarian.edward@dorsey.com, bcrawford@heinsmills.com.

Representing the defendant is by Edward B. Magarian of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498,
Phone: 612-340-7873, Fax: 612-340-2807, E-mail:
magarian.edward@dorsey.com.


ARCHDIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA: Suit by Sex Abuse Victims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Legrome D. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit filed
against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in relation to sexual
abuses by its priests, the Philadelphia Daily News reports.

Archdiocese attorney C. Clark Hodgson Jr. had asked a federal
court to dismiss the lawsuit that alleges defendants violated
federal anti-racketeering laws by trying to cover up the alleged
priest abuse.  He said federal conspiracy and anti-racketeering
laws do not cover personal injury.

The suit was filed in June by 12 people claiming they had been
abused by various Catholic priests from 1956 to 1985.  
Plaintiffs claim their civil rights were violated and that the
priests named in the suit engaged in a "massive conspiracy to
cover up and effectively perpetuate" the abuses.  They are
seeking unspecified damages for "severe mental and physical
injuries" and class-action status for the lawsuit.

The suit names as defendants the archdiocese, Cardinals Justin
Rigali and Anthony Bevilacqua, and the estate of Cardinal John
Krol. Six plaintiffs have filed their suit in Philadelphia
Common Pleas court.

In a Nov. 19 ruling, Judge Davis said the plaintiffs failed to
show claims of injury to business or property as demanded by a
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act civil suit.  
They also failed to show that their injuries were "proximately
caused" by the alleged racketeering activity.

The suit is "Magnum et al. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02589-LDD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Legrome D. Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stewart j. Eisenberg at
Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck P.C., 1634
Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-546-6610, Fax:
215-546-0118, E-mail: Stewart@erlegal.com.

Representing the defendant is C. Clark Hodgson, Jr. at Stradley,
Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Sq. Phila., PA
19103-7098, Phone: 215-564-8000, Fax: 215-564-8120.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Certifies Mortgage Loan Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
certified a suit filed against Astoria Financial Corp., claiming
that the company's charging of attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees for mortgage loans
violate state laws.

In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a suit against
Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants.

The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that
in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans
made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB,
which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related
entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation
of:

     -- the federal Truth in Lending Act,
     -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
     -- the Fair Debt Collection Act, and
     -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act

The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part,
dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.  The
Court further determined that class certification would be
considered prior to considering summary judgment.

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Astoria Federal has denied the claims set
forth in the complaint.

The suit is "McAnaney et al v. Astoria Financial Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Joseph F.
Bianco with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) G. Oliver Koppell, 99 Park Avenue, Suite 800, New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: 212-368-0400, Fax: 212-973-9494, E-
         mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com; and

     (2) Joseph S. Tusa at Whalen & Tusa, P.C., 90 Park Avenue,
         New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-786-7377, Fax: 212-658-
         9685, E-mail: joseph@whalen-tusa.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Alfred W.J. Marks at Day, Berry & Howard, LLP, 875
         Third Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-829-3634, Fax: 212-829-3601, E-mail:
         awjmarks@dbh.com; and

     (2) Lisa Pepe Whittaker at Day Berry & Howard LLP, 875
         Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212-829-
         3600, Fax: 212-829-3601, E-mail: lpwhittaker@dbh.com.


BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bodisen Biotech, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging claims under the federal
securities law.

The suit, "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," was filed on Nov. 15, 2006 by Stephanie
Tabor, a purported shareholder of Bodisen Biotech.

In addition to the company, the complaint names as defendants
Karen Qiong Wang, Bo Chen, New York Global Group, Inc. and
Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei.  Ms. Wang is the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Chen is the President of the
Company.  

The complaint charges that Bodisen Biotech and certain of its
officers, along with Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei and his
company New York Global Group, Inc., (NYGG) violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
causing the issuance of materially false and misleading
information about the company's performance, business prospects,
and failing to disclose material relationships the company had
with Benjamin Wey and his related companies (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006).

The complaint alleges that on Nov. 12, 2006 the company issued a
press release that it received a letter from the AMEX "warning
that it is out of compliance with certain listing standards."

A later press release issued by the AP states that AMEX
"believes Bodisen made insufficient or inaccurate disclosure in
public filings on its relationship with, and payments to, New
York Global and its affiliates both prior to and subsequent to
its listing on the exchange."

The later press release also states that the AMEX "expressed
concern that Bodisen has internal control issues related to its
accounting and financial reporting obligations in the context of
this relationship with the company."

The complaint also asserts that the Nov. 12, 2006 announcement
followed numerous reports by nationally prominent journalists
that revealed the company had hired stock promoter Benjamin Wey,
an individual with prior securities violations that ultimately
led to fines and suspension of Mr. Wey's securities license.  

These news reports revealed that Mr. Wey, through his company
New York Global, issued analyst reports and other statements to
the investing public touting the company's stock without
disclosing that they were being paid by the company.  

News reports also indicate that during this time, millions of
shares of the company stock were sold by or through persons who
were affiliated with NYGG and its related entities.

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

The company understands that other purported shareholders may
have filed substantially similar lawsuits in the same court,
although it has not been able to confirm any additional filings.

The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing the plaintiffs is Phillip Kim, Esq., The Rosen Law
Firm, PA, Phone: 1-866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060 and (917) 797-
4425, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web
site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.

Representing the defendants is Judd Burstein of Burstein &
McPherson, L.L.P., 1790 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 974-2400, Fax: 212-974-2944, E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com.


BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Judge Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against
restaurant operator Brinker International, Inc. that was filed
San Diego County Superior Court.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the
suit, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect
to meal and rest breaks.  

The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was certified
as a class action in July 2006 by Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett.  

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the
company who are alleging violations of California law mandating
workers' meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19,
2006).

Discovery is under way and the company intends to vigorously
defend its position, according to its Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 27, 2006.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker -- http://www.brinker.com--  
owns, operates, develops, and franchises restaurants in the U.S.  
It operates restaurants under the names of Chili's Grill & Bar,
Romano's Macaroni Grill, Maggiano's Little Italy, On The Border
Mexican Grill & Cantina, and Corner Bakery Cafe restaurant
concepts.


CALIFORNIA: Asian Women Sue City of Oakland for Cop Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Oakland faces a purported federal class action that
was filed by five women of Asian descent who claim their civil
rights were violated when they were stopped and harassed by an
Oakland police officer.

Plaintiffs in the suit, who were not identified, claim that the
city should have done more to prevent former Officer Richard
Valerga from pulling them over for no reason, touching them
inappropriately and asking them personal questions.  The women
also claim that they were targeted because of their race.

According to the suit, Mr. Valerga, also named as a defendant,
would motion the women to sit in the front seat of his patrol
car -- where they felt they could not leave -- and then sexually
harass them.

Filed on Nov. 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, the suit claims that the
actions by Mr. Valerga "created fear, anxiety and uncertainty,"
and affected the women's safety and security as well as their
"right to move freely about the public streets."

In regards to the City of Oakland the suit also claims that it
"encouraged, authorized, condoned and/or acquiesced in sexual
harassment and other unlawful conduct by members of the Oakland
Police Department."

Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris and Berkeley lawyer
Jim Chanin filed the suit on behalf of the unnamed women.  They
said the conduct by Mr. Valerga, including improper touching,
"was outrageous" and accused the Oakland Police Department of
ignoring and even condoning his actions over a long period of
time.

Messrs. Burris and Chanin are hoping to have their case
certified as a class action so as other women who may have been
victimized by Mr. Valerga can join.

Oakland police hired Mr. Valerga in 1999.  He worked as a swing
shift patrol officer in the neighborhood just east of Lake
Merritt and also worked on a beat in the Redwood Heights, Laurel
and Diamond neighborhoods along MacArthur Boulevard between
Fruitvale Avenue and High Street.

Mr. Valerga already resigned from the department before pleading
no contest in November 2005 to four misdemeanors, including two
charges of violating the civil rights of five victims and two
counts of false imprisonment.  All of the victims were
immigrants.

In January 9, 2006, Mr. Valerga was sentenced to three years
probation, including six months in jail.  Investigators linked
the victims to Mr. Valerga after discovering that their license
plate and driver's license information had been checked using
the computer in his patrol car.

According to the suit, Mr. Valerga pulled over the plaintiffs in
late 2004 or early 2005 in East Oakland and asked them to sit
with him in his patrol car.

Though only five plaintiffs are named in the suit, it says that
since Mr. Valerga had been an Oakland officer since 1999 and
because of his repeated pattern and practice of misconduct, the
membership of the class (of victims) is likely to be numerous.

The suit seeks actual and punitive damages as well as a court
order stopping the city from engaging in or encouraging sexual
harassment.

The suit is "Jane Smith No. 1 et al v. City of Oakland, et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-07171-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John L. Burris of The Law Offices of John L. Burris,
         7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621,
         Phone: 510-839-5200, Fax: 510-839-3882, E-mail:
         john.burris@johnburrislaw.com; and

     (2) James B. Chanin of The Law Offices of James B. Chanin,
         3050 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705, Phone: 510-
         848-4752, Fax: 510-848-5819, E-mail:
         jbcefiling@aol.com.


CBCL INC: Lawsuit Against Owners of Great Falls Mill Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brooks Goldsmith of the Chester County in South Carolina
dismissed one of two lawsuits filed against owners of the J.P.
Stevens Mill No. 3 building that caught fire in June, The Herald
reports.

John and Margaret Tibbs, who owned the mill, are primary
defendants in the suit filed by Great Falls resident Jacqueline
Dye against the mill owners and CBCL Inc., the plastics
recycling company that operates inside the building.  The suit
was filed on June 20, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas in
Chester County by lawyer Robert Dodson (Class Action Reporter,
June 23, 2006).

Another suit was filed against the defendants on behalf of Clare
Dawkins and Donald Johnson.  

Both suits are seeking class-action status.  They allege that
the business was not properly safeguarded against fire.  One
suit accuses the company and the county of negligence in not
preventing the fire; the other suit accuses the company and the
property owners of negligence, according to the report.

Judge Goldsmith dismissed the suit saying plaintiffs' lawyers
failed to show how or why the couple was responsible for the
fire.  The second suit against the plastics operator is to go
ahead, according to Robert Dodson, the Columbia attorney for
several dozen families involved in the lawsuit.

Representing CBCL Inc. is Hemphill Pride of 1401 Gregg St.
Columbia, South Carolina (Lexington & Richland Cos.).  Robert
Dodson is with Dodson & Dodson, L.L.P., 2005 Moores Lane, P.O.
Box 1877, Texarkana, Texas 75504 (Bowie Co.), Phone: 903-794-
3121, Fax: 903-793-4801, Web site: http://www.dodsondodson.net.


DE BEERS: "Null" Litigation in Ill. Transferred to JPMDL in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action originally filed in Illinois against
international diamond giant De Beers has now been transferred to
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to
Steve Gonzalez of The Madison County Record.

Court documents show that attorneys Stephen Tillery, Donald
Flack and Eugene Barash of Korein Tillery of St. Louis filed
suit against defendants the day before President George W. Bush
signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law on February 17
(Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2005).   

The suit alleges De Beers has a monopoly on the diamond market
and in addition accuses the Swiss company of restraining trade,
increasing prices, controlling inventory, limiting supply,
restricting purchase and falsely advertising the scarceness of
diamonds.   

According to the complaint, "These actions have caused both the
price and demand for diamonds to remain artificially high and
thus have caused diamond purchasers actual damages."


The suit, originally filed in Madison County Circuit Court, was
brought on behalf of Emert and Katie Null of Madison County, who
are claiming that for more than a century the De Beers "cartel"
dominated the market for rough diamonds in the United States and
worldwide controlling as much as 80 percent of the world diamond
supply (Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2005).

The class action names DB Investments of Luxembourg, which owns
De Beers S.A., De Beers S.A. of Luxembourg, which owns
Consolidated Mines, Consolidated Mines of South Africa, De Beers
Centenary A.G. of Switzerland, and Diamond Trading Company, the
marketing arm of the De Beers Group of the United Kingdom.

It was brought on behalf of diamond purchasers to recover
damages for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practice Act and for unjust enrichment.  

Currently, De Beers controls 50 percent of the world's diamond
supply, and an even greater percentage of the world's supply of
two-carat and larger rough diamonds, according to the suit.

The Nulls claim that in 2003 alone, De Beers sold $5.52 billion
worth of rough diamonds, and used its market dominance to raise
the price of rough diamonds three times during the year,
allegedly creating a 10 percent hike in rough diamond prices.

They also claim that in October of 1999, De Beers chairman Nicky
Oppenheimer, speaking at a gathering of Harvard alumni, went so
far as to boast about De Beers' illegal monopolistic behavior.

Mr. Oppenheimer allegedly stated in the gathering that De Beers
"likes to think of itself as the world's longest running
monopoly.and seeks to manage the diamond market, to control
supply, to manage prices and to act collusively with our
partners in the business."

On May 3, 2005, former Judge George Moran of Madison County
Circuit Court entered a default judgment order against diamond
giants De Beers Centenary A.G. and DB Investments after the
companies failed to respond to a the class action.  

On May 22, 2005, Judge Moran certified the suit as a class
action.  The judge also appointed the Nulls as class
representative and appointed Korein Tillery as class counsel and
gave them 14 days to coordinate with the clerk regarding a
hearing date for a plan of notice to class members and regarding
a hearing on damages.

On July 26, 2005, Patrick Foppe and Robert Schultz, Jr. of Heyl
Royster in Edwardsville, who represent DeBeers Centenary A.G.,
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the southern
District of Illinois where it was assigned to Judge Michael J.
Reagan.

On Oct. 3, 2005, Judge Reagan transferred the case to the U.S.
District Court of New Jersey after De Beers filed a motion to
transfer the case.  The judges stated that the transfer to New
Jersey "will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the interest of justice."

The Nulls did not oppose De Beers' motion, and now the case is
part of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pending
in New Jersey under the caption, "Null v. DB Investments Inc.,
et al."

The suit is "Null v. DB Investments Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-04849-SRC-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

Representing the plaintiffs is John A. Maher, 450 Springfield
Avenue, Summit, NJ 07901, Phone: (908) 277-2444, E-mail:
maherlaw@gmail.com.


DOMINION BRIDGE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 22, 2007 at 10 a.m.
regarding the $750,000 settlement of a class action, "Dominion
Bridge Corp. Securities Litigation."

The hearing will be before the Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr., at
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601
Market Street, Courtroom 4-B, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Dominion Bridge from April 20, 1995
through May 18, 1996, inclusive.

Proofs of claim are due March 3, 2007.  Deadline for exclusion
is Jan. 8, 2007.

Claims Administrator   Dominion Bridge Corp.
                       Securities Litigation
                       c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
                       P.O. Box 9014
                       Jericho, NY 11753-8914
                       Phone: (800) 766-3330
                       Fax: (516) 931-0810
                       Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims

Counsel                       Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
For Representative Plaintiff  Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
and Settlement Class          Weiss & Lurie
                              10940 Wilshire Boulevard
                              Suite 2300
                              Los Angeles, CA 90024
                              Phone: (310) 208-2800


DYNEGY INC: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Cases in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in San Diego, California granted preliminary
approval to the settlement by Dynegy, Inc. of class action
claims in the natural gas anti-trust cases filed against it.

On June 28, 2006, Dynegy executed a term sheet agreeing in
principle to settle the class action claims in the natural gas
anti-trust cases consolidated and pending in state court in San
Diego, California.

West Coast Power (Generation) Holdings, Inc., owned by Dynegy,
and some of its subsidiaries are named defendants and Dynegy's
settlement would include full releases for these entities.  The
settlement resolves claims by core and non-core California
consumers of natural gas for damages arising from or relating to
allegations of misreporting of natural gas transactions or wash
trading.

The settlement was finalized in September 2006 and preliminarily
approved by the court.  It, however, excludes similar cases
filed by individual plaintiffs, which Dynegy continues to
defend.

Dynegy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dynegy.com.


DYNEGY INC: Settles Nevada Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc., settled claims filed against it in the Western
States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation pending in
Nevada.

In August 2006, Dynegy entered into an agreement to settle class
action claims by California natural gas resellers and
cogenerators.

These claims are pending in Nevada federal district court in "In
Re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation,"
which names as defendants West Coast Power (Generation)
Holdings, Inc., owned by Dynegy, and WCP's subsidiaries.

Dynegy's settlement would include full releases for these
entities.   The settlement is expected to be submitted to the
court for approval by the end of 2006.  

Plaintiffs in the suit allege that defendants engaged in
anticompetitive behavior during the California Energy Crisis of
2000-2001.  

They claim the defendant gas providers reported false trades and
exaggerated trading volumes to the publishers of gas pricing
indices, by which the market sets prices, and otherwise
conspired to manipulate the natural gas market, resulting in
artificially inflated prices.

Dynegy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dynegy.com.


ENESCO GROUP: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers for Laceration Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enesco Group Inc., of Itasca, Illinois, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,600 units of Heartwood Creek turtle sprinklers.

The company said that when connected to a garden hose, under
normal household water pressure, the sprinkler can break or
shatter, presenting a laceration hazard to consumers.

There have been eight reported incidents of the sprinkler
breaking apart during use, including one report of a minor
laceration.

This recall involves the Heartwood Creek turtle sprinkler.  The
lawn sprinkler is made of resin with a decorative turtle shell
and stands about 5 1/2-inches tall and 10-inches long.  The
bottom of the sprinkler is printed with the item number 4005179
and the Heartwood Creek logo.

These recalled turtle sprinklers were manufactured in China and
are being sold at specialty gift stores nationwide from January
2006 through June 2006 and through QVC from April 2006 through
June 2006 for about $30.  QVC purchasers of this item have
already received direct notice from QVC notifying them of this
recall.

Pictures of the recalled turtle sprinklers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07028.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the sprinkler immediately,
and contact Enesco for a product exchange or return it to the
place of purchase for a refund.

For additional information, consumers can contact Enesco toll-
free at (888) 443-8669 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit the Enesco's Web site:
http://www.enesco.com.


HEALTH NET: N.J. Court Certifies Suit by Employer Group Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a
new certification order in a class action filed against Health
Net, Inc. in relation to its reimbursement of claims for
services provided by out-of-network providers.

Initially two lawsuits were filed:

     -- "McCoy v. Health Net, Inc. et al," and
     -- "Wachtel v. Guardian Life Insurance Co."

Both are styled as nationwide class actions and are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of a class of subscribers in a number of the company's large and
small employer group plans.

The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff
case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001.  Subsequently,
the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and
plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of
a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New
Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001.

The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003 and asserts
claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net
subscribers.  These two cases have been consolidated for
purposes of trial.

Plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the
Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated
ERISA in connection with various practices related to the
reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-network
providers.  They seek relief in the form of payment of benefits,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.

During 2001 and 2002, the parties filed and argued various
motions and engaged in limited discovery.  On April 23, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers.  The
company opposed that motion and the Court took it under
submission.

On June 12, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which was ultimately denied.  On August 8, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Health Net,
Inc. as a defendant and expanding the alleged violations.

On Dec. 22, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
on the issue of whether Health Net utilized an outdated database
for calculating out-of-network reimbursements, which the company
opposed.  That motion, and various other motions seeking
injunctive relief and to narrow the issues in this case, are
still pending.

On Aug. 5, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and issued an Order certifying two
nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers who received
medical services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and
to whom Defendants paid less than the providers' actual charge
during the period from 1997 to 2004.

               Company Appeals Class Certification

On Aug. 23, 2004, the company requested permission from the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to appeal the district
court's class certification Order pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  

On Nov. 14, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to appeal.  On
March 4, 2005, the Third Circuit issued a briefing and
scheduling order for the company's appeal.

Briefing on the appeal was completed on June 15, 2005.  The
Third Circuit heard oral arguments on Dec. 15, 2005.  On June
30, 2006, the Third Circuit ruled in Health Net's favor on the
appeal.

The court held that the district court's class certification
opinion failed to properly define the claims, issues and
defenses to be treated on a class basis.  The Third Circuit thus
vacated the certification order and remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings.

                     The Scharfman Lawsuit

On Jan. 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the
McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action against:

     -- Health Net, Inc.,
     -- Health Net of the Northeast, Inc.,
     -- Health Net of New York, Inc.,
     -- Health Net Life Insurance Co., and
     -- Health Net of California, Inc.

The suit is captioned "Scharfman v. Health Net, Inc., 05-CV-
00301 (FSH)(PS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of the same parties who would
have been added to the McCoy/Wachtel action as additional class
representatives had the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint in that action.

This new action contains similar allegations to those made by
the plaintiffs in the McCoy/Wachtel action.

Discovery has concluded and a final pre-trial order was
submitted to the District Court in McCoy/Wachtel on June 28,
2005.  Both sides have moved for summary judgment, and briefing
on those motions has been completed.  

In their summary judgment briefing, plaintiffs also sought
appointment of a monitor to act as an independent fiduciary to
oversee the administration of the company's Northeast health
plans (including claims payment practices).  

The company has opposed the appointment of a monitor.  Despite
the then pending Third Circuit appeal of the district court's
class certification order, a trial date was set for Sept. 19,
2005.

                         Motion to Stay

On July 29, 2005, the company filed a motion in the district
court to stay it and the trial in light of the pending Third
Circuit appeal.  

On Aug. 4, 2005, the district court denied the company's motion
to stay and instead adjourned the September 19 trial date and
ordered that the parties be prepared to go to trial on seven
days' notice as of Sept. 19, 2005.  

The company immediately filed a request for a stay with the
Third Circuit seeking an order directing the district court to
refrain from holding any trial or entering any judgment or order
that would have the effect of resolving any claims or issues
affecting the disputed classes until the Third Circuit rules on
the class certification order.  Plaintiffs cross-moved for
dismissal of the class certification appeal.

On Sept. 27, 2005, the Third Circuit granted the company's
motion for a stay and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion.  
Plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages being sought
in this litigation and, although these proceedings are subject
to many uncertainties, based on the proceedings to date, the
company believes the amount of damages ultimately asserted by
plaintiffs could be material.

             Motions Seeking Sanctions Against Firm

On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion with the district
court seeking sanctions against the company for a variety of
alleged acts of serious misconduct, discovery abuses and fraud
on the district court.  

The sanctions sought by plaintiffs and being considered by the
court include, among others, entry of a default judgment,
monetary sanctions, including a substantial award for
plaintiffs' legal fees and either the appointment of a monitor
to oversee the company's claims payment practices and the
company's dealings with state regulators or the appointment of
an independent fiduciary to replace the company as a fiduciary
with respect to the company's claims adjudications for members.

Plaintiffs also are seeking the appointment of a discovery
special master to oversee any further document production.  On
Sept. 12, 2005, the company responded to plaintiffs' motion
denying that any sanctionable misconduct, discovery abuses or
fraud had occurred.  The district court conducted hearings for
12 days on this issue from October 2005 through March 2006.

Throughout the time that the court has held these hearings, the
parties have taken additional depositions and have submitted
additional briefing on several issues that have arisen.  

During the course of the hearings, and in their post-hearings
submissions, plaintiffs also have alleged that some of the
company's witnesses engaged in perjury and obstruction of
justice.  The company has denied all such allegations.  The
record for the sanctions hearing has now closed.

Following the conclusion of the sanctions hearings, the parties
submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The
court has taken these proposals under advisement and the company
is awaiting a decision.

                   Order to Procure Documents

While the sanctions proceedings were progressing, the court and
the Magistrate Judge overseeing discovery entered a number of
orders relating, inter alia, to production of documents.  

On March 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ordered that all e-mails
of Health Net and all of its subsidiaries be searched for
documents responsive to all of plaintiffs' document requests.  

The practical effect of this order would be to require the
company to restore all e-mails from back-up tapes and to review
them along with e-mails on all current servers for all
associates.

Defendants appealed the March 9, 2006 order based upon the undue
burden associated with such an expansive and expensive
restoration and review of backed up emails.

In an order dated May 5, 2006, the court limited the scope of
the restoration, search and review of backed up emails to 59
current and former associates.  

The May 5 order set a deadline of July 15, 2006 to complete the
restoration, search and production of emails, which deadline was
extended until Sept. 30, 2006 by the court.

The company is in the process of restoring back-up tapes and
identifying emails to comply with the court's May 5 Order.  This
restoration process is complex, time consuming and expensive.  

On July 14, 2006, in light of the Third Circuit Ruling, the
company filed a motion seeking relief from the obligation to
search and produce documents pursuant to the May 5 Order on the
basis that the cases are no longer class actions and, in the
event that the cases are subsequently certified for class
treatment, the search for documents should be guided by issues
that remain in the class action.  

The court denied that motion and on Sept. 22, 2006, the company
sought additional time for the production.  On Sept. 27, 2006,
the court denied the company's request and ordered that the
company pay a fee to be determined at a later date for every day
that the production is not completed and that the company may
face other sanctions or consequences for failure to complete the
production on time.  The company continues to work diligently to
complete the production.

The May 5 Order also set forth certain findings regarding
Plaintiffs' argument that the "crime-fraud" exception to the
attorney-client privilege should be applied to certain documents
for which the company have claimed a privilege.  

In this ruling, the court made preliminary findings that a
showing of a possible crime or fraud was made with respect to
Health Net's interactions with NJ DOBI, the payment of a second
restitution in New Jersey and discovery abuses, including
delaying discovery and failing to properly preserve documents.

In this opinion and in earlier orders, the court explained that
a multi-step process must occur before determining whether a
claim of privilege can be pierced by the "crime-fraud" exception
to the attorney-client privilege.  The May 5 Order is not a
final decision on this issue, but rather one step in the multi-
step process.

The Magistrate Judge held hearings on Sept. 27-29, 2006 on
plaintiffs' request that certain documents for which Defendants
asserted the attorney-client privilege should be produced as a
result of the "crime-fraud" exception to the privilege.  At
these hearings, Defendants presented evidence and arguments,
mostly in camera, as to why no crime or fraud had been committed
and why the documents should not be produced.  The Magistrate
Judge has yet to rule on the issues presented.

On May 11, 2006, the court issued another opinion ruling on the
"fiduciary" exception to the attorney-client privilege.  In this
ruling, the Court held, among other things, that the fiduciary
exception to the attorney-client privilege should apply to this
litigation, and that the decision of which year's database to
apply is a fiduciary function and not a "plan design" function
for ERISA purposes.  

The court also held that functions Health Net, Inc. performs
related to medical reimbursement determinations are fiduciary
functions, therefore making Health Net, Inc. potentially liable
to plaintiffs as a fiduciary under ERISA.  

On June 12, 2006, the company filed a notice of appeal of this
order.  All briefing is now complete, and oral argument is
scheduled for Dec. 14, 2006.

                  New Class Certification Order

Pursuant to the June 30, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, on July 25, 2006, the district court ordered
the parties to submit statements of the legal issues that each
believed were common to the classes (as previously defined by
the court on Aug. 5, 2004) and those that were individual in
nature.  

After receiving these submissions, on Sept. 25, 2006, the court
entered an order directing that 19 specified legal issues should
be treated on a class basis and, referring to the initial class
certification order of Aug. 5, 2004, deciding that class issues
predominate over individual issues such that the cases should
proceed as class actions.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the company sought permission to appeal this
new class certification order to the Third Circuit on the
question of whether classes were properly certified.  

The parties are awaiting a decision on whether the Third Circuit
will accept the appeal and, if so, the establishment of a
briefing schedule.

The suit is "Wachtel, et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:01-cv-04183-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with
referral to Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is Barry M. Epstein at Sills,
Cummis, Epstein & Gross PC, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ
07102-5400, Phone: (973) 643-7000, E-mail:
bepstein@sillscummis.com.

Representing the defendants are:

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

     (2) Herve Gouraige at Epstein Becker & Green, PC, Two
         Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003,
         Phone: (973) 642-1900, E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com.

    
HEALTH NET: Tag-Along Actions in Managed Care Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Joint motions to dismiss the remaining tag-along actions in the
case in "In Re Managed Care Litigation, MDL 1334" have been
filed in with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.

Various class actions against managed care companies, including
Health Net Inc., were transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings as, "In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL  
1334."  

This proceeding was divided into two tracks, the subscriber
track, comprising actions brought on behalf of health plan
members, and the provider track, comprising actions brought on
behalf of health care providers.   

On Aug. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the final subscriber track
action involving the company, "The State of Connecticut v.
Physicians Health Services of Connecticut, Inc.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
on Aug. 7, 2000, on grounds that the State of Connecticut lacked
standing to bring the ERISA claims asserted in the complaint.   

That same day, the court ordered that the subscriber track be
closed "in light of the dismissal of all cases in the Subscriber
Track."  

The State of Connecticut appealed the dismissal order to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on Aug. 10, 2004, the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal.   
On Feb. 22, 2005, the Supreme Court of the U.S. denied
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the Eleventh
Circuit's decision to uphold the dismissal.  

The provider track includes these actions involving:  

      -- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et al., including Health Net,  
         Inc., filed in the Southern District of Florida on  
         Aug. 17, 2000 as an amendment to a suit filed in the  
         Western District of Kentucky;  

      -- "California Medical Association v. Blue Cross of  
         California, Inc., PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.,  
         PacifiCare Operations, Inc. and Foundation Health  
         Systems, Inc." filed in the Northern District of
         California in May 2000;

      -- "Klay v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, et al.,  
         including Foundation Health Systems, Inc., filed in  
         the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 22, 2001  
         as an amendment to a case filed in the Northern  
         District of California;  

      -- "Connecticut State Medical Society v. Physicians Health  
         Services of Connecticut, Inc.," filed in Connecticut  
         state court on Feb. 14, 2001;

      -- "Lynch v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut,  
         Inc." filed in Connecticut state court on Feb. 14,  
         2001;

      -- "Sutter v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc." filed in  
         New Jersey state court on April 26, 2002;

      -- "Medical Society of New Jersey v. Health Net, Inc., et  
         al.," filed in New Jersey state court on May 8, 2002;

      -- "Knecht v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc.,  
         filed in the District of Oregon in May 2003;

      -- "Solomon v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc.          
         filed in the Southern District of Florida on Oct.  
         17, 2003;

      -- "Ashton v. Health Net, Inc., et al." filed in the  
         Southern District of Florida on Jan. 20, 2004; and

      -- "Freiberg v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., including  
         Health Net, Inc., filed in the Southern District of  
         Florida on Feb. 24, 2004)"  

These actions allege that the defendants, including the company,
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments to providers, imposed unfair
contracting terms on providers, and negotiated capitation
payments inadequate to cover the costs of the health care
services provided and assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, and several state common law doctrines and
statutes.  

"Shane," the lead physician provider track action, asserts
claims on behalf of physicians and seeks certification of a
nationwide class.  The "Knecht," "Solomon," "Ashton" and
"Freiberg" cases all are brought on behalf of health care
providers other than physicians and seek certification of a
nationwide class of similarly situated health care providers.  

Other than "Shane," all provider track actions involving the
company have been stayed.  

On May 3, 2005, the company and the representatives of
approximately 900,000 physicians and state and other medical
societies announced that the company had signed an agreement
settling Shane, the lead physician provider track action.  

The settlement agreement requires the company to pay $40 million
to general settlement funds and $20 million for plaintiffs'
legal fees.  Deadline for class members to submit claim forms in
order to receive a portion of the settlement funds was Aug. 21,  
2005.  

This deadline was extended by agreement to Nov. 21, 2005 for
class members who reside or practice in a county declared as a
disaster area as a result of Hurricane Katrina.   

During the three months ended March 31, 2005, the company
recorded a pretax charge of approximately $65.6 million in
connection with the settlement agreement, legal expenses, and
other expenses related to the MDL 1334 litigation.  

The settlement agreement also includes a commitment that the
company institute a number of business practice changes.  Among
the business practice changes the company have agreed to
implement are:  

      -- enhanced disclosure of certain claims payment  
         practices;  

      -- conforming claims-editing software to certain editing  
         and payment rules and standards;  

      -- payment of electronically submitted claims in 15 days  
         (30 days for paper claims);  

      -- use of a uniform definition of "medical necessity" that  
         includes reference to generally accepted standards of  
         medical practice and credible scientific evidence  
         published in peer-reviewed medical literature;

      -- establish a billing dispute external review board to  
         afford prompt, independent resolution of billing  
         disputes;  

      -- provide 90-day notice of changes in practices and  
         policies and implement various changes to standard form  
         contracts;  

      -- establish an independent physician advisory committee;  
         and,  

      -- where physicians are paid on a capitation basis,  
         provide projected cost and utilization information,  
         provide periodic reporting and not delay assignment to  
         the capitated physician.  

The settlement agreement requires the company to implement these
business practice changes by various dates, and to maintain them
for a four-year period thereafter.  

On Aug. 26, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting
its final approval of the settlement agreement and directing the
entry of final judgment.

Four physicians appealed the order approving the settlement, but
each of the physicians moved to dismiss their appeals, and all
of the appeals were dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit by June
20, 2006.

On July 19, 2006, joint motions to dismiss were filed in the
District Court with respect to all of the remaining tag-along
actions filed on behalf of physicians, the California Medical
Association, Klay, Connecticut State Medical Society, Lynch, and
Sutter actions.

As a result of the physician settlement agreement, the
dismissals of the various appeals, and the filing of the agreed
motions to dismiss the tag along actions involving physician
providers, all cases and proceedings relating to the physician
provider track actions against the company have been resolved.

Various cases brought by certain non-physicians against other
managed care companies and the company are still pending but
have been stayed in the multi-district proceeding.

On Sept. 12, 2006, Judge Moreno dismissed one of those cases,
the "Ashton" action, on grounds that the Ashton plaintiffs
failed to file a status report.  

The Ashton plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to vacate the
dismissal in which they contend that they did file a status
report.  The company intends to defend itself vigorously in the
remaining Knecht, Solomon, and Freiberg non-physician cases.


KENNETH COLE: Plaintiffs in Calif. Labor Suit Dismiss Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Kenneth Cole
Productions, Inc. by a store supervisor in a California have
agreed to dismiss the suit.

In April 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Diego.  

The individual plaintiff was a floor supervisor in one of the
company's retail stores who purported to bring suit on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current and former floor
supervisors.  

Among other claims, the plaintiff alleged that he and other
floor supervisors worked hours for which they were entitled to
receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under
California law.  

The lawsuit sought damages, penalties, restitution, equitable
relief, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  

In September 2006, counsel for the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
the purported class action.  In October 2006, the individual
plaintiff and the Company executed a settlement agreement, for a
nominal amount, for his individual claims.  

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. in the Net:
http://www.kencole.com/.


KENNETH COLE: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Managers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
entered a final judgment in the settlement of a class action
filed against Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. by former store
managers or assistant managers.

In September 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

The individual plaintiffs were current or former store managers
or assistant managers who brought a suit on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated store managers and assistant
managers.  

Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that they worked
hours for which they were entitled to receive, but did not
receive, overtime compensation under California law.  

The lawsuit sought damages, penalties, restitution,
reclassification and attorneys' fees and costs.  

In January 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the matter, and the parties filed a fully executed
stipulation of class settlement and release.  

On June 21, 2006, the court entered final judgment in the case,
which settlement included the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as
well as court and claims administration costs.  All amounts due
under the final judgment have now been paid and the period for
any appeal has now been exhausted.  

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. in the Net:
http://www.kencole.com/.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of "Williams" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc., has filed a motion requesting review by
the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit of a
decision in the purported class action, "Shirley Williams, et
al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc."

The suit was filed by four plaintiffs filed in January 2004, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
alleging that they are former and current employees of the
company and that the actions and conduct of the company,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the
purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly
employees in Georgia.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the court in April 2004.  The
company then sought and obtained permission to file an immediate
appeal of the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit.  

In June 2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in
part the lower court's decision (Williams v. Mohawk Industries,
Inc., 411 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2005)).  

In June 2005, the company filed a motion requesting review by
the full 11th Circuit, which was denied in August 2005.

In October 2005, the company filed a petition for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court, which petition was granted in
December of 2005.  The case was argued before the Supreme Court
on April 26, 2006.

The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is titled,
"Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465."  Previously
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, the suit was titled, "Williams v. Mohawk, No. 04-
13740," (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2006).

On June 5, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the 11th Circuit
ruling and ordered the 11th Circuit to reconsider its vacated
ruling.  

On Sept. 27, 2006, the 11th Circuit issued a second decision
reversing in part and affirming in part the lower court's
decision.  

On Oct. 18, 2006, the company filed a motion requesting review
of the decision by the full 11th Circuit, according to its Nov.
3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Nov. 3, 2006.

The original suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries,  
Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of North Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370,  
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E-  
         mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net;      

     (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone   
         and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201   
         West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center,  
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail:  
         doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com,     
         iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com;      

     (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St.,   
         Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E-  
         mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and  

     (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree &   
         Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave.,  
         Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail:   
         mattatty@alltel.net.      

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan P. Morillo and Virginia A.
         Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-mail:
         scottreau@sidley.com; and

    (ii) R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C. Lumpkins of Constangy
         Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree
         Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone: 404-525-
         8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com.


NEW YORK: Ulster County Continues to Face Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Ulster, New York remains a defendant in a
purported class action, claiming that gay and lesbian county
employees do not enjoy the same health-care benefits as their
heterosexual colleagues, Katie Young of the DailyFreeman.com
reports.

Three employees from the Mental Health Department, as well as
the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed the lawsuit
against the county, which is represented by attorney Joshua
Koplovitz.

CSEA, licensed social workers Maureen Ford and Natalie
Korniloff, and Cheyl Qamar, a program supervisor and Local
Government Unit for Children's Services filed the suit on the
basis of the state's Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act.

Plaintiffs, represented by attorney Jennifer Middleton, call for
an extension of benefits as well as payment of damages since
2003.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Jennifer Middleton of The Lambda Legal
         Defense and Education Fund, 120 Wall Street, Suite
         1500, New York, NY 10005-3904, Phone: 212-809-8585,
         Fax: 212-809-0055, Web site:
         http://www.lambdalegal.org;and  

     (2) [Defendants] Joshua N. Koplovitz of Wapner, Koplovitz &
         Futerfas, PLLC, 239 Wall Street, Kingston, New York
         12402, (Ulster Co.), Phone: 845-331-0100, Fax: 845-331-
         0427, Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/wkandfpllc.


OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC), a principal
title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp.,
faces several purported class actions in state courts in
Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and Ohio.

Generally, plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules
filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state
insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required to, but failed to give
consumers reissue credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions.  

Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other
unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states
as well.  The actions seek damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.  

ORNTIC has reached a tentative settlement in Florida for an
amount not to exceed $1.2, exclusive of attorneys' fees and
costs, according to its Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 27, 2006.

Old Republic International Corp. (NYSE: ORI) on the Net:
http://www.oldrepublic.com/.


PUTNAM GENERAL: Patients Accuse W.Va. Hospital of Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
The former Putnam General Hospital is facing a class action
filed by two Kanawha Valley attorneys alleging the hospital does
not properly disinfect its instruments, the West Virginia Record
reports.

Local attorneys Frank M. Armada and Anthony J. Majestro on
behalf of residents Roseann McFerran and Kathleen A. Wilson
filed the suit in Putnam Circuit Court.   

Plaintiffs intend to represent all West Virginia residents who
underwent endoscopic procedures at the hospital between March 1,
2003, and Sept. 30, 2004.

The complaint is seeking compensatory damages, medical
monitoring expenses for diagnostic and preventative treatment
and for treatment of injuries in relation to the alleged
negligent, careless, and reckless conduct by the company.  It is
also seeking attorney fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, other relief.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge O.C. "Hobby"
Spaulding.

Putnam General Hospital was renamed CAMC Teays Valley Hospital
recently after its disposal to Charleston Area Medical Center.

For more details, contact Anthony J. Majestro of Powell &
Majestro PLLC, 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200, P.O. Box 3081,
Charleston, West Virginia 25331 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-346-
2889, Fax: 304-346-2895.


REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Faces Private Mortgage Insurance Suit in S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Mortgage Insurance Co. (RMIC), a wholly owned mortgage
guaranty insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International
Corp., is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.  

Filed on March 15, 2004, the suit against RMIC seeks
certification of a nationwide class of consumers who were
allegedly required to pay for private mortgage insurance at a
cost greater than RMIC's "best available rate."

The action alleges that the decision to insure their loans at a
higher rate was based on the consumers' credit scores and
constituted an "adverse action" within the meaning, and in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that requires
notice, allegedly not given, to the consumers.  

The action seeks statutory and punitive damages, as well as
other costs.  RMIC is proceeding with its defense, according to
its Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 27, 2006.

The suit is "Brantley, et al v. Republic Mortgage, Case No.
2:04-cv-00805-PMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina under Judge Patrick Michael Duffy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charlie Bridgmon of McCutchen Blanton Rhodes and
         Johnson, PO Box 11209, Columbia, SC 29211-1209, Phone:
         803-252-4050, Fax: 803-253-6084, E-mail:
         cbridgmon@mbjb.com;

     (2) Mario A. Pacella of The Strom Law Firm, 2110 Beltline
         Boulevard, Suite A, Columbia, SC 29204, Phone: 803-252-
         4800, Fax: 803-252-4801, E-mail: mpacella@stromlaw.com;
         and

     (3) Tamra Carsten Givens of James Hoyer Newcomer and
         Smiljanich, 4830 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550,
         Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail:
         tgivens@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the defendant is Benjamin Rush Smith, III of Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211,
Phone: 803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail:
rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com.


TARGET STORES: Recalls Toys Due to Lead, Laceration Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Target Stores, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
190,500 units of various "Kool Toyz" children's products, which
were manufactured by Toy Century Industrial Ltd., of Hong Kong.

The company said some of these toys contain lead paint, which is
toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health
effects.  Also, some of the toys have sharp points, posing
laceration or puncture wound hazards.

Target has received four reports of toys breaking apart,
exposing sharp points.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves "Kool Toyz" brand toys, including sets
containing die-cast cars, playground set, doll house set,
dinosaurs, trucks, boats and planes.  The packaging is primary
blue and has the "Kool Toyz" logo is on the upper left corner of
the packaging.  The following chart lists the toys involved in
the recall, their item numbers written on the upper right corner
of the packaging, and the specific hazards they pose:

Product Name          Item Number    Hazard

Truck Carry Case      087/01/0050    Lead Paint and Sharp Points

Tiny Playground Set   086/10/0048    Lead Paint and Sharp Points

Dream House Play Set  086/10/0048    Lead Paint and Sharp Points

Discovery Dinosaur    087/01/0011    Lead Paint
Habitat

Command Center        087/01/0034    Sharp Points
Action Figure Play
Set

Aircraft Carrier      087/01/0034    Sharp Points
Action Figure Play
Set

Air, Land and Sea     087/01/0036    Lead Paint
Defender Play Set

Tank Action Figure    087/01/0040    Lead Paint
Play Set

Helicopter Action     087/01/0040    Lead Paint
Figure Play Set

Remote Control Trucks 087/01/0042    Sharp Points

Pictures of the recalled "Kool Toyz" children's products:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035f.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035g.jpg

These recalled "Kool Toyz" children's products were manufactured
in China and are being sold by Target Stores nationwide from
July 2006 through September 2006 and on Target.com from August
2006 through September 2006 for between $10 and $20.

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

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


VERIZON COMMS: Faces Suit Over Intelligence-Gathering Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc., and a number of other
telecommunications companies, faces a consolidated class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, concerning alleged participation in intelligence-
gathering activities.

Originally, defendants faces multiple class actions over
activities allegedly carried out by the federal government, at
the direction of the President of the U.S., as part of the
government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist
attacks.

Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon 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 violate federal and/or state
constitutional and statutory law.  Relief sought in the cases
includes injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and
punitive damages.

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 case is consolidated as: "In re National
Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL-
1791."

The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along"
actions also be transferred to the U.S. District Court for 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 has not answered or otherwise responded to any
of the complaints.  

Verizon believes that these lawsuits are without merit,
according to its Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "In re 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.   


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Suit Over May 2006 AGM Proposals Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a class action filed
against Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. over its proposal to
authorize new common stock and two amend its charter.

On April 11, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against Vishay and the members of its
Board of Directors.  

The complaint opposed Vishay's proposals to be presented at its
May 11, 2006 annual meeting of stockholders to authorize a new
Class C common stock and to amend Vishay's charter to give the
directors the exclusive right to determine the size of the
board.

The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the annual meeting, to
invalidate the authorization of the Class C shares and the
charter amendment, and to enjoin any issuance of Class C shares.  
Vishay's Board of Directors decided to withdraw the two charter
amendment proposals prior to the meeting.  

In light of the foregoing events, the parties agreed that the
complaint is moot.  The plaintiff claimed that his attorneys
were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses on the
grounds that their litigation efforts had a material causal
relationship to the Vishay Board of Directors' conduct which
ultimately mooted the claims asserted in the complaint.  

Without Vishay conceding that the litigation efforts of
plaintiff's counsel had any impact on the withdrawal of the two
charter amendment proposals, the plaintiff and Vishay have
engaged in arm's length negotiations to compromise the
plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees and expenses.  

In resolution of the plaintiff's claim, Vishay agreed to pay
plaintiff's counsel the sum of $537,500 for such fees, inclusive
of expenses.   The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the
complaint as moot on Sept. 25, 2006.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Del. High Court Mulls Injunction Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware has yet to rule on an appeal by a
purported former shareholder of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
against the anti-suit injunction issued by the Delaware Court of
Chancery in the Proctor litigation filed against the company.

On May 12, 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer
for shares of Siliconix not owned by Vishay.  Following the
March 3, 2005 announcement of Vishay's intention to make the
tender offer for the remaining shares of Siliconix that Vishay
did not already own, several purported class-action complaints
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Vishay,
Siliconix, and the Siliconix directors, alleging, among other
things, that the intended offer was unfair and a breach of
fiduciary duty, and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the
transaction.  

The Delaware actions were consolidated into a single class
action.  The parties to the Delaware consolidated action
subsequently entered into a settlement agreement, which was
approved by the court on Oct. 25, 2005.

            Class Action by Non-Vishay Stockholders

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in
the California Superior Court on behalf of all non-Vishay
stockholders of Siliconix against:

     -- Vishay,

     -- Ernst & Young LLP (the independent registered public
        accounting firm that audits the Company's financial
        statements), and

     -- Dr. Felix Zandman, chairman and chief technical and
        business development officer of Vishay, and, as a
        nominal defendant, Siliconix.  

The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims
against the defendants including:

     -- the purported taking by Vishay of Siliconix sales
        subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries;

     -- the purported taking by Vishay of Siliconix's SAP
        software system without compensation to Siliconix;

     -- the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix's assets as
        security for Vishay loans without compensation to
        Siliconix;

     -- the purported misappropriation by Vishay of Siliconix's
        identity;

     -- the alleged taking by Vishay of Siliconix testing
        equipment;

     -- the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix to save Vishay
        certain credits made available by an Israeli business
        development agency;

     -- the alleged misuse by Vishay of Siliconix's patents to
        help Vishay acquire General Semiconductor; and

     -- the allegedly improper identification of  Dr. Zandman as
        a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents.  The action
        seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

On April 1, 2005, Vishay:

     -- demurred to the class action claim in the amended
        complaint, on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing
        to bring a direct claim;

     -- moved to strike some of the allegations in the
        derivative cause of action as barred by the applicable
        statutes of limitation; and

     -- moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
        plaintiffs failed to prosecute their claims in a timely
        manner.

Also on April 1, 2005, defendant Ernst & Young moved to dismiss
the claims against it and, in the alternative, for a stay of the
litigation so that the causes of action asserted against Ernst &
Young may first be arbitrated.  

On June 10, 2005, Vishay and Ernst & Young separately demurred
to the derivative claim on the ground that as a consequence of
the merger of Siliconix with a subsidiary of Vishay, plaintiffs
no longer had standing to pursue a derivative claim.  

At a hearing on Aug. 2, 2005, the court sustained the parties'
demurrers to the direct and the derivative claims and granted
plaintiffs leave to replead both claims.

An amended complaint was filed in November 2005.  On March 7,
2006, the California Superior Court rejected Vishay's demurer
motion and required Vishay to answer the complaint.

On May 25, 2006, Vishay filed its answer to the complaint,
denying the allegations of the amended complaint and asserting
various defenses.  

On June 13, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an anti-
suit injunction based on the settlement agreement that was
reached in connection with the tender offer litigation filed by
the Siliconix minority shareholders in Delaware.  The injunction
prevents the Proctor litigation from continuing.  

On July 10, 2006, a purported former shareholder filed a notice
of appeal of the injunction order with the Supreme Court of
Delaware.  

On Sept. 1, 2006, Vishay moved to affirm the Chancery Court
decision.  That motion was denied on Sept. 11, 2006.  The appeal
has now been briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court.


XEROX CORP: Conn. Court OKs Start of Discovery in ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted
plaintiffs' motion to commence formal discovery in the
consolidated class action, "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation."

On Jul. 1, 2002, a class action complaint "Patti v. Xerox Corp.
et al.," was filed, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  

Three additional class actions -- Hopkins, Uebele and Saba --
were subsequently filed in the same court making substantially
similar claims.

On Oct. 16, 2002, the four actions were consolidated as "In Re
Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation."  On Nov. 15, 2002, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed.  A fifth class action (Wright) was
filed in the District of Columbia.  It has been transferred to
Connecticut and consolidated with the other actions.

The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through Nov. 15, 2002, and allegedly
exceeds 50,000 persons.  

The defendants include the company and these individuals or
groups of individuals during the proposed class period:

      -- Plan Administrator;

      -- Board of Directors;

      -- Fiduciary Investment Review Committee;

      -- Joint Administrative Board;

      -- Finance Committee of the Board of Directors; and

      -- Treasurer.  

The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated
to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan
participants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning company stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of the
stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of the
stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets in
company stock.
  
Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to invest Plan
assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries and to
disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known were
imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars."  

It also seeks other legal and equitable relief, as appropriate,
to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification
and a motion to commence discovery.  

Defendants have opposed both motions, contending that both are
premature before there is a decision on their motion to dismiss.  
In the fall of 2004, the court requested an updated briefing on
the company's motion to dismiss and update briefs were filed in
December of that year.

On Mar. 31, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
postpone consideration of class certification pending
disposition of the company's motion to dismiss, and granted
plaintiffs motion to commence formal discovery, according to its
Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:02-
cv-01138-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut
under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central
         Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2600, Phone:
         602-230-6322, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail:
         ggotto@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Charles R. Watkins of Susman & Watkins, Two First
         National Plaza, Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
         312-346-3466, Fax: 312-346-2829, E-mail:
         chuckwatkins@ameritech.net.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William H. Boice of Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree
         St., Ste. 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-
         6464, Fax: 404-541-3134, E-mail:
         bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) William J. Egan of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder &
         Steiner, City Place II, 185 Asylum Street, 10th Floor,
         Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-275-6400, Fax: 860-275-
         6410, E-mail: wegan@brownraysman.com.


XEROX CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York of the class action, "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et
al."

The suit, filed against Xerox Corp. and several other
corporations, alleges that defendants provided material
assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948
to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the
South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby
violating both international and common law.

Filed on Sept. 27, 2002, the First Amended Complaint on the
company was deemed effective as of Dec. 6, 2002.  

On March 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
that eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was
otherwise identical in all material respects to the First
Amended Complaint.  

Plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion
and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion.  The foregoing
damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and
severally.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument of the motion was heard on Nov. 6,
2003.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Nov. 29, 2004, the
court granted the motion to dismiss.  A clerk's judgment of
dismissal was filed on Nov. 30, 2004.  On Dec. 27, 2004, the
company received a notice of appeal dated Dec. 24, 2004.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing
the Dec. 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the Nov. 30, 2004
judgment of dismissal was not appealable.  

On March 28, 2005, plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting
permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and
consolidated complaint.  By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005,
the court denied the request.  

In a second Summary Order filed the same day, the court amended
its Nov. 29, 2004, Opinion and Order, which dismissed the
action, so as to render the Opinion and Order appealable and
plaintiffs filed a new appeal on May 3, 2005.  

On Aug. 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On Oct. 4, 2005,
defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  

Oral argument in the Second Circuit was held on Jan. 24, 2006.  
The company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
the action, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660;

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and

     (3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508)
         620-4798.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500
         Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973)
         549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site:
         http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and  


    (ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP,
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone:
         (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail:
         kristin.heine@dbr.com.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the consolidated
securities class action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities
class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A.
Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril,
Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach.

On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.  

According to the third consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on
behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or
entities who purchased the company's common stock and/or bonds
between Feb. 17, 1998 and June 28, 2002 and who were purportedly
damaged thereby.  

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:

     -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants
        violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
        thereunder; and

     -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as  
        "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section
        20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.  

Plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the
investing public regarding the true state of the company's
financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members
of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and
bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which,
among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty
and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including
restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier
restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper.  

The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
class members against all defendants, jointly and severally,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On July 13, 2005, the court
denied the motion.  On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered
the complaint.

On Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
ratification.  That motion has not been fully briefed or argued
before the court.  

The parties are engaged in discovery, according to its Oct 27,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:00-cv-01621-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis P. Karam and Keith M. Fleischman of Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St., New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-
         mail: karam@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Eliot B. Gersten and John Joseph Robaczynski of Gersten
         & Clifford, 214 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
         860-527-7044, Fax: 860-527-4968, E-mail:
         egersten@gcrlaw.net and jrobacynski@gcrlaw.net;

     (3) Dennis J. Johnson and Jacob B. Perkinson of Johnson &
         Perkinson, 1690 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT
         05403, Phone: 802-862-0030, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail:
         djohnson@jpclasslaw.com and jperkinson@jpclasslaw.com;

     (4) Abigail Romeo of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
         Pucillo-MA, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         aromeo@bermanesq.com; and

     (5) Cary L. Talbot of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
         Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4915, New York,
         NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael Gruenglas and Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps,
         Slate, Meagher & Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY
         10036-3897, Phone: 212-735-3000;

    (ii) Timothy W. Blakely, Evan R. Chesler, Karin A. DeMasi
         and Sandra C. Goldstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 825
         8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY 10019-7415,
         Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax: 212-474-3700, E-mail:
         echesler@cravath.com, kdemasi@cravath.com and
         sgoldstein@cravath.com; and

   (iii) Thomas D. Goldberg of Day, Berry & Howard, One
         Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
         977-7383, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
         tdgoldberg@dbh.com.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the class action, "In
re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation," which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Xerox Corp. and other defendants.  

Initially consisting of seventeen cases, the consolidated action
named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- Barry Romeril,
     -- Paul Allaire, and
     -- G. Richard Thoman

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock of the
company between Oct. 22, 1998 and Oct. 7, 1999.

The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in
violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a
fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock
during the class period by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating
to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material
negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the
company's operations and revenues.  

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

      -- deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common
         stock;

      -- allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

      -- caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         Company at inflated prices.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Sept. 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for
dismissal of the complaint.  On Nov. 5, 2001, the defendants
answered the complaint.  On or about Jan. 7, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  

The company and the individual defendants filed their opposition
to that motion on June 28, 2005.  The motion has been fully
briefed, but has not been argued before the court.  The court
has not issued a ruling.  

On or about Nov. 8, 2004, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164 filed a
motion to intervene as a named plaintiff and class
representative.

Separately, on June 8, 2005, IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to
substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.  

On May 12, 2006, the court denied, without prejudice to
refiling, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, IBEW's
motion to intervene and serve as named plaintiff and class
representative, and IBEW and Mr. Roten's joint motion to
substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The court also ordered the parties to submit to it a notice to
certain putative class members to inform them of the
circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of several lead
plaintiffs, and to advise them of the opportunity to express
their desire to serve as a representative of the putative class.

On July 25, 2006, the court so-ordered a form of notice.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to its Oct
27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Hurwitz & Sagarin, 147 North Broad St., Po Box 112,
         Milford, CT, 06460-0112, Phone: 203.877.8000;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

     (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (6) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com;

     (7) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (8) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Alfred U. Pavlis, Daly & Pavlis, LLC, 107 John St.,
         Southport, CT 06890, Phone: 203-255-6700, Fax: 203-255-
         1953, E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com; and

    (ii) Andrew N. Vollmer, Gordon Pearson and Heather A. Jones,
         Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M St., NW, Washington,
         DC 20037-1420, Phone: 202-663-6000.


XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp."
reached a settlement in the case after a private mediation
session in mid-May 2006.

On Mar. 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York entered an order certifying a nationwide
class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox from Feb. 1,
1997 to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  Six black
sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001.

Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or
practice of race discrimination against them and other black
sales representatives by assigning them to less desirable sales
territories, denying them promotional opportunities, and paying
them less than their white counterparts.

Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the
classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  

Fact discovery recently concluded and expert reports were
exchanged.  The parties participated in private mediation in
mid-May 2006.  Fact discovery was concluded and expert reports
have been exchanged.  

Following three days of mediation with a private mediator, a
tentative agreement was reached.  The company said terms of the
agreement were not material to it.

Counsels for the parties are working on drafting mutually
acceptable language for a settlement agreement and release.  The
agreement will be subject to a fairness hearing and court
approval, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv-
02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Barry Alan Weprin of Milberg,
Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
48th floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 946-9312, Fax:
212-868-1229, E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendant are Eugene D. Ulterino and Amy Laura
Ventry of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832-
7500, Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555, E-mail:
eulterino@nixonpeabody.com and aventry@nixonpeabody.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SFBC INTL: Bernstein Litowitz Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, a consolidated class
action complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System and all similarly situated purchasers
of SFBC International, Inc. now securities during the period
between Aug. 4, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2005.  

The case is "In re SFBC International, Inc. Securities &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00165," and is assigned
to the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler.  

SFBC provides clinical drug development services to
pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies. Its
primary services are clinical tests of development-stage drugs
in human subjects who are paid to participate in the
experiments.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, SFBC and its
senior officers and directors violated the federal securities
laws by making false and misleading periodic filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and making other false and
misleading statements to investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants:

      -- misrepresented the condition of the company's primary
         Miami facility and failed to disclose that this
         facility -- which was responsible for approximately 30%
         of the company's operating profit -- was in violation
         of numerous occupancy, zoning and other regulations
         such that Miami Dade County authorities have since
         ordered the facility to be demolished;

      -- misrepresented and failed to disclose numerous
         unethical and dangerous clinical testing practices and
         conflicts of interest that threatened the company's
         reputation;

      -- misrepresented and failed to disclose related-party
         transactions during the Class Period; and

      -- misrepresented the qualifications of SFBC's senior
         management team.

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts that
Defendants SFBC, former President Lisa Krinsky, former CEO
Arnold Hantman, and former Vice President of Clinical Operations
Greg Holmes violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
that Krinsky, Hantman and Holmes violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The complaint also asserts claims under the Securities Act of
1933 against certain defendants based upon untrue and misleading
statements contained in registration statements filed by SFBC
with the SEC in connection with a February 2005 registration of
2.25% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2024; and a March 2005
secondary offering of approximately 3.5 millions shares of SFBC
common stock.

With respect to the March 2005 Secondary Offering, the complaint
alleges that defendants SFBC, Krinsky, Hantman, David Natan,
Jack Levine, David Lucking, Leonard Weinstein, UBS Securities
LLC, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Advest, Inc., Robert W. Baird &
Co. Inc., Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp., and Wunderlich
Securities, Inc. are liable to the class for violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act, and defendants SFBC, Krinsky,
Hantman and the Stock Underwriters are liable to the class for
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and
defendants Krinsky, Hantman and Holmes are liable to the Class
for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1589

For more details, contact Erik Sandstedt, Esq., John C. Browne,
Esq., and Alexander Coxe, Marketing Director of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, Phone: (212) 554-1400, (212)
554-1400 and (212) 554-1423, E-mail: erik@blbglaw.com,
johnb@blbglaw.com, and alex@blbglaw.com.  


WARNER CHILCOTT Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York,
against Warner Chilcott Limited and certain officers, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of the company during the
period from Sept. 20, 2006 through Sept. 26, 2006.  The
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Warner Chilcott is engaged in the development, manufacture, sale
and marketing of branded prescription pharmaceutical products in
women's healthcare and dermatology, primarily in the U.S.  The
company is organized under the laws of Bermuda.  

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the initial public offering (IPO) of Warner
Chilcott common stock, which took place on or about Sept. 20,
2006, contained untrue statements of material facts and was not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
its preparation.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO, the
Company had stopped shipping one of its key products, Ovcon 35,
a birth control pill, and began the process of transitioning to
Ovcon 35 FE or Ovcon Chewable.  

As a result, following the IPO, the company would not be selling
Ovcon 35 in meaningful quantities and revenues from sales
revenue immediately decline.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Warner Chilcott announced developments in a
lawsuit brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission and
filed a supplement to the Registration Statement in which it
disclosed that, among other things, it had ceased shipments of
Ovcon 35 in September 2006 when it launched Ovcon Chewable.  

In response to these disclosures the price of Warner Chilcott
common stock dropped from $15.00 per share to $12.60 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Interested parties have until Jan. 2, 2007 to ask the court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.  

For more details, contact Teresa Webb and Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888)
476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


XETHANOL CORP: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, has filed a class action on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Xethanol Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8,
2006.

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

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

      -- that its Hopkinton, Iowa Permeate Refining plant was
         not being refurbished; rather the plant laid vacant and
         uninhabited with its doors locked;

      -- that the company lacked credible management personnel;

      -- that Xethanol engaged in an alarmingly high number of
         related party transactions (such that the company used
         a reverse merger into a shell corporation to avoid
         disclosing these facts);

      -- that the company materially underreported the true cost
         of completing a biomass to ethanol production facility
         and failed to take proper adjustments, which enabled
         defendants to materially overstate its profitability;

      -- that, because the company lacked the necessary
         personnel and controls to issue accurate financial
         reports and projections, the company's financial
         statements were presented in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles; and

      -- that, as a result, the company's statements regarding
         its prospects for biomass ethanol production were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On Aug. 7, 2006, while the market was open, ShareSleuth.com, a
forensic securities investigations website, published a report
which criticized Xethanol and its management.  

Specifically, the report questioned Xethanol's position that it
could achieve commercialization of ethanol and noted that many
of Xethanol's financiers had been disciplined by regulatory
agencies.  

The report also claimed that defendant Christopher d'Arnaud-
Taylor, Xethanol's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, had
falsified his work experience and qualifications on his resume.

Interested parties have no later than Dec. 26, 2006 to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the class.

For more details, contact Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Bradley P.
Dyer (800) 497-8076 (212) 682-1818 Fax: (212) 682-1892, Web
site: http://www.murrayfrank.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  * * *