---

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

            Monday, November 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 235

                            Headlines

ARIZONA: Appeals Court Allows Students to Sue Over High Tuition
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Continues in N.J. Stock Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Distributor Still Faces CWR-Related Suit
DELTA ENTERPRISE: Recalls Toys Due to Paint's High Lead Content
DIRECTV INC: Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Over HDTV Service Continues

ENDOLOGIX INC: Recalls Delivery Catheters with Faulty Component
FLEXSYS: Enters CA$2.4M Settlement in Canadian Antitrust Lawsuit
GRILL CONCEPTS: Calif. High Court Dismisses "Tip-Pooling" Suit
INTERGRAPH CORP: Faces Investors Suit in Del. Court Over Merger
INTERPOOL INC: Insurer Fully Pays N.J. Stock Suit Settlement

MERCK & CO: Lawsuits Over Painkiller Exceed 23,000 in Sept.
MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Violations Suit
MERCK & CO: Suits Over Osteoporosis Drug Transferred to N.Y.
MICROSOFT CORP: Jury Selected to Hear Antitrust Lawsuit in Iowa
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah

NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Yet to Respond to Securities Suits in Utah
PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Ark. Teachers File Consolidated Complaint
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Antee" Plaintiffs Want Tex. Suit Sent to Ark.
PROVO CRAFT: Recalls Snaps, Clips Due to High Lead Content
SOLUTIA INC: Faces Consolidated Pension Plan Suit in Illinois

SOLUTIA INC: Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Savings Plan Appealed
ST JUDE: Faces U.S., Canadian, European Suits Over Heart Valves
ST JUDE: Lawsuits Over Bypass Aortic Connector Now Closed
TELLABS INC: Request to Review Ill. Stock Suit Dismissal Denied
TELLABS INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Ill. Suit Over Savings Plan

TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Jan. 9
TVIA INC: Calif. Stock Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
U.S. FOODSERVICE: Waterbury Hospital Files Suit Over Food Prices
WAL-MART STORES: Ken. Court Grants Class Status to Labor Suit
WILKINS-ROGERS: Recalls Seafood Breader Over Undeclared Milk


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LOUDEYE CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
BODISEN BIOTECH: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Stock Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ARIZONA: Appeals Court Allows Students to Sue Over High Tuition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Court of Appeals granted students at the state's
three public universities the right to sue over what they claim
as unfair and illegal tuition increases.

In it's 2-1 decision, the court stated that the state's
Constitution requires instruction at state universities to be
"as nearly free as possible."  

The judges said that the courts are entitled to determine if the
Arizona Board of Regents, which sets tuition, is complying with
that requirement.  

The case, originally filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa
County (Cause No. CV 03-021650), involves four students who sued
in 2003 after a 39.1 percent increase in tuition.  The four
students are:

      -- John Kromko;
      -- Rachel Wilson;
      -- Adrian Duran; and
      -- Sam Brown.

Attorney Paul Gattone, who represents the four plaintiffs, said
he plans to seek a refund and a formal certification of the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of anyone who has paid the
higher fees.

Though the case could be expanded, plaintiffs must still prove
that the tuition being charged is unconstitutional.  The court
ruling did not address that issue.  

Instead, the ruling simply said the students are entitled to
make that claim and that the regents are not immune from being
sued over how they set tuition.

In coming to the decision, the court essentially rejected what
has been the regents' main contention that as long as tuition
here is in the lower third of all public universities, it is
complying with the state Constitution and cannot be sued.

The Court of Appeals' opinion is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?15c8

For more details, contact Paul Gattone of Southern Arizona
People's Law Center, 611 N. 4th Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85705, Phone:
(520) 623-7306, Fax: (520) 670-9122.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Continues in N.J. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the securities class action filed against Bradley  
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
has began, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2006 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The company, along with certain of its officers and directors,
were named defendants in 13 federal securities class actions
that were consolidated on May 5, 2005 in the U.S. District Court
of New Jersey.  

In the amended consolidated complaint, filed on June 20, 2005,
the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, arising out of disclosures that
plaintiffs allege were materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs also allege that the company and the individual
defendants falsely recognized revenue.  Plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.  

The company and the individual defendants filed their initial
response on July 20, 2005 seeking to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

On March 23, 2006, the court issued an order denying the
company's motion to dismiss the federal securities class action.

The suit is "Esposito v. Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty
Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph J. Depalma of Lite,
Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor,
Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is James P. Flynn of Epstein, Becker
& Green, PC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 642-1900, E-mail: jflynn@ebglaw.com.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Distributor Still Faces CWR-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A distributor of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. remains a
defendant in a purported class action filed by customers who
allege the company violated the state's law governing
disconnection and reconnection of customers during the Cold
Weather Period.

In December 2004, the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission opened an investigation to determine whether the
practices of Minnesota Gas -- one of two unincorporated local
distributor of the company -- regarding restoring natural gas
service between Oct. 15 and April 15 are in compliance with the
MPUC's Cold Weather Rule.

In June 2005, the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General
issued its report alleging Minnesota Gas had violated the CWR
and recommended a $5 million penalty.

In addition, in June 2005, the company was named in a suit filed
in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota on behalf of a
purported class of customers who allege that Minnesota Gas'
conduct under the CWR was in violation of the law.

On Aug. 14, 2006 the court gave final approval to a $13.5
million settlement, which resolves all but one small claim
against Minnesota Gas, which have or could have been asserted by
residential natural gas customers in the CWR class action.

The agreement was also approved by the MPUC, resolving the
claims made by the attorney general.  During the fourth quarter
of 2005, the company established a litigation reserve to cover
the anticipated costs of this settlement.


DELTA ENTERPRISE: Recalls Toys Due to Paint's High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprise Corp. of New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,000
units of "Cars" toy storage benches.

The company said the red paint on the partition panels of the
toy box contains high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested
by young children and can cause adverse health effects.  No
injuries were reported.

The wooden toy storage box is decorated with graphics from the
animated movie "Cars."  It has three removable cloth toy bins.  
"Delta" and the PO# are printed on the side panel.  Only toy
boxes with "PO#FJ505192" or "PO#FJ605042" marked on the side
panel are included in this recall.

These recalled toy storage benches were manufactured in China
and are being sold exclusively at Toys "R" Us stores from March
2006 through August 2006 for about $50.

Picture of the recalled toy storage bench:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07029.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled toy chests away from
children immediately and return it to any Toys "R" Us for a
credit or refund.

Delta Enterprise: Phone: (877) 660-3777; On the Net:
http://www.deltachildrensproducts.com.


DIRECTV INC: Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Over HDTV Service Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against DirecTV, Inc. over reduced High-Definition TV
(HDTV) quality is moving forward since the company did not
appeal the September decision upholding the suit's class-action
status, The PVR Wire reports.

Peter Cohen, a DirecTV subscriber, filed the lawsuit in November
2004 in Los Angeles Superior Court.  He alleges that DirecTV
engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering
its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004 after he signed up
for the service (Class Action Reporter Sept. 24, 2006).

Mr. Cohen first signed up for DirecTV 's $10.99 monthly HDTV
programming package in 2003.  He says DirecTV at that time
promised that HDTV would provide "astonishing picture quality."  
However, he claims that DirecTV broke that promise by lowering
the picture quality in 2004.

According to Mr. Cohen's lawyer, Thomas Ferlauto, the case as,
"a proposed class action in the superior [trial] court...could
still be more than a year away."

For more details, contact Thomas M. Ferlauto of King & Ferlauto,
2040 Avenue Of The Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310)
552-3366.


ENDOLOGIX INC: Recalls Delivery Catheters with Faulty Component
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, is voluntarily recalling 30 Visiflex bifurcated
delivery catheters for its Powerlink System (models 25-16-155BL
and 28-16-155BL) located at seven customer sites.

Based on a single field occurrence due to the failure of a
catheter component manufactured by a third party, the company
has determined that these catheters should be recalled.  No
other delivery catheters for the Powerlink System are affected.

This particular component is used in one specific catheter
length (155 mm.), which is utilized in approximately 15% of
Powerlink procedures.  In many instances, other catheter lengths
can be used for these cases.  Endologix does not expect this
action to limit its ability to supply other Visiflex delivery
catheters to the market.

"We initiated this voluntary action based on a single clinical
incident involving separation of the front sheath preventing
deployment of the stent graft.  This required the physician to
convert the patient to conventional open repair.  We have pro-
actively identified corrective actions at Endologix to ensure
the quality of purchased catheter components, and we are working
with our component vendors to resolve this issue," said Paul
McCormick, chief executive officer of Endologix.

"This action affects a very limited number of devices and
because the defect can be identified by non-destructive testing,
we anticipate that the financial impact to Endologix will not be
material," Mr. McCormick added.

All affected consignees have been contacted and instructed to
return the specified product to Endologix.

For more information on the recall, contact Paul McCormick,
Phone: 949-595-7200.


FLEXSYS: Enters CA$2.4M Settlement in Canadian Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in class actions filed against Flexsys in Canada over
alleged anticompetitive practices agreed to settle the suit for
CA$2.4 million.

In May 2004, two purported class actions were filed in the
Province of Quebec, Canada, against Flexsys and other rubber
chemical producers alleging that collusive sales and marketing
activities of the defendants damaged all persons in Quebec
during the period July 1995 through September 2001.

Flexsys refers to the 50/50 joint venture that Solutia Inc.
participated in September, comprising of interests is Flexsys
Holding B.V., Flexsys America L.P. and Flexsys Rubber Chemicals
Ltd.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of CA$14.6 million along with
exemplary damages of CA$25 per person.

In May 2005, a case was filed in Ontario, Canada against Flexsys
and other rubber chemical producers alleging the same claims as
in the Quebec cases and seeking damages of CA$95 million on
behalf of all persons in Canada injured by the alleged collusive
activities of the defendants.

In August 2005, a similar case was filed in British Columbia
seeking unspecified damages under a variety of theories on
behalf of all purchasers of rubber chemicals and products
containing rubber chemicals in British Columbia.

In September 2006, the parties tentatively reached a global
settlement in which Flexsys will pay approximately CA$2.4
million to resolve all four pending class actions in Canada.

The settlement must still be approved by the courts.  Solutia is
not a named defendant in any of these cases.


GRILL CONCEPTS: Calif. High Court Dismisses "Tip-Pooling" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles dismissed without prejudice a class action complaint
filed against Grill Concepts, Inc., according to the company's
form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 24, 2006.

On Mar. 15, a class action complaint was filed against Grill
Concepts, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles (Class Action Reporter, May 31,
2006).

The plaintiff, who is a server, and his fellow workers complain
that the company violated the labor code by having servers "tip
out" bartenders and expeditors a percentage of their tips to
these employees who provide no direct table service.  

Plaintiff's counsel stipulated that an appeal will not be filed.


INTERGRAPH CORP: Faces Investors Suit in Del. Court Over Merger  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intergraph Corp. is facing a consolidated class action filed by
shareholders in Delaware Chancery Court accusing the company's
officers of breaching fiduciary duty when they approved a merger
of the company.

The company was previously served with two class actions related
to the proposed merger that have now been consolidated into one
class action.

The suit filed by Emil R. Rossi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, against:

     -- Sidney L. McDonald,
     -- R. Halsey Wise,
     -- Thomas J. Lee,
     -- Lawrence R. Greenwood,
     -- Linda L. Green,
     -- Richard W. Cardin,
     -- Michael D. Bills,
     -- Kevin M. Twomey and
     -- Intergraph Corp.

was filed on Sept. 5, 2006 in the Chancery Court for the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County (C.A. No 2398-N).

Thereafter, on Sept. 18, 2006, Shalom Rechdiener, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a suit against:

     -- Sidney L. McDonald,
     -- R. Halsey Wise,
     -- Thomas J. Lee,
     -- Lawrence R. Greenwood,
     -- Linda L. Green,
     -- Richard W. Cardin,
     -- Michael D. Bills,
     -- Kevin M. Twomey,
     -- Intergraph Corp.,
     -- Hellman & Friedman LLC,
     -- Texas Pacific Group, and
     -- JMI Equity
    
in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County (C.A. No. 2426-N).

On Oct. 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating these two class actions.  The consolidated action
is "In Re Intergraph Corp. Consolidated Shareholders Litigation
(C.A. No. 2398-N)."

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
on Oct. 27, 2006 and named as defendants:

     -- Sidney L. McDonald,
     -- R. Halsey Wise,
     -- Larry J. Laster,
     -- Thomas J. Lee,
     -- Lawrence R. Greenwood,
     -- Linda L. Green,
     -- Richard W. Cardin,
     -- Michael D. Bills,
     -- Kevin M. Twomey,
     -- Intergraph Corp.,
     -- Hellman & Friedman LLC,
     -- Texas Pacific Group, and
     -- JMI Equity

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
individual defendants (officers and directors of Intergraph)
approved the acquisition for a sales price that is unfair to
stockholders, below the inherent value of Intergraph, and timed
to take advantage of Intergraph's low stock price.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to
maximize shareholder value by failing to conduct a fair auction
of Intergraph or become familiar with other offers or consider
other potential purchasers of Intergraph and that in doing so
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties.

The complaint further alleges that Intergraph and the investor
group defendants (Hellman & Friedman, LLC, Texas Pacific Group,
and JMI Equity) have knowingly aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that the
defendants ignored conflicts of interest and otherwise acted
together to benefit their own self interests.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the company's merger
proxy statement was inadequate and/or false and misleading in
certain respects.  Among other things, the complaint seeks a
declaration that the defendants have aided and abetted an abuse
of trust and breached their fiduciary duties, an injunction to
prevent the closing of the proposed merger, rescission of the
proposed merger if it is consummated, compensatory damages with
prejudgment interest, and costs and attorney's fees.


INTERPOOL INC: Insurer Fully Pays N.J. Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Interpool, Inc.'s insurer has paid in full the $1,000 settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
company and certain of its present and former executive officers
and directors, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In February and March 2004, several lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the company's reported consolidated financial
statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2000 and 2001 and the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2002, which the company announced in
March 2003 would require restatement.  

Each of the complaints purported to be a class action brought on
behalf of persons who purchased securities during a specified
period.   

In April 2004, the lawsuits, which seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including legal
fees, were consolidated into a single action with lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel having been appointed.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
September 2004, which included allegations of purported
misstatements and omissions in public disclosures throughout an
expanded purported class period from March 31, 1999 through  
Dec. 26, 2003.

In November 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss was granted by the
District Court on Aug. 18, 2005, dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety and with prejudice.  

On Sept. 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal order, thereby initiating a review of the District
Court's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In view of the costs and uncertainties described above and which
are inherent in the litigation process, the company elected to
participate in the Third Circuit's mediation program through
which a settlement of this litigation was negotiated.

Following the conclusion of these negotiations, the company
received a letter dated Dec. 8, 2005 from the Director of the
Appellate Mediation Program for the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, confirming the settlement terms for this
class action litigation, to which all parties have agreed, which
are:  

      -- a cash payment on behalf of defendants in the total  
         amount of $1,000, inclusive of all of the fees  
         and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel; and  

      -- the dismissal of all claims against the company and the  
         other defendants on a class-wide basis.  

The company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $1,000
payment.  The agreed settlement terms have been embodied in a
formal settlement agreement that has been submitted to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for
consideration of the settlement and on Aug. 1, 2006, held a
fairness hearing with respect to the settlement where the judge
announced in an oral ruling that the settlement had been
approved and will be followed by a written order shortly.

No appeal has been taken from the approval order; the settlement
has been paid in full by the company's insurer; and the class
action litigation is now fully concluded.

The suit is "Hurtado, et al. v. Interpool, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-00321-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,  
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:  
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

     (2) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,  
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,  
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Matthew M. Oliver of Lowenstein Sandler, 65 Livingston  
         Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, E-mail:  
         moliver@lowenstein.com.

    (ii) David A. Kotler of Dechert, LLP, Princeton Pike,  
         Corporate Center, P.O. BOX 5218, Princeton, NJ 08543,  
         Phone: 609-620-3200, E-mail: david.kotler@dechert.com.


MERCK & CO: Lawsuits Over Painkiller Exceed 23,000 in Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. is facing approximately 23,800 lawsuits filed
on or before Sept. 30 that allege personal injuries resulting
from the use of Vioxx, according to the company's Nov. 7 form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30.

Federal and state product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims, as well as putative class actions, have been
filed against the company with respect to Vioxx.  As of Oct. 9,
2006, the company had been served or was aware that it had been
named as a defendant in approximately 23,800 lawsuits filed on
or before Sept. 30, which include approximately 41,750 plaintiff
groups, alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of
Vioxx.  

Of these lawsuits, approximately 7,450 lawsuits representing
approximately 21,950 plaintiff groups are or are slated to be in
the federal multidistrict litigation and approximately 13,850
lawsuits representing approximately 13,850 plaintiff groups are
included in a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey Superior
Court before Judge Carol E. Higbee.

Certain of these lawsuits include allegations regarding
gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular events, thrombotic
events or kidney damage.  

The company has also been named as a defendant in approximately
275 putative class actions alleging personal injuries or
seeking:

     -- medical monitoring as a result of the putative class
        members' use of Vioxx;

     -- disgorgement of certain profits under common law unjust
        enrichment theories; and/or

     -- various remedies under state consumer fraud and fair
        business practice statutes, including recovering the
        cost of Vioxx purchased by individuals and third-party
        payors such as union health plans (Vioxx Product
        Liability Lawsuits).

The actions filed in the state courts of California, Texas, and
New Jersey, and in the counties of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and Clark County, Nevada have been transferred to a single state
court in each location for coordinated proceedings.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the claims
of over 3,000 plaintiff groups have been dismissed to date.  Of
these, there have been more than 1,100 plaintiff groups whose
claims were dismissed with prejudice.  Over 2,000 additional
plaintiff groups have had their claims dismissed without
prejudice.

                    Multidistrict Litigation

On Feb. 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  The MDL has been transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
before District Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

In July 2005, Judge Fallon indicated that he would schedule for
trial a series of cases during the period November 2005 through
2006, in the categories:

     -- heart attack with short term use;
     -- heart attack with long term use;
     -- stroke; and
     -- cardiovascular injury involving a prescription written
        after April 2002 when the labeling for Vioxx was revised
        to include the results of the VIGOR trial.

These trials began in November 2005.

                       Tolling Agreement

Merck has entered into a tolling agreement with the MDL
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee that establishes a procedure to
halt the running of the statute of limitations (tolling) as to
certain categories of claims allegedly arising from the use of
Vioxx by non-New Jersey citizens.

The Tolling Agreement applies to individuals who have not filed
lawsuits and may or may not eventually file lawsuits and only to
those claimants who seek to toll claims alleging injuries
resulting from a thrombotic cardiovascular event that results in
a myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke.

The Tolling Agreement provides counsel additional time to
evaluate potential claims.  The Tolling Agreement requires any
tolled claims to be filed in federal court.  As of Oct. 9, 2006,
approximately 15,000 claimants had entered into Tolling
Agreements on or before Sept. 30, 2006.

           Rulings in Vioxx Product Liability Trials

The company has previously disclosed the outcomes of several
Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits that were tried prior to June
30, 2006.

In July 2006, in "Doherty v. Merck," in Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, a jury returned a verdict
in favor of the company on all counts.  The jury rejected a
claim by the plaintiff that her nearly three years of Vioxx use
caused her heart attack.  The jury also found in Merck's favor
on the plaintiff's consumer fraud claim.

In August 2006, in the first case to go to trial in the
California coordinated proceeding, "Grossberg v. Merck," the
jury in Los Angeles, California returned a verdict for Merck on
all counts.

In August 2006, in "Barnett v. Merck," a case before Judge
Fallon in the MDL, a jury in New Orleans, Louisiana returned a
plaintiff verdict in the second federal Vioxx case to go to
trial.  The jury awarded $50 million in compensatory damages and
$1 million in punitive damages.  On Aug. 30, 2006, Judge Fallon
overturned as excessive the damages portion of the verdict and
ordered a new trial on damages.  The company is seeking a new
trial on all issues.

On Sept. 26, 2006, in "Smith v. Merck," the third case to go to
trial in the federal MDL, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
Merck on all counts.

The company previously disclosed that in April 2006, in "Garza
v. Merck," a jury in Rio Grande City, Texas returned a verdict
in favor of the plaintiff.  In September 2006, the Texas state
court granted the company's request to investigate possible jury
bias because a juror admitted that he had, prior to the trial,
on several occasions borrowed money from the plaintiff.

In August 2006, Judge Fallon granted the company's motion to
dismiss two Vioxx class action claims previously filed in the
federal court; one claim filed by plaintiffs from France and the
other claim by plaintiffs from Italy.

In August 2006, Judge Higbee set aside the November 2005 jury
verdict in favor of Merck in "Humeston v. Merck" and ordered a
new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.  The
company has filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Higbee's
decision to re-try the case.

On Sept. 19, 2006, Merck filed a notice of appeal of the
previously disclosed August 2005 jury verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in the Texas state court case, "Ernst v. Merck."  
Among several independent grounds for reversal, the company will
argue that there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Ernst
suffered an injury due to Vioxx and that it was improper to
allow testimony by a previously undisclosed witness midway
through the trial.  In the interim, as required under Texas law,
the company has posted an appeal bond.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, heard argument on plaintiffs' appeal of Judge Higbee's
dismissal of the "Sinclair v. Merck" case.  This putative class
action was originally filed in December 2004 and sought the
creation of a medical monitoring fund.  Judge Higbee had granted
the company's motion to dismiss in May 2005.

On Oct. 5, 2006, Judge Higbee dismissed the United Kingdom
plaintiffs from the New Jersey Coordinated Proceeding.

The first case scheduled for trial in the Texas coordinated
proceeding, "Rigby v. Merck," was scheduled to begin trial on
Nov. 7, 2006.  The Rigby case was voluntarily dismissed on Oct.
23, 2006 when the plaintiff filed a non-suit with the Court.

The trial in "Mason v. Merck," a case in federal court in
Louisiana, started on Oct. 30, 2006.  On Oct. 31, 2006 in
California Superior Court in Los Angeles, a consolidated trial
began in the cases, "Appell v. Merck" and "Arrigale v. Merck."

The next trial in New Jersey is currently scheduled to start on
Jan. 16, 2007, and the Court has stated that it will be a
consolidated trial including multiple plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
proposed eight cases to be joined together for a consolidated
trial.  Merck filed motions opposing the concept of a
consolidated trial proceeding and challenging the propriety of
plaintiffs' proposed cases.

Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market on Sept. 30,
2004.  Many states have a two-year statute of limitations for
product liability claims, requiring that claims must be filed
within two years after the plaintiffs learned or could have
learned of their potential cause of action.  As a result, some
may view Sept. 30, 2006 as a deadline for filing Vioxx cases.

It is important to note, however, that the law regarding
statutes of limitations can be complex, varies from state to
state, can be fact-specific, and in some cases, might be
affected by the existence of pending class actions.  For
example, some states have three-year statutes of limitations
and, in some instances, the statute of limitations is even
longer.  Merck expects that there will be legal arguments
concerning the proper application of these statutes, and the
decisions will be up to the judges presiding in individual cases
in state and federal proceedings.  

As of Sept. 30, 2006, Merck has also entered into agreements
with approximately 15,000 claimants to toll the statute of
limitations, so the Sept. 30, 2006 date would not apply in those
instances.


MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part a motion by Merck & Co. Inc.
to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations against the company.

Various putative class actions filed in federal court under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors.

The "Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits" and, together with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits and the Vioxx Derivative Lawsuits is called
the "Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits."  They have been transferred to
the Shareholder Multidistrict Litigation and consolidated for
all purposes.  

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain
of the company's current and former employees who are
participants in certain of the company's retirement plans for
breach of fiduciary duty.  

The lawsuits make similar allegations to the allegations
contained in the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  On Oct. 7, 2005,
defendants moved to dismiss the ERISA complaint.  On July 11,
2006, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The suit is "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and  
ERISA Litigation, case no. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler.  

Representing the company is Edward Cerasia II, Proskauer Rose
LLP, One Newark Center, 18th floor, Newark NJ 07102-5211, Phone:
973 274-3200, E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com; and John N.
Poulous Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, 101 Hudson St. Suite 3601,
Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918, Phone: (201) 536-9220, E-mail:
poulos@hugheshubbard.com.
   
Representing the plaintiffs is Irma Lois Bradley-Klein,  
Lemmon Law Firm, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2335, New Orleans,  
LA 70130, Phone: (985) 783-6789, Fax: (985) 783-1333.


MERCK & CO: Suits Over Osteoporosis Drug Transferred to N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. is facing a consolidated product liability suit
over Fosamax in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, approximately 70 cases have been filed
against Merck either in state or federal court in the U.S.,
including four cases that seek class action certification, as
well as damages and medical monitoring.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures such as tooth
extraction or dental implants, and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax.

On Aug. 16, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the Fosamax product liability cases pending in
federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated
into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
Since the JPML order, over 55 cases have been transferred to
Judge Keenan.

The suit is "In Re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, Case
No. 1:06-md-01789-JFK-JCF," filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John F. Keenan with
referral to Judge James C. Francis.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andy L. Allman at Kelly, Kelly & Allman, 629 E Main
         Street, Hendersonville, TN 37075, U.S., Phone: (615)
         824-3703; and

     (2) John A. Bahe, Jr. at Bahe Cook & Cantley, PSC, 235 S.
         Fifth Street, 700 Kentucky Home Life Bldg., Louisville,
         KY 40202 U.S., Phone: (502) 568-2285, Fax: (502) 587-
         2006).

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dan H. Ball, Bryan Cave - St. Louis, 211 North
         Broadway, One Metropolitan Square, Ste. 3600, St.
         Louis, MO 63102, U.S., Phone: (314) 259-2000; and

     (2) Charles Franklin Beall, Jr. at Moore Hill &
         Westmoreland PA - Pensacola, 220 W Garden St. - 9th
         Floor PO Box 13290, Pensacola, FL 32591-3290 U.S.,
         Phone: (850) 434-3541, Fax: (850) 435-7899.


MICROSOFT CORP: Jury Selected to Hear Antitrust Lawsuit in Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury of seven men and five women has been selected to hear a
class action against Microsoft Corp. in Polk County District
Court, according to Associated Press.  The jury is expected to
be seated late next week, the report said.

Judge Scott Rosenberg has already ordered Microsoft Chairman
Bill Gates and Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to testify in
person at the trial to determine whether Microsoft violated
Iowa's competition laws by monopolizing and unreasonably
restraining trade in the markets for Intel-compatible:     

      -- personal computer operating system software; and     

      -- applications software, including word processing,     
         spreadsheet and office-suite software.    

The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:     

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;     

      -- denying class members free choice in software products     
         and the benefits of software innovation; and     

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security     
         breaches.     

Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.     

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.    

However, Microsoft denies the claims and maintains that it
developed and sold high quality software products at fair and
reasonable prices.   

Specifically, Microsoft contends that it did not overcharge for
its software and that consumers benefited from being able to
purchase high quality software products.    

Microsoft also contends that consumers benefited from being able
to purchase high quality products that were continually improved
and enhanced through Microsoft's research and development
efforts.     

Further, Microsoft contends that it developed products that
responded to consumer desires and that were more attractive to
consumers than the products offered by its competitors.   

Roxanne Conlin, who is representing the plaintiffs, said her
experts have estimated that individuals and businesses were
overcharged as much as $453 million for Microsoft products in
the past 12 years as a result of the anti-competitive practice.

In Iowa, about 5.1 million licenses for Microsoft Windows have
been issued, 1.8 million for Office, 446,373 for Word and about
21,349 for Excel.     

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.      

The counsels representing the plaintiffs are:     

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,     
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: (515) 283-     
         1111, Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:     
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:     
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and           

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500     
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN     
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, Email:     
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.      
    
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &     
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,     
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:     
tulchind@sullcrom.com.   


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc., along with three executives,
remain defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class
action for alleged falsification of financial statements to
auditors and federal regulators, according to Grace Leong of The
Daily Herald.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah by five shareholders against:

      -- Nature's Sunshine;
      -- Douglas Faggioli, company president and chief
         executive;
      -- Craig Huff, former chief financial officer, and   
      -- Franz Cristiani, former chairman of the audit
         committee.

Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of filing misleading Sarbanes-
Oxley Act certifications, Form 10-Q quarterly earnings reports,
and press releases with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission to illicit "clean" audit reports from its former
auditor, KPMG LLP.

Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm, lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, pointed out that the company voluntarily stated in
SEC filings it had engaged in illegal activities related to the
financial statements and that these illegal activities are
serious enough to warrant notifying government authorities like
the SEC and the Department of Justice.

The company, which has filed no new financial statements for
more than a year, still cannot determine the exact amount of
errors in the financial statements, nor has it determined the
periods to which they relate.

According to the suit, the false financial statements, enabled
defendants to sell millions of dollars worth of stock between
April 23, 2002, and April 5, 2006, at artificially inflated
prices.

Court documents show that Mr. Huff made about $1.47 million
selling more than 84,010 shares of company stock in what the
suit calls "suspiciously timed" deals.  

Meanwhile, Mr. Faggioli made $2.15 million selling more than
108,454 shares of stock, which "constituted a significant profit
compared to his costs basis," court documents revealed.

Additionally, the suit also alleges that defendants were
engaging in a cover-up since they had postponed hiring new
auditors since KPMG's resignation and restating its financial
statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 2005, 2004,
2003 and 2002 as well as its annual report for fiscal 2004.

The suit adds that the company also tried to cover up the fact
that Mr. Huff was terminated because of the fraud when they
claimed in SEC filings that he resigned to "pursue other
interests."

The suit is "Hyman v. Nature's Sunshine Products et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah under Judge Ted Stewart with referral to
Judge Samuel Alba.

Representing the plaintiffs is Scott A. Call of Anderson &
Karrenberg, 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700, Salt Lake City, UT 84101,
Phone: (801) 534-1700, E-mail: scall@aklawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Karen Pieslak Pohlmann of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, P.A.,
         1701 Market St., Philadephia, PA 19103-2921, Phone:
         (215) 963-5000, E-mail: kpohlmann@morganlewis.com; and

     (2) Erik A. Christiansen of Parsons Behle & Latimer, 201 S.
         Main St., Ste. 1800, P.O. Box 45898, Salt Lake City, UT
         84145-0898, Phone: (801) 532-1234, E-mail:
         ecf@parsonsbehle.com.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Yet to Respond to Securities Suits in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has not yet responded to allegations
in any of the purported shareholder class actions filed against
it and certain of its officers in U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suits are:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.," filed on  
        July 12, 2006;  

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,"  

     -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."

All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in
violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

The lawsuits seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.  

The first identified suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah under Judge Paul G. Cassell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey S. Abraham and Jack G. Fruchter of Abraham  
         Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805, New  
         York City, NY 10119, US, Phone: (212) 279-5050; and

     (2) Scott A. Call of Anderson & Karrenberg, 50 W. Broadway,  
         Ste. 700, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, Phone: (801) 534-
         1700, E-mail: scall@aklawfirm.com.


PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Ark. Teachers File Consolidated Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP filed a consolidated
class action complaint 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. (k/n/a/ Pharmanet Development Group,
Inc.) formerly (NASDAQ: SFCC) now (NASDAQ: PDGI) securities
between Aug. 4, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2005.

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
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and making other false
and misleading statements to investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) 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;

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

     (3) misrepresented and failed to disclose related-party
         transactions during the class period; and

     (4) misrepresented the qualifications of SFBC's senior
         management team.

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts that
defendants SFBC, former President Lisa Krinsky, former chief
executive officer Arnold Hantman, and former vice president of
clinical operations Greg Holmes violated Section 10(b) of the
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:

     (1) a February 2005 registration of 2.25% Convertible
         Senior Notes Due 2024; and

     (2) 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,
     -- Ms. Krinsky,
     -- Mr. Hantman,
     -- David Natan,
     -- Jack Levine,
     -- David Lucking,
     -- Leonard Weinstein,
     -- UBS Securities LLC,
     -- Jefferies & Co., 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, Ms. Krinsky, Mr. Hantman
and the Stock Underwriters are liable to the class for
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and
defendants Ms. Krinsky, Mr. Hantman and Mr. Holmes are liable to
the Class for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act.

Arkansas Teachers is a government-sponsored, defined benefit
retirement plan that provides retirement and other benefits to
employees of Arkansas state agencies, colleges and universities.
Arkansas Teachers has approximately $10 billion under
management.

The suit is "In re SFBC International, Inc. Securities &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00165-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 defendants are:

     (1) Deborah S. Corbishley of Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour,
         Arnold, Critchlow & Spector, PA, 201 South Biscayne
         Boulevard, 1100 Miami Center, Miami, FL 33131, Phone:
         (305) 373-1000, E-mail: sperwin@kennynachwalter.com;

     (2) Patrick Charles English of Dines & English, LLC, 685
         Van Houten Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07013, Phone: (973) 778-
         7575, E-mail: dinesandenglish@aol.com; and

     (3) Stephen Patrick Warren of Holland & Knight, LLP, 701
         Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone:
         (305) 374-8500, E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) J. Eric Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail:
         erik@blbglaw.com;

     (2) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com;

     (3) William J. Pinilis of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 237
         South Street, Morristown, NJ 07962, Phone: (973) 401-
         1111, E-mail: wpinilis@kaplanfox.com;

     (4) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards,
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com; and
     (5) Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 236 Tillou
         Road, South Orange, NJ 07079, Phone: (973) 313-1887, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Antee" Plaintiffs Want Tex. Suit Sent to Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for the plaintiffs in the class action, "Antee, et
al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," asked the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas to grant a transfer of venue from
that court to one in Arkansas, Lynn LaRowe Sandefur of The
Texarkana Gazette reports.

The request, deemed as unusual by some legal observers, was made
by attorney Kelly Tidwell before Federal Magistrate Judge
Caroline Craven.

When a transfer of venue is requested in a civil case, it is
almost always done by the defense, explains local attorney Jim
Cook of the law firm Dunn, Nutter & Morgan.  A request of this
type from a plaintiff is rare, according to him.

The case, which involves a growing number of Pilgrim's Pride
employees in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and eight other states,
alleges that the employees were intentionally not paid for time
spent "donning and doffing" gear worn while performing factory
work.  

It also alleges that employees were not paid time and a half for
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week, were not paid
their correct hourly rate, and that wages were improperly
calculated.

In requesting for the transfer, Mr. Tidwell told Judge Craven
that the simple argument is for judicial economy, as they will
be seeking a national collective action.  

A second suit was filed in El Dorado, Arkansas, after the one in
Judge Craven's court.  Mr. Tidwell is asking for both cases to
be heard there.

The 1,300 plaintiffs in the El Dorado case outnumber the 85 in
the Texas case, according to Mr. Tidwell.  A suit also exists in
Louisiana and Mr. Tidwell says those plaintiffs are willing to
join the El Dorado case, but not the one in Texas.

However, defendants want Judge Craven to deny the motion to
transfer the Texas case.  Attorney John Brown, representing
Pilgrim's Pride, pointed out that such a move would create bad
precedent if months into the case the plaintiff gets a change of
venue because they've decided there's a better place.  

The suit is "Antee et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., Case No.
5:06-cv-00089-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with referral
to Judge Caroline Craven.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kelly B. Tidwell of Patton &
Tidwell, 4605 Texas Blvd., P.O. Box 5398, Texarkana, TX 75505-
5398, Phone: 903/792-5859, Fax: 19037928233, E-mail:
kbt@texarkanalaw.com.

Representing the defendants is John Bridges Brown of Gardere
Wynne Sewell, 1601 Elm St., 3000 Thanksgiving Tower, Dallas, TX
75201, Phone: 214/999-3000, Fax: 12149993969, E-mail:
jbrown@gardere.com.


PROVO CRAFT: Recalls Snaps, Clips Due to High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------
Provo Craft, of Spanish Fork, Utah, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 76,000
units of decorative snaps and metal clips.

The company said the recalled clips and snaps contain high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries were reported.

The recall involves the "Rob and Bob Studio Clip-Ease" metal
clips with model numbers 28-1084, 28-1085 and 28-1086 and the
"Rob and Bob Studio Snap-Ease" snaps with model number 28-1080.  
The product name and model number can be found on the packaging.

These recalled decorative snaps and metal clips were
manufactured in China and are being sold at scrapbook stores and
craft retailers nationwide from August 2005 through October 2006
for about $6.

Pictures of the recalled decorative snaps and metal clips:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07033a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07033b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07033c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07033d.jpg

Provo Craft Phone: (800) 955-9490; On the Net:
http://www.recall.provocraft.com.


SOLUTIA INC: Faces Consolidated Pension Plan Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits filed by members of Solutia Inc.'s pension plan have
been consolidated with cash balance pension plan cases against
Monsanto Co. and Pharmacia Corp. in the Southern District of
Illinois.

Since October 2005, three cases have been filed by participants
in the Employees' Pension Plan of Solutia Inc. (debtor-in-
possession) alleging that the Pension Plan:

     -- violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
        1974 prohibitions on reducing rates of benefit accrual
        based on age;

     -- results in the impermissible forfeiture of accrued
        benefits under ERISA;
   
     -- violates ERISA's present value calculation rules for
        determining lump sum distributions; and

     -- violates the minimum accrual requirements of ERISA.

The cases are:

     * "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
        Plan,"

     * "Scharringhausen, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees'
        Pension Plan, et al.," and

     * "Juanita Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees'
        Pension Plan."

The Scharringhausen plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case
on April 24, 2006.  None of the company and its subsidiary in
bankruptcy, and no individual or entity other than the Pension
Plan, has been named as a defendant in any of these cases.  

The plaintiffs in each of these cases sought to obtain
injunctive and other equitable relief (including money damages
awarded by the creation of a common fund) on behalf of
themselves and the nationwide putative class of similarly
situated current and former participants in the Pension Plan for
whose pension benefits the Pension Plan is responsible.

The Hammond and Davis plaintiffs have consolidated their
actions, and their counsels are cooperating in the
representation of the putative class.  

On Sept. 1, 2006, the court consolidated the Hammond and Davis
actions with:

     -- cash balance pension plan cases pending in the Southern
        District of Illinois against Monsanto Co. and the
        Monsanto Co. Pension Plan:

        * "Walker et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al.;"
        and

     -- the Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia
        Corp., Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc.:

        * "Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et
          al."

A consolidated class action complaint was filed by all of the
plaintiffs on Sept. 4, 2006, claiming that:

     -- the Pension Plan allegedly violates ERISA by terminating
        interest credits at the age of 55;

     -- the Pension Plan was allegedly improperly backloaded in
        violation of ERISA; and

     -- the Pension Plan was allegedly discriminatory on the
        basis of age.

The Pension Plan moved to dismiss all of the pending actions in
the consolidated case for plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and failure to join Solutia as a
necessary and indispensable party and those motions are pending.

Motions for class certification are due to be filed by the end
of 2006.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Hammond] Eric L. Dirks of Stueve, Siegel, et al.,  
         Generally Admitted, 330 West 47th Street, Suite #250,  
         Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-714-7100, Fax: 816-
         714-7101, E-mail: dirks@sshwlaw.com;   

     (2) [Davis] Matthew H. Armstrong of Schlichter, Bogard, et  
         al. - St. Louis, MO, Generally Admitted, 100 South
         Fourth Street, Suite 900, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone:  
         314-621-6115, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail:
         marmstrong@uselaws.com;   

     (3) [Scharringhausen] Edward W. Ciolko of Schiffrin &  
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  
         19087, US, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-
         mail: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com; and  

     (4) [Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan] Robert J.  
         Golterman of Lewis, Rice, et al., 500 North Broadway,  
         Suite 2000, St. Louis, MO 63102-2147, Phone: 314-444-
         7600, E-mail: rgolterman@lewisrice.com.   


SOLUTIA INC: Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Savings Plan Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "Dickerson v. Feldman," which names
Solutia Inc.'s former officers and employees, filed an appeal
against the dismissal of the suit with the U.S. Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Oct. 7, 2004, a purported class action, "Dickerson v.
Feldman, et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against a number of defendants,
including former officers and employees of Solutia Inc. and
Solutia's Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and
Savings Funds Committee.  Solutia was not named as a defendant.

The action alleged breach of fiduciary duty under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and sought to recover alleged
losses to the Solutia Inc. Savings and Investment Plan (SIP
Plan) from Dec. 16, 1998 to the date the action was filed.

The investment of SIP Plan assets in Solutia's common stock is
alleged to have been imprudent because of the risks and
liabilities related to Solutia's legacy environmental and
litigation liabilities and because of the involvement of its
50/50 joint venture Flexsys, comprising of interests in:

     * Flexsys Holding B.V.,
     * Flexsys America L.P., and
     * Flexsys Rubber Chemicals Ltd.

in alleged collusive sales and marketing activities in the
rubber chemicals market from July 1995 through September 2001.

The action sought monetary payment to the SIP Plan to recover
the losses resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, as well as injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, costs and
interest.

In addition, the plaintiff in this action filed a proof of claim
for $269 million against Solutia in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff sought to withdraw the reference of their ERISA
claim from the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court so that
the proof of claim and the class action could be considered
together by the District Court.  On Feb. 11, 2005, Solutia filed
an objection to the motion to withdraw the reference.

On March 11, 2005, the District Court denied without prejudice
Dickerson's motion to withdraw the reference.  The Dickerson
plaintiffs subsequently amended their initial complaint to add
several current officers and directors of Solutia as defendants.

On July 5, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
Dickerson's amended complaint.  In early September 2005,
Dickerson filed an amended proof of claim against Solutia
increasing Dickerson's claim from $269 million to $290 million,
based on his amended complaint.

Dickerson also filed a motion for class certification of his
proof of claim.

On March 30, 2006, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss on grounds that the Dickerson plaintiffs
lacked standing to sue and that the complaint failed to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.

The dismissal of Dickerson's cause of action resulted in
dismissal of the entire purported class action, including claims
asserted on behalf of the unnamed purported class members.

On April 3, 2006, Dickerson filed an appeal of this dismissal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Briefs
have been submitted; the appeal is still pending and oral
argument is expected to be heard as early as the fourth quarter
of 2006, according to Solutia's Nov. 7 form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30.

The suit is "Dickerson v. Feldman et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
07935-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York Under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing defendant Northern Trust Co. is Michael John Dell
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, 1177 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-715-9129, Fax: 212-715-
8000, E-mail: mdell@kramerlevin.com.  

Representing plaintiff Jeremy Dickerson is Ronen Sarraf
Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018,
Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax: (212)918-7967, E-mail:
ronen@sarrafgentile.com.

Representing the Employee Benefits Plan Committee is Robert M.
Stern at O'Melveny & Myers LLP(Washington DC), 1625 Eye Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202)383-5328, Fax: (202)-383-
5396, E-mail: rstern@omm.com.


ST JUDE: Faces U.S., Canadian, European Suits Over Heart Valves   
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. is facing suits seeking class-action
status in the U.S., Europe and Canada over its mechanical heart
valves that incorporated Silzone coating.

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves that incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.  Silzone coating was intended to reduce the
risk of endocarditis, a bacterial infection affecting heart
tissue, which is associated with replacement heart valve
surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to the company's voluntary field action, the company
has been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who
received a product with Silzone coating and, as of Oct. 24,
2006, such cases are pending in the U.S., Canada, United
Kingdom, Ireland and France.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.  Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated
heart valve explanted, seek compensation for past and future
costs of special monitoring they allege they need over and above
the medical monitoring all replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.  The company has vigorously
defended against the claims that have been asserted and expects
to continue to do so with respect to any remaining claims.

                   Multi-District Litigation

In 2001, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ruled that certain lawsuits filed in U.S. federal district court
involving products with Silzone coating should be part of MDL
proceedings under the supervision of U.S. District Court Judge
John Tunheim in Minnesota District Court.  As a result, actions
in federal court involving products with Silzone coating have
been and will likely continue to be transferred to Judge Tunheim
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The District Court ruled against the company on the issue of
preemption and found that the plaintiffs' causes of action were
not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act.  The company sought
to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined that
it would not review the ruling at that point in the proceedings.

                Request for Class Certification

Certain plaintiffs requested the District Court to allow some
cases to proceed as class actions.  The first complaint seeking
class-action status was served upon the company on April 27,
2000 and all eight original class-action complaints were
consolidated into one case by the District Court on Oct. 22,
2001.  One proposed class in the consolidated complaint seeks
injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring. A second
class in the consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of monetary damages.

In response to the requests of the claimants in these cases, the
District Court issued several rulings concerning class action
certification.  The company requested the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals to review the District Court's class certification
orders.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's class certification rulings.  More
specifically, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the District Court
erred in certifying a consumer protection class seeking damages
based on Minnesota's consumer protection statutes, and required
the District Court in further proceedings to conduct a thorough
conflicts-of-law analysis as to each plaintiff class member
before applying Minnesota law.

In addition, in its Oct. 12, 2005 opinion, the Eighth Circuit
also ruled that the District Court's certification of a medical
monitoring class was an abuse of discretion and thus reversed
the District Court's certification of a medical monitoring class
involving the products with Silzone coating.

After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the District
Court issued its further ruling on class certification issues on
Oct. 13, 2006.  The District Court granted plaintiffs' renewed
motion to certify a nationwide consumer protection class under
Minnesota's consumer protection statutes and the Private
Attorney General Act.  The company plans to seek appellate
review of the District Court's Oct. 13, 2006 decision.

                         European Lawsuit

In addition, a lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons
residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who
have had a heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using
a product with Silzone coating was filed in Minnesota state
court and served upon the company on Feb. 11, 2004, by two
European citizens who now live in Canada.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the
class, and in excess of $50 thousand for each plaintiff.  The
complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical
monitoring.  The company is opposing the plaintiffs' pursuit of
this case on jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds.

                       Canadian Lawsuits

There are also four class actions and one individual case
pending against the company in Canada.  In one such case in
Ontario, the court certified that a class action may proceed
involving Silzone patients.  

The company's request for leave to appeal the rulings on
certification was rejected, and the trial of the initial phase
of this matter is now scheduled for September 2007.  

A second case seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed
pending resolution of the other Ontario action, and a case
seeking class action in British Columbia is also proceeding but
is in its early stages.  

A court in the Province of Quebec has certified a class action,
and that matter is proceeding in accordance with the orders in
that court.  

Additionally, on Dec. 22, 2005, the company was served with a
lawsuit by the Quebec Provincial health insurer.  The lawsuit
asserts a subrogation right to recover the cost of insured
services furnished or to be furnished to class members in the
class action pending in Quebec.

The complaints in these cases each request damages ranging from
1.5 million to 2.0 billion Canadian dollars (the equivalent to
$1.4 million to $1.8 billion at Sept. 30, 2006).


ST JUDE: Lawsuits Over Bypass Aortic Connector Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
All four cases against St. Jude Medial Inc. over its Symmetry
Bypass System Aortic Connector where class actions were
initially sought have now been resolved.

The company has been sued in various jurisdictions by claimants
who allege that the company's Symmetry device caused bodily
injury or might cause bodily injury.

The company's Symmetry device was cleared through a 510(K)
submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and
therefore, the company is unable to rely on a defense under the
doctrine of federal preemption that such suits are prohibited.

Although four cases asserted against the company involving the
Symmetry device sought class-action status, no class actions
were certified in those cases, and all four cases have now been
dismissed.  In one of those matters seeking class action status,
the case was dismissed by the court, and the plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.

In another, a Magistrate Judge recommended that the case not
proceed as a class action.  In the third case, the trial judge
denied class certification in a July 26, 2005 decision that was
not appealed.  No motion requesting the court to certify a class
action was ever pursued in the fourth case.

Therefore, as of Oct. 24, 2006, no class actions have been
certified in cases involving the Symmetry device, and all four
cases where class actions were initially sought have now been
resolved, including the case where the plaintiff appealed the
court's dismissal of the case.


TELLABS INC: Request to Review Ill. Stock Suit Dismissal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a case against Tellabs Inc. and its former
executives that is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal a decision
in the securities suit.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs Inc., Michael Birck, and Richard Notebaert, the
company's former chief executive, president and director.

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine
of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the company's current or former officers and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's
financial statements.

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the company pertaining to these
matters.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the
consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.  On Feb.
19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and
dismissed the action with prejudice.  

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on Jan. 21, 2005.  On Jan. 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and
reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and
remanding for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.   
On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to
file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by
the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.

On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion.  On Sept.
22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to
dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-04356," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing defendant Tellabs, Inc. is David F. Graham at
Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-7000, E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com.

Representing plaintiff Thomas Johnson is Steven G. Schulman at
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.


TELLABS INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Ill. Suit Over Savings Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a purported class action filed by members of
Tellabs Inc.'s savings plan filed a motion to dismiss the suit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

On April 5, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the
court against:

     -- Tellabs;
     -- Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert, the company's former
        chief executive, president and director; and

     -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
        alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000 to July 1,
        2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
        Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit
        Sharing and Savings Plan.

Thereafter, two similar complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things,
continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment
option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information
necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions
concerning the Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.  The complaints seek
restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions and
on Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing defendant Tellabs Operations, Inc. is Charles Clark
Jackson at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive
5th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 324- 1000, E-mail:
charles.jackson@morganlewis.com.

Representing plaintiff Don Brieger is Norman Rifkind at Lasky &
Rifkind, Ltd., 350 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1320, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: (312) 634-0057, Fax: (312) 634-0059, E-mail:
rifkind@laskyrifkind.com.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Jan. 9
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until Jan.
9, 2007 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Tier
Technologies, Inc. (Pink Sheets:TIER) (formerly Nasdaq:TIER and
TIERE) common stock from Nov. 29, 2001 through and including
Oct. 25, 2006.

While other law firms may have announced a class action against
the company, it does not appear that these other firms have
actually filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tier investors, the law
firm said.

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

The complaint alleges that the company issued false and
misleading financial statements, including inaccurate revenue
and income numbers.  As a result of the alleged fraud, the value
of the company's stock has declined and damaged investors.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the
Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting
individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and
fact common to the class are:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         Defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented material
         facts about the business, operations and management of
         Tier;

     (c) whether Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in
         making materially false and misleading representations
         or omitting to state material facts during the class
         period;

     (d) whether the market prices of the company's securities
         were artificially inflated or distorted during the
         class period because of defendants' conduct complained
         of herein; and

     (e) to what extent the members of the class have sustained
         damages and the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiffs pray for relief, compensatory damages, and legal
costs.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?15a4

For more information on the suit, contact Phillip Kim, Esq. and
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. both of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350
Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, New York 10118, Phone: (212)
686-1060, Fax: (212) 202-3827, Website:
http://www.rosenlegal.com


TVIA INC: Calif. Stock Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed an amended complaint that expands its
previously filed class action against TVIA Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to
include those persons who purchased or acquired shares of TVIA
from Feb. 7, 2006 through Nov. 16, 2006, inclusive.

On Oct. 6, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of
purchasers of TVIA, Inc. common stock from Aug. 8, 2006 to Sept.
27, 2006, inclusive, including purchasers in the company's
Private Placement that was fully funded on Aug. 25, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2006).

The complaint charges that TVIA and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading revenue guidance for the company's second quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006 for fiscal 2007 (Q2 2007), and in engaging
in insider trading.  

On Aug. 7, 2006, after market close and a month into Q2 2007,
the company announced that it expected revenues for Q2 2007, to
be "higher" than the prior quarter's reported revenues of over
$5 million.

Eight days later on Aug. 15, 2006, the company entered into
definitive agreements with private investors to sell over $11.9
million worth of the company's stock.  

On Aug. 29, 2006, the company's vice president of worldwide
sales exercised and sold a significant portion of the company's
securities for gross proceeds over $600,000.

In the beginning of September 2006, with less than four weeks
left in Q2 2007, the company participated in an investor
conference sponsored by Roth Capital Partners.

The complaint alleges that at Roth Conference that the company
remained silent about the impending revenue implosion that would
follow.  Rather, as the complaint asserts, the company continued
to tout the company's performance -- misleading investors.

On Sept. 28, 2006, without any prior warning, the company
shocked the market when it announced that its Q2 2007 revenues
would not be "higher" than $5 million as previously announced,
but rather more than 90% less, or $300,000 to $400,000.  

As a result of these adverse disclosures, the company's stock
lost nearly 59% of its value that day on extremely heavy volume.
These adverse disclosures also led to an analyst downgrade which
caused further declines.  

Interested parties must move the court no later than Dec. 5,
2006 for lead plaintiff status.  

The suit is "Richardson v. TVIA, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
06304-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte, with
referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Phillip Kim and Laurence M. Rosen both of The Rosen Law
         Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY
         10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, Fax: 212-686-1060 or 212-
         202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and

     (2) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy & Binkow LLP, 1801 Avenue of
         The Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com.


U.S. FOODSERVICE: Waterbury Hospital Files Suit Over Food Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Foodservice faces a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut over
allegations it overcharged clients for food prices.

The Waterbury Hospital filed the suit on Oct. 19, 2006 accusing
the company of an illegal kickback scheme that inflated the
prices that the hospital and other clients pay for food.  The
suit claims that the scheme accounted for 16 to 20 percent of
the company's total sales between 2000 and 2003.

According to the suit, the Maryland-based company, which is
owned by Dutch corporation Royal Ahold N.V., instructed
suppliers to artificially increase their prices and then passed
along those inflated prices to customers.  The suit explains
that the company demanded kickbacks from companies from which it
purchased the food at inflated prices.

James E. Hartley Jr., a lawyer for the hospital said that the
victims of the alleged scam lost hundreds of millions of
dollars.  He adds that the case has been assigned to Judge
Christopher Droney.

In addition to the hospital, the suit also lists Cason Inc., an
Illinois-based company that runs an Italian restaurant and Erick
M. Sandler as a plaintiff.  It accuses U.S. Foodservice of
breach of contract and racketeering, but it does not seek a
specific amount of damages.

The suit is "Waterbury Hospital et al v. US Food Svc Inc., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01657-CFD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.

Representing the plaintiffs is James E. Hartley, Jr. of Drubner,
Hartley & O'Connor, L.L.C., 500 Chase Pkwy, Waterbury, CT 06708,
Phone: 203-753-9291, Fax: 203-753-6373, E-mail:
diane@dholaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael P. Shea of Day, Berry &
Howard-Htfd-CT, Cityplace I, 185 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103-
3499, Phone: 860-275-0146, Fax: 860-275-0343, E-mail:
mpshea@dbh.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Ken. Court Grants Class Status to Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boyd County Circuit Judge Marc I. Rosen granted class-action
status to a lawsuit filed by employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
alleging non-payment of overtime, reports say.

The suit was initially filed in 2001 by a former Wal-Mart
employee.  Plaintiffs claim they weren't properly compensated
for working overtime and were not paid for missed break time
from Aug. 30, 1996 to the present.

An estimated 145,000 people worked at the retail chain's
Kentucky stores during the time.  Potential claims for some
worker could be up to $2,000, according to Covington attorney
Barbara Bonar, who represents the plaintiffs, including Michael
Nagy, who originally filed the suit.  Another former employee
who is suing Wal-Mart worked at Sam's Club.

The certification allows all current and former hourly employees
of any Wal-Mart Stores, including Sam's Clubs, in Kentucky to
join the lawsuit.

Barbara Dahlenburg Bonar: Law Offices of B. Dahlenburg Bonar,
P.S.C. Covington, Kentucky (Kenton Co.).


WILKINS-ROGERS: Recalls Seafood Breader Over Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilkins-Rogers, Inc. of Ellicott City, Maryland is recalling its
2 lb. Washington Seafood Breader, because it contains undeclared
milk product.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

Washington Seafood Breader was distributed in Maryland,
Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maine,
North Carolina, and Missouri through retail outlets.

The Seafood Breader is packed in 2 lb. poly bags and includes
all use by dates from JAN 1707 to NOV0307.  No illnesses have
been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of milk.  Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
production and packaging processes.  The issue has been
corrected and all production after NOV 0307 does not contain
milk products.

Consumers who have purchased Washington Seafood Breader should
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-735-3585 ext
260.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LOUDEYE CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Loudeye Corp. between
May 19, 2003 and Nov. 9, 2005.

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

Loudeye provides business-to-business digital media services
that facilitate the distribution, promotion and sale of digital
media content for media and entertainment, mobile
communications, consumer products, consumer electronics, retail,
and ISP customers worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose, among other things, that:

      -- the company's operational and strategic restructuring
         was not proceeding according to plan, and -- contrary
         to defendants' statements -- the restructuring was not
         "already resulting in significant cost savings";

      -- unbeknownst to investors, defendants had materially
         overstated the company's profitability by under-
         reporting Loudeye's true financial and operational
         costs and expenses;

      -- Loudeye was not achieving growth and profitability and
         lacked the ability either to integrate acquired assets
         or to support them as non-integrated businesses;

      -- Loudeye's internal operational and/or financial
         controls were insufficient, such that Loudeye's
         financial and operational reporting was not accurate
         or reliable; and

      -- as a direct result of the aforementioned adverse
         conditions which defendants failed to disclose,
         throughout the class period, defendants lacked any
         reasonable basis to claim that Loudeye was operating
         according to plan, or that Loudeye could achieve
         guidance sponsored or endorsed by defendants.

Interested parties may move the court, not later than Dec. 4,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com,
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.  


BODISEN BIOTECH: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. between Nov. 3, 2005 and
Nov. 10, 2006.

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

Particularly, late on Nov. 12, 2006, Bodisen stated that it had
received a letter from the American Stock Exchange warning that
it is out of compliance with certain listing standards.  

The exchange said it believes Bodisen made insufficient or
inaccurate disclosure in public filings on its relationship
with, and payments to, New York Global Group and its affiliates
both prior to and subsequent to its listing on the exchange.

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

As a result of this shocking news, Bodisen shares have tumbled
almost 70% over several trading days, falling from a high of
$10.84 per share on Nov. 10, 2006, to an intraday low of $3.93
today.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Jan. 15,
2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner, KGS,
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 or (cell phone) 504-301-7900, E-
mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com, Web site: http://www.kglg.com.


IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Ikanos Communications, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable
to the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for its
initial public offering on Sept. 22, 2005, or its secondary
public offering on March 8, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's business and operations, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Ikanos securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information on the suit, contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847
or Toll-Free (888) 638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com,
Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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  * * *