CAR_Public/061129.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 29, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 237

                            Headlines

AIRLINES: B.C. Suit Alleges Price Fixing on Air Cargo Prices
APPLE COMPUTER: Feb. 17 Hearing Set for Studio Display Suit Deal
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 31, 2007
BANK OF MONTREAL: Debtor's Consultants to Request Class Status
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: N.J. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Denies Culpability in Rice Contamination
BELFOR USA: Continues to Face Unfair Labor Practices Complaints
BELL ATLANTIC: Court Hears Oral Arguments in N.Y. Antitrust Case
CALIFONIA: Parties Reach $40M Settlement in San Diego Sewer Case
CANADA: Ontario Disabled Suit Reversed, High Court Appeal Sought

CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Mulls Nixing of Consolidated Stock Suit
COOPER CAMERON: Settlement Reached in Tex. Pollution Lawsuit
ENTROPIN INC: Jan. Trial Set for Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Court Has Yet to Approve Stock Suit Stipulation
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Volvos Over Defective Speed Control Systems

GOOGLE INC: Court Mulls Dismissal of KinderStart Antitrust Suit
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Blackjack Player Files Suit in Calif.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Phones Plus Files ERISA Litigation in Conn.
INFORMATICA CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
JDS UNIPHASE: Hearing Date for "Zelman" Securities Suit Unsure

LAZARD LTD: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in N.Y. Stock Suit
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Faces Penn. Antitrust Suit by OSB Purchasers
MERCURY INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Automated Database
MILBERG WEISS: Jan. 8, 2008 Trial Slated for Calif. Indictment
NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Claims in Tex.

NAVARRE CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Complaints
OFFICEMAX INC: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
PRECISION BRAND: Ill. Court Approves Pollution Suit Settlement
TEPPCO PARTNERS: TEPPCO Unit Holder Sues Over Business Proposal

TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Court Approves Racial Bias Suits Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: N.J. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Act Lawsuit
WELDING LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Lose Ill., Tex. Welding Fume Suit
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Claims in Hip, Knee Implant Suit Exceeds 4,000
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Several Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


AIRLINES: B.C. Suit Alleges Price Fixing on Air Cargo Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Folks, B.C. resident Karen McKay filed a purported class
action that accuses several airlines worldwide of fixing their
prices on airfreight, Terri Theodore of The Canadian Press
reports.

The suit, filed in British Columbia Supreme Court, focuses on
the fuel and security surcharges customers paid dating back to
January 2001.  Ms. McKay, according to the suit, paid the
charges to ship dogs between Canada, the U.S. and Australia.

It claims that almost three-dozen airlines, ranging from Air
Canada to Virgin Atlantic, "agreed to act in concert to one
another in demanding surcharges."

Airlines started charging a fuel surcharge in January 2000 and
added a security surcharge after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, which according to the suit was the catalyst for more
charges.

Ms. McKay, who is represented by attorney J.J. Camp, claims that
the airlines agreed to fix, maintain, and increase their
surcharge prices and attempted to hide those practices from
their customers.

The suit seeks several remedies, including awarding damages for
conspiracy and interference with economic interests and a
declaration that the defendants hold the surcharges in trust for
the class members.

Earlier this year antitrust investigators from the Canadian
Competition Bureau, European commission, the U.S. Department of
Justice and many other world authorities raided the offices of
numerous airlines in a global investigation into the so-called
surcharge conspiracy.

About 80 very similar class actions over price fixing on air
cargo are now ongoing in the U.S.  In September, Lufthansa
reached an $85-million agreement for the U.S. cases.

For more details, contact J.J. Camp, QC, Camp Fiorante Matthews,
4th Floor, 555 W. Georgia St., Vancouver   BC   V6B 1Z6, Phone:
(604) 689-7555, Fax: (604) 689-7554.


APPLE COMPUTER: Feb. 17 Hearing Set for Studio Display Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court For The County Of Los Angeles will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "Allen et al. v. Apple
Computer, Inc., Case No. BC 328000."

The settlement covers all U.S. customers who purchased one of
company's 17-inch Studio Displays, beginning in May 2001, unless
they submit a request for exclusion postmarked on or before Jan.
19, 2007.

Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to
those customers who paid for a repair related to the inverter
board and who send in a valid claim form.  

The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who
performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair,
and how old the display was when the repair was performed.

In essence the settlement stipulates that:

      -- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired
         by the company during the second year of ownership will
         be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their
         unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and

      -- customers who had repairs done by a party other than
         the company will receive the actual amount they paid up
         to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter.

However, in order to receive the refund, customers who had their
17-inch Studio Display repaired on or before Nov. 13, 2006 must
mail a claim form postmarked on or before Feb. 12, 2007.  

If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be
mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered
repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier.

                         Case Background

The purported nationwide class action, which was filed in Jan.
28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17"
Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half of the screen
and constant blinking of the power light (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 13, 2006).   

An amended complaint in the case was filed on Oct. 24, 2005,
adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged
class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display
and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display.  

The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported
defect that causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that
the company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or
concealed the purported defect.

Generally, the suit alleged that the inverter board of the
display, manufactured since May 2001, was faulty, causing
gradient dimming of the top or bottom half of the screen and a
power light to constantly blink on and off in a short-short-long
pattern (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2006).

Plaintiffs assert claims under:

      -- California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
         (unfair competition);

      -- California Business & Professions Code Section 17500
         (false advertising); and

      -- Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  

The amended complaint seeks remedies including damages and
equitable relief.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-inch display
and a demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding
the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs
failed to allege that they purchased those displays. At a status
conference on Nov. 21, 2005, the court ordered Plaintiffs to
amend their complaint.  The company's demurrer is off calendar
pending this amendment.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 12, 2005, and the
company answered on Jan. 5, 2006 denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-826-3082,
         Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com;and

     (2) Scott R. Shepherd of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
         Shah, LLC, 35 E. State Street, Media, PA 19063-2917
         Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880, Fax: (610)
         891-9883, E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com, Web
         site: http://classactioncounsel.com/.


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold on Jan. 31, 2007, 10:30 a.m., a final approval of the
settlement of the class action "In re: Assicurazioni Generali
S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, No 1374."

The class consists of all individuals or their ancestors who
purchased Generali insurance between 1920 and 1945 and who owned
a policy or were a beneficiary of a policy that was in force
immediately prior to their persecution by the Nazis or their
allies are eligible.

The hearing will be in Courtroom 15D of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, at 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, USA.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is January 15,
2007.  Deadline to file claims is March 31, 2007.

"This will be an opportunity for many people to finally receive
funds that are owed to them and their families," said Robert
Swift who has served as one of the lead attorneys for the
plaintiffs who have been engaged in several class action
lawsuits against Generali for more than nine years.

Mr. Swift continued, "Many of these people were persecuted due
to their religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or
political beliefs. They include but are not limited to Jews,
Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, Political Prisoners, and
Homosexuals." One important limitation is that if Generali has
already compensated an individual for their policy, they are not
eligible for further compensation in connection with this
Settlement.

This class action lawsuit alleges, among other things, that:

      -- Generali (and its related companies) withheld the value
         and/or proceeds of insurance policies sold to the
         Holocaust era victims prior to and during the Holocaust
         era; and

      -- after the Holocaust, Generali refused to pay on the
         policies, did not disclose the nature and scope of its
         unpaid policies, and refused to identify or disgorge
         the value or proceeds of such policies.

The settlement was filed in August.  It requires the insurer to
pay the claims currently pending before the U.K.-based
commission set up to deal with Holocaust-era insurance claims
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

The court decided that everyone who fits the following
description is a Class member:

     -- All persons worldwide who:
        (1) were:
            (i) Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and
           (ii) during the Class Period were:
                (a) named in or were parties to any Insurance
                    Policies as defined infra, including, but
                    not limited to, the insureds, beneficiaries
                    and owners under such Insurance Policies; or
                (b) persons who succeeded to their rights by
                    operation of law or otherwise, including but
                    not limited to heirs, distributees,
                    legatees, and the like; or

        (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any
            one or more of the foregoing persons (including but
            not limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and
            the like), whether or not such claimants in this
            clause (2) are Holocaust Victims; provided however
            that "Generali Settlement Class" and "Releasors"
            shall not include persons:
            (i) who timely elect to be excluded from the
                "Generali Settlement Class"; or
           (ii) who for any reason previously released any one
                or more of the Generali Group from liability in
                respect to the claims being compromised (whether
                such previous release was provided in connection
                with receiving compensation in respect of an
                Insurance Policy or for any other reason).

The class period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945. A
"Holocaust Victim" means any person who was persecuted by the
Nazis (or their allies or by persons acting in concert with them
or pursuant to their direction) at any time on account of
religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or political
views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals,
and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Important terms of the proposed Settlement are as follows:

     -- Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under
        valuation and eligibility standards established by
        ICHEIC, including all pending and unpaid claims already
        received by ICHEIC.

     -- Generali will process and fund new Claim Forms made as a
        result of this Notice that are postmarked on or before
        March 31, 2007.

     -- Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court
        supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used
        in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the
        Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not
        identical) to the criteria used in processing and paying
        claims through ICHEIC. Generali will bear the cost for
        reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court
        supervision.

     -- Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula
        that takes into consideration amounts due on policies,
        currency conversion and interest, among other factors.
        The minimum payment for any valid claim is 1,000 USD.

     -- Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era
        insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will
        be dismissed with prejudice.

     -- Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four
        (4) Named Plaintiffs up to 5,000 USD, as the Court may
        award.

     -- Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the
        payment thereof will not diminish the compensation
        available to Class Members with valid Claim Forms. At
        the Settlement Hearing, Class Counsel will apply to the
        Court for payment of fees and reimbursement of costs in
        the amount of 3,250,000 USD.

Generali Holocaust Insurance Settlement on the net:
    http://www.nazierainsurancesettlement.com/default.aspx

For more information, contact the Law Firm Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C. c/o Anya Verkhovskaya Senior Vice President A.B. Data, Ltd.
Notice Administrator, Phone: 414-963-6441, E-mail:
info@abdatalawserve.com.


BANK OF MONTREAL: Debtor's Consultants to Request Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two men who worked as consultants for defunct Trent Rubber will
seek class-action status for a suit they that filed against the
company's largest creditor, Bank of Montreal, myKawartha.com
reports.  

According to the report, Peter Parik said in an e-mail message
that he and Roberto Siqueira plan to apply for class
certification either at or shortly after a Dec. 22 court
appearance before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
relation to a motion by the bank to have the suit dismissed.

Mr. Parik and Mr. Siqueira filed the suit in June seeking $5.5
million in damages plus interest and legal costs.  They claim
the bank was negligent in not accepting their offers to purchase
Trent Rubber, and was in breach of fiduciary duty to Trent
Rubber's employees when they placed the company in receivership.


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: N.J. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Barrier Therapeutics Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey have voluntarily dismissed the case.

In October 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons
who purchased or acquired securities of Barrier Therapeutics,
Inc. between April 29, 2004 and June 29, 2005.

At least four additional putative class action lawsuits have
also been filed against the company and certain of its officers,
all pleading essentially the same allegations.  

In an order entered on Dec. 19, 2005, the court consolidated
these cases.  By Order dated March 2, 2006, the Court appointed
lead plaintiffs and approved co-lead counsel.

On May 22, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint for violations of federal securities laws.  The
complaint brings claims against:

     -- the company,

     -- certain of its officers and a director (collectively
        Barrier) and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and J.P. Morgan
        Securities, Inc.,

     -- underwriters for the company's initial public offering
        in 2004 and secondary offering in 2005, as well as

     -- Pacific Growth Equities, LLC, an underwriter for the
        company's secondary offering in 2005 (collectively the
        underwriters).

The complaint asserts that Barrier and the underwriters violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, that Barrier
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the
individual defendants are liable for controlling person
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint is based upon purported misstatements relating to
Vusion and Hyphanox.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the claims on Aug. 25,
2006.  On Nov. 8, 2006, counsel for the lead plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, in its entirety and with
prejudice, by filing a stipulation of dismissal, in which the
Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters joined,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
without any payment by the company or any of the defendants to
the plaintiffs or their counsel.

The suit is "Midtown Partners, Inc. v. Barrier Therapeutics,  
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-04926-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge  
Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann  
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ  
         07663, Phone: 201-845-9600, E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com;    

     (2) 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; and  

     (3) 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 defendants is Robert Alan White of Morgan,  
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08540,  
Phone: (609) 919-6600, E-mail: rwhite@morganlewis.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Denies Culpability in Rice Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bayer CropScience is blaming rice farmers and an "Act of God"
for the inadvertent release of the experimental variety of
genetically engineered rice that contaminated the U.S. rice
supply, Rick Weiss of The Washington Post reports.

The Research Triangle Park, North Carolina-based firm made the
assertion in a 30-page response that it issued in one of several
class actions filed by farmers, who allege that they stand to
lose millions of dollars because of the contamination.

The response came in a class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Don Downing of
Gray Ritter & Graham PC.  This case is deemed to be the largest
of the lawsuits that were filed over the rice foul-up.

In denying any culpability, company's response variously blames
the escape of its gene-altered variety of long-grain race,
LL601, on:

      -- "unavoidable circumstances, which could not have been
         prevented by anyone";

      -- "an act of God"; and

      -- farmers' "own negligence, carelessness, and/or
         comparative fault."

Bayer conducted field tests of LL601 from 1999 to 2001 in
Louisiana and then dropped the project without seeking
government approval to market it.  

In January 2006, LL601 rice was detected in rice that was to be
exported.  The variety has not been approved for human
consumption anywhere in the world.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
investigating how the variety escaped from test plots into
farmers' fields, where it was quietly amplified for years until
its discovery.  

The day the contamination was announced in August, Bayer asked
the government to approve the variety.  However, a decision is
still pending.  

Meanwhile, aside from Missouri, lawsuits have also been filed on
behalf of rice farmers in such states as Arkansas and Louisiana.  
The company's response to the largest of these suits, the one by
Mr. Downing, asserts that Bayer's test plots were in full
compliance with USDA rules.  

The suit is "Bell, et al. v. Bayer CropScience LP, et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-00128-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court f Missouri under Judge Rodney W. Sippel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Don M. Downing of Gray & Ritter, P.C., 701 Market
         Street, Suite 800, St. Louis, MO 63101-1826, Phone:
         314-241-5620, Fax: 314-241-4140, E-mail:
         ddowning@grgpc.com; and

     (2) Jim S. Green, 114 W. North Street, P.O. Box 545,
         Sikeston, MO 63801-0545, Phone: 573-471-7794, Fax: 573-
         471-7839, E-mail: jimsgreen@sbcglobal.net.


BELFOR USA: Continues to Face Unfair Labor Practices Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham, Michigan-based Belfor USA Group continues to face a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana involving more than 1,000 predominantly immigrant
workers, the New Orleans CityBusiness reports.

Plaintiffs contend they worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week
restoring and cleaning buildings contaminated with mold,
floodwater and smoke.

They said Belfor employed them as "unskilled manual laborers by
using the subcontractor system and unintentionally
misclassifying plaintiffs as independent contractors and/or
supervisors in an effort to circumvent the overtime provisions
of the FLSA."

The case filing said the defendant did not keep a record of
hours worked by the plaintiffs or any records required under the
FLSA.

The suit is "Xavier et al v. Belfor USA Group Inc., Case No.
2:06-cv-00491-JCZ-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Jay C. Zainey, with
referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Brian M. Ballay, Steven F. Griffith, Jr. and Michael
         David Kurtz all of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
         Berkowitz, PC, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600, New
         Orleans, LA 70170, Phone: 504-566-5200, Fax: 504-636-
         4000, E-mail: bballay@bakerdonelson.com or
         sgriffith@bakerdonelson.com or
         dkurtz@bakerdonelson.com; and

     (2) Elizabeth Skelly Cordes, Howard Carter Marshall, Robert
         D. Peyton and Kevin Richard Tully all of Christovich &
         Kearney, LLP, Pan American Life Center, 601 Poydras
         St., Suite 2300, New Orleans, LA 70130-6078, Phone:
         (504) 561-5700, E-mail: escordes@christovich.com or
         hcmarshall@christovich.com or rdpeyton@christovich.com
         or krtully@christovich.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary C. Bauer and Jennifer Rosenbaum both of the
         Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center,
         400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, Phone:
         334-956-8200, E-mail: mbauer@splcenter.org or
         jennifer.rosenbaum@splcenter.org; and

     (2) Barry James Gerharz and Hector A. Linares both of
         Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, 1600 Oretha
         Castle Haley Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-
         522-5437.


BELL ATLANTIC: Court Hears Oral Arguments in N.Y. Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the "Bell
Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 05-1126," antitrust case, the
Jurist reports.

The case addresses whether a complaint under the Sherman Act
must allege specific facts showing that the defendants
participated in a conspiracy, or whether a conspiracy may be
inferred from their "parallel conduct."

William Twombly filed a class action against Bell Atlantic for
violating Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act, found in 15
U.S.C. Section 1.

He complained that the companies created by the breakup of AT&T
agreed not to compete with each other and to hinder other
companies from entering the local telephone service market.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the case, stating that Mr. Twombly needed to establish
at least one "plus-factor" in his complaint, which requires a
reason why individual self-interest is an unlikely explanation
for the companies' behavior.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the district court's decision, remanding the case to
the district court.

The court of appeals held that all that is necessary in an
antitrust complaint is an allegation of a conspiracy and
sufficient facts that establish the conspiracy, and that plus-
factors are not necessary.

But Mr. Twombly's lawyers argued that a higher pleading standard
would defeat meritorious claims by plaintiffs who can obtain
evidence of conspiracy only through discovery.

The defendants contended that a lower standard encourages
companies to settle meritless cases - a position echoed by
Justice Stephen Breyer, who said that a lax standard would allow
plaintiffs to "sue half the firms in the economy."


CALIFONIA: Parties Reach $40M Settlement in San Diego Sewer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego's City Council is considering a tentative settlement
for a purported class action filed by a consumer advocate
against the city on allegations that residential sewer users
were subsidizing large businesses' wastewater bills, according
to Evan McLaughlin of Voice of San Diego.

Filed by Michael Shames in San Diego Superior Court, the suit
was to be settled for $40 million.  In the suit, Mr. Shames
claimed that single-family residences were overcharged by about
$200 million over a 10-year period beginning in 1994.

Under the settlement, $35 million would be refunded to the
residential customers of the system, 12.5 percent of the
settlement -- or $5 million -- would be awarded to the attorneys
for the class-action plaintiffs, and $20,000 will be set aside
for a nonprofit group to serve as a watchdog over the city's
sewer dealings.  

Aside from the presiding judge, the State Water Control
Resources Board must also have to approve the terms of the
settlement.


CANADA: Ontario Disabled Suit Reversed, High Court Appeal Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an appeal by the government against a ruling that certified
the purported class action, "Larcade v. Ontario," the Ontario
Court of Appeal has sided with the defendants and ruled that the
case cannot go forward, The Canadian Press reports.

Back in May 2005, the Ontario Divisional Court certified the
case, which was launched in May of 2001 with Huntsville
resident, Anne Larcade as the representative plaintiff (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2006).  

Mrs. Larcade's son, Alexandre, has multiple disabilities, and
was, allegedly, systematically denied a wide range of services
and benefits.  She was supposedly told that the only way she
could obtain necessary services was to give up custody of her
son to Children's Aid.  Thousands of other disabled children in
the period beginning in 1997 suffered the same fate.  

The Ontario Child and Family Services Act impose an obligation
on the province to promote the best interests and well being of
children and families in Ontario.  It provides for "Special
needs Agreements" as a safety net for profoundly disabled
children whose needs cannot be met through the normal range of
community services.  

Although the law was not changed, in 1997 a decision was made by
the government of the day to terminate "Special Needs
Agreements."  Thus, it became a common practice for families to
relinquish custody of their child in order to access necessary
services and care.

The lawsuit, which was certified in 2005, alleges that the
Ontario government was negligent and failed to meet its legal
obligation to provide services for severely disabled children
that ought to have been provided through Special Needs
Agreements (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2006).

As a result of the Ontario government's negligence, families
were allegedly forced to personally fund services for their
children and, in some cases, relinquish custody of their
children to the government in order to obtain life-saving
services.  The claim seeks damages of $500 million for the
class.

Despite the recent court decision, Mrs. Larcade, who was forced
to temporarily surrender custody of her disabled son so he could
receive specialized care, vowed to take her case to the Supreme
Court.


CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Mulls Nixing of Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
for the consolidated securities class action filed against
Conseco, Inc., and some of its former officers.

After the company's predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in
Indiana) announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9, 2002,
eight purported securities fraud class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  

These suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased its Predecessor's common stock on various dates
between Oct. 24, 2001 and Aug. 9, 2002.  

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and allege
material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading
statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of
Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s
manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the
artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one
case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et
al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8, 2003.

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Messrs.
Shea, Wendt and Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was
dismissed.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Aug.
24, 2005.  

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on Nov. 7, 2005.  

The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton
with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, 3858 Carson Street, Suite 204,
         Torrance, CA 90503, Phone: (310) 792-3948, Fax: (310)
         792-0600, E-mail: laskido@hotmail.com; and

     (2) Brian Joseph Barry of Law Offices Of Brian Barry, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307, Los Angeles, CA 90046,
         Phone: (310) 788-0831, Fax: (310) 788-0841, E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven Kenneth Huffer of Huffer & Weathers, 151 North
         Delaware Street, Suite 1850, Indianapolis, IN 46204,     
         Phone: (317) 822-8010, Fax: (317) 822-8088, E-mail:
         steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com; and

    (ii) Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East
         Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-
         2084, Fax: (317) 660-0412, E-mail:
         rkopecky@kirkland.com.


COOPER CAMERON: Settlement Reached in Tex. Pollution Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cameron Corp. countinues to work on resolving a Texas
state court class action regarding contaminated underground
water in a residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing
site of one of the company's predecessors, according to its Nov.
7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In "Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation," filed in the 80th
Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas on Jun. 21, 2002,
the plaintiffs claim that the contaminated underground water
reduced property values and threatens the health of the area
residents.

The complaint seeks an analysis of the contamination,
reclamation and recovery of actual damages for the loss of
property value.

The company is of the opinion that there is no health risk to
area residents and that the lawsuit essentially reflects
concerns over possible declines in property value.

Counsel for the company, its insurer and the Valice plaintiffs
reached general agreement on the terms and structure of a
possible settlement under which homeowners in the affected area
would be indemnified for a loss of property value, if any, due
to the contamination upon any sale within a limited timeframe.

However, there remain significant unresolved issues relating to
a settlement of this matter including the methodology of
quantifying and allocating damages, attorneys' fees for
plaintiffs' attorneys, all interested parties' agreement on the
settlement and the actual wording thereof, a fairness opinion
rendered by the court and the ability of the plaintiffs to
obtain approval of the members of the putative class.


ENTROPIN INC: Jan. Trial Set for Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 9, 2007 trial is scheduled for a securities fraud lawsuit
pending against Entropin, Inc. and two of its former officers
and/or directors, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are a class of shareholders who
purchased Entropin securities in the Company's March 15, 2000
public offering.  

In the lawsuit, Entropin is accused of violating Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements in the company's March 15, 2000
registration statement regarding the scientific and regulatory
development of its developmental drug, Esterom.

Specifically, the company and the individual defendants are
accused of making false and misleading statements regarding:

     -- the results of its Phase II clinical study of Esterom;

     -- the Phase III clinical study of Esterom; and

     -- Entropin's intention to file a new drug application for
        Esterom in early 2001.

A trial date has been set for Jan. 9, 2007.

Contact information for Entropin, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator: c/o FRG Information Systems Corp., P.O.
Box 4059, Grand Central Station, New York, New York 10163-4059,
Phone: (800) 556-9955, Fax: (212) 490-5709.

Contact information for class counsel: Kenneth J. Catanzarite,
Esq., Jim Travis Tice, Esq., Catanzarite Law Corporation, 2331
West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Phone:
(714) 520-5544, Fax: (714) 520-0680.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Court Has Yet to Approve Stock Suit Stipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against ESS Technology,
Inc., and certain of its present and former officers and
directors is slated for early 2007 has been stayed, by
stipulation, pending the court's resolution of plaintiff's
motion, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Aug. 12, 2002, following the company's downward revision of
revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of
2002, a series of putative federal class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.   

Complaints alleged that the company and certain of its present
and former officers and directors made misleading statements
regarding the company's business and failed to disclose certain
allegedly material facts during an alleged class period of Jan.
3, 2002 through Aug. 12, 2002, in violation of federal
securities laws.  

These actions were consolidated and are proceeding under the
caption, "In re ESS Technology Securities Litigation."   

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the putative
class.  They later amended their consolidated complaint on Nov.
3, 2003, which the company then moved to dismiss on Dec. 18,
2003.  

On Dec. 1, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the complaint
allegations arising prior to Feb. 27, 2002.

On Dec. 22, 2004, based on the court's order, the company moved
to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and
allegations arising prior to Aug. 10, 2002.  

On Feb. 22, 2005, the court granted the company's motion in part
and struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to
Aug. 1, 2002 from the complaint.  

In an order filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the court certified a
plaintiff class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities
during the period beginning Aug. 1, 2002, through and including
Aug. 12, 2002.

On March 24, 2006, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his
operative complaint, seeking to extend the beginning of the
class period back to April 24, 2002 and to re-allege that
certain public statements the company made during that expanded
time period that the court previously found to be inactionable
were false and misleading.  

The company believes that plaintiff's motion is improper and is
opposing it.  A hearing on the motion was held May 19, 2006.

Trial in the consolidated securities class action pending in the  
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is
slated for early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, June 14, 2006).

The suit is "In re ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-4497," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San  
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,  
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:  
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA),  
         100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111,  
         Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534; and  

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,  
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San  
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:  
         support@milberg.com.

Representing the Company are Meredith N. Landy and Joshua D.  
Baker of O'Melveny & Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA  
94025-7019, Phone: 650.473.2600, Fax: 650.473.2601, E-mail:  
mlandy@omm.com or jbaker@omm.com.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Volvos Over Defective Speed Control Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co., in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, issued a recall of 360,000 Volvos because
the vehicle speed control systems can cause the engine to lose
power without warning, the ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

Volvo reports a problem inside the electronic throttle control
module in cars built between 1999 and 2002, which could cause
the vehicle to shift into a "limp home" mode limiting the
maximum speed to roughly 15 miles per hour.

The "limp home" setting is a safety feature in Volvo cars
intended to prevent unintended acceleration in case of a
throttle malfunction.

The recall applies to Volvo C70 and V70 models built between
1999 and 2002, S60 models built between 2001 and 2002, and S70
and V70X models built between 1999 and 2000.

Volvo has already repaired the speed control problem in about
165,000 vehicles of the recall total after sending out notices
to owners in March.

Earlier this month, NHTSA informed Volvo that the agency was
making the recall mandatory.  Volvo owners who bring their cars
to dealerships will have new software reinstalled for the
throttle control unit.


GOOGLE INC: Court Mulls Dismissal of KinderStart Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California indicated in an Oct. 27, 2006 hearing for
the purported class action, "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google,
Inc.," that he might not issue a written ruling until early next
year on a motion to dismiss the case.

In that hearing Judge Fogel heard arguments on whether the
antitrust lawsuit by KinderStart.com LLC against Google Inc.
should proceed to discovery phase or be dismissed (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).

                         Case Background

On March 17, 2006, KinderStart filed a civil complaint, asking
to represent owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's
search engine since January 2001 (Class Action Reporter, July 4,
2006).

In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google wrongfully
banned some Web sites.  It also said that these Web sites could
no longer be restored, since Google does not disclose its
procedures from striking them out (Class Action Reporter, June
26, 2006)

Claiming that it was dropped from Google's index a year ago
without being informed, KinderStart also alleged that the
practice is anti-competitive and that Google misled the public
by positioning its search engine as an objective source for
finding Internet content.

The suit is seeking class-action status, citing that many other
companies suffered by getting left out of Google search results.   
It seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that
would require Google to change its practices (Class Action
Reporter, July 17, 2006).

In recent months, Judge Fogel allowed KinderStart.Com to amend
its complaint against Google before it decides whether to
dismiss the case.

The KinderStart complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dc3  

The suit is "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No.
5:06-cv-02057-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory John Yu of the Global Law
Group, 2015 Pioneer Ct., Suite P-1, San Mateo, CA 94403, Phone:
650-570-4140, Fax: 650-570-4142, E-mail: glgroup@inreach.com.

Representing the defendant are Colleen Bal, David H. Kramer and
Bart Edward Volkmer, Esq. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-493-9300 and
(650) 565-3508, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-mail: cbal@wsgr.com,  
dkramer@wsgr.com and bvolkmer@wsgr.com.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Blackjack Player Files Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment is named defendant in a class action
complaint filed in a California Superior Court, alleging
violation of consumer and business laws by barring successful
blackjack players from its hotel-casinos under threat of arrest,
while continuing to advertise its gambling dens to the public,
the Courthouse News reports.

The suit, filed by Attorney Ernest Franceschi, Jr., for himself
and the public, claims Harrah's bars skillful blackjack players
by policy, but still sends them ads inviting them back.

According to the complaint, "if defendants consider a blackjack
player to be sufficiently skillful to achieve regular wins, that
player would be barred from the premises under the threat of
arrest, photographed without consent, and the player's name,
image and likeness placed in a database, book or other
repository which would be disseminated or shared with other
casinos, thereby resulting in that player's exclusion not just
from Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.'s properties but from all
casinos who receive said information."

Mr. Franceschi claims he was barred from playing blackjack at
five Harrah's joints in 2005, but received "invitations" from
Harrah's after it barred him.

He wants Harrah's barred from advertising in California unless
it posts in all its casinos and all its come-ons a disclaimer
explaining its policy to bar skillful players.

For more details, contact Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., 445 S.
Figueroa Street, Suite 2600, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1630, Phone:
(310) 594-8838.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Phones Plus Files ERISA Litigation in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services, Inc., Hartford Life Insurance
Company and Neuberger Berman Management, Inc. faces a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District Court
of Connecticut, alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

On Nov. 14, 2006, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, filed
a class-action complaint on behalf of its client, Phones Plus,
Inc., and for the benefit of other similarly situated 401k and
retirement plans and trustees.

The class action complaint is brought under the ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001 et seq., and seeks to recover, for the benefit of
the plaintiff's 401(k) plan and all other similarly situated
retirement plans, payments from mutual funds and/or mutual fund
advisors to defendants and similar payments between defendants,
which plaintiff believes were made in violation of ERISA.

According to the complaint, defendants have entered into revenue
sharing agreements and arrangements with various mutual funds as
well as between themselves, pursuant to which defendants receive
payments for their own benefit in violation of, inter alia,
ERISA's prohibited transaction rules, and ERISA's fiduciary
rules.

It seeks to recover the following relief:
    
      -- A declaratory judgment holding that the acts of the
         defendants described are in violation of ERISA and
         applicable law;

      -- A permanent injunction against defendants prohibiting
         the practices described;

      -- Disgorgement and/or restitution of all revenue sharing
         payments received by defendants and/or their
         subsidiaries and affiliates, or alternatively, the
         difference between the revenue sharing payments and the
         reasonable fair market value of any services provided
         by defendants to the mutual funds for which the revenue
         sharing payments purportedly constituted payment;

      -- Attorneys' fees, costs and other recoverable expenses
         of litigation; and

       -- Such other and additional legal or equitable relied
          that the court deems appropriate and just under all of
          the circumstances.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?15e6

The suit is "Phones Plus, Inc. v. Hartford Fin Svc Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-01835-AVC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District Court of Connecticut under Judge Alfred V.
Covello.

Representing the plaintiffs is James E. Miller of Sheperd
Finkelman Miller & Shah-Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412,
Phone: 860-526-1100, Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail:
jmiller@sfmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sfmslaw.com/.


INFORMATICA CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed
against Informatica Corp., according to the company's Nov. 6,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Nov. 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  

The case is entitled, "In re Informatica Corporation Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from
April 29, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.  

It names as defendants Informatica Corp., two of the company's
former officers, and several investment banking firms that
served as underwriters of the company's April 29, 1999 initial
public offering and Sept. 28, 2000 follow-on public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on the grounds that the registration statements for the
offerings did not disclose that:

      -- the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

      -- the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions to
dismiss.  The court denied the motions to dismiss the claims
under the Securities Act of 1933.  

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim
against Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims
against the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual
defendants.

The company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in
exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases and for the assignment or surrender of control of
certain claims the company may have against the underwriters.

The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the company does not
believe will occur.

The settlement will require approval of the court, which cannot
be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to
object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.  

At the hearing on April 24, 2006, the judge took the approval of
the settlement under submission.  

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


JDS UNIPHASE: Hearing Date for "Zelman" Securities Suit Unsure
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to be decided in the purported securities fraud class
action, "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., Case No. 02-4656,"
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of debt securities that were allegedly linked to the
price of the company's common stock.

The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the
debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001 through
July 26, 2001.  

It names the company and several of its former officers and
directors as defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, and seeks
unspecified damages.  

On Aug. 26, 2005, defendants answered the complaint.  On Nov.
16, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which defendants had not opposed.

At a case management conference on Nov. 18, 2005, the court
ordered that discovery in the Zelman action proceed according to
the same schedule as discovery, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp.
Securities Litigation, C-02-1486," which is pending in the same
court.  

On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of their proposed form and method of class notice,
which defendants had not opposed (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
22, 2006).

Accordingly, the deadline for fact discovery in the Zelman
action, except for depositions and discovery arising from new
information obtained at depositions, was Sept. 29, 2006, and the
closing date for completion of depositions and discovery arising
from new information obtained at depositions is Dec. 1, 2006.

The closing date for expert discovery is March 19, 2007.  No
trial date has been set.
  
The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04656," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Susan G. Kupfer of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 455 Market  
         Street, Suite 1810, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:  
         415-972-8160, Fax: 415-972-8166, E-mail:  
         skupfer@glancylaw.com; and  

     (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830  
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:  
         212-371-6600, Fax: 212-751-2540, E-mail:  
         ipress@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Holly H. Tambling of Morrison &  
Foerster, LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482,  
Phone: 415 268-7000, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail:  
Htambling@mofo.com.


LAZARD LTD: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in N.Y. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazard, Ltd. seeks the dismissal of an amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The company and Goldman Sachs & Co., the lead underwriter of the
company's equity public offering of its common stock, as well as
several members of the company's management and board of
directors, have been named as defendants in several putative
class actions.

Plaintiffs in the putative class actions later filed a
consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss that complaint.

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who purchased
securities of the company in connection with an equity public
offering or in the open market.

It alleges various violations of the federal securities laws and
seek, inter alia, compensatory damages, rescission or rescissory
damages and other unspecified equitable, injunctive or other
relief.

Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss that complaint,
according to its Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The first identified suit in this litigation is "Arlette Miller,
et al. v. Lazard Ltd., et al., case no. 05-CV-05630," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Victor Marrero.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;  

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;  

     (4) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite
         202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax:
         610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (8) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com;

     (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com; and

    (10) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-   
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Faces Penn. Antitrust Suit by OSB Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. is named as one of a number of
defendants in multiple class-action complaints filed on or after
Feb. 26, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

These complaints have been dismissed or consolidated into two
complaints as: "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No.
06-CV-00826 (PD)."  

The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed on March 31, 2006 in which plaintiffs seek to
certify a class consisting of persons and entities who directly
purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002 through the
date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser complaint).  

The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, in which the plaintiffs seek
to certify a class consisting of persons and entities who
indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002
through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser
complaint).

The plaintiffs, in both amended and consolidated complaints
described above, seek treble damages in unspecified amounts
alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy among the defendants
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which OSB is
sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
Rules 15 of the U.S. Civil Code.  

The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek
similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and
competition laws as well as consumer protection laws.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Automated Database
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Co. continues to face a suit filed by Marissa
Goodman challenging the company's use of certain automated
database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical
payments.

Plaintiff filed the suit on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated in Los Angeles Superior Court on June
16, 2002.  

She has filed a motion seeking class action certification to
include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the present
who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim reduced
using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the
policy limits for medical payments.

The hearing on this motion, previously set for June 2, 2006, was
continued until Aug. 17, 2006, and then continued to Sept. 21,
2006.  The court heard oral argument, requested further briefing
and took the motion under submission.

Plaintiff alleges that these automated databases systematically
undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds.  
Thus, she is seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance
carriers in the industry.  The case has been coordinated with
two other similar cases, and also with 10 other cases relating
to total loss claims.  

The court denied the company's motion for summary judgment
holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman
sustained any damages as a result of the company's handling of
her medical payments claim.  The original trial date has been
vacated by the court and not rescheduled.


MILBERG WEISS: Jan. 8, 2008 Trial Slated for Calif. Indictment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, a prominent
class-action law firm, and two of its top partners, will start
on Jan. 8, 2008 in U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Previously, Judge John Walter did not set a date for the trial,
but said he was considering fall of next year.  He set a case
meeting to take place Nov. 27, when a trial date will likely be
set (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2006).

The setting of the trial date came amid further questions from
defense lawyers about whether government prosecutors would file
additional indictments, a subject that has been a sticking point
in setting a firm trial date.

Prosecutors had been aiming for a trial date in October 2007,
while defendants were seeking a February 2008 setting.

                        Case Background

Milberg Weiss, and partners David J. Bershad and Steven G.
Schulman were indicted in May 2006 by a federal grand jury for
allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 class
actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200
million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20
years.  The first superseding indictments against them were for
alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money
laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false
tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and
causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture.  A copy of
the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc.

Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is
alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T.
Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary
lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit
of Mr. Lazar.  The indictment also names as co-conspirators,
paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J.
Vogel of Aventura, Florida.

In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not
guilty to the charges filed against them.  Mr. Lazar and Paul T.
Selzer also pleaded not guilty.

In May, Los Angeles, California attorney Richard R. Purtich pled
guilty to a felony tax offense in connection with his
participation in an alleged kickback scheme.


NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Claims in Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. continues to face putative class
suits filed against it and certain of its officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

In September, the Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed the suit purportedly
on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock
from March 31, 2003 through Aug. 11, 2006 to recover damages
caused by alleged violations of federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

The complaint charges that Natural Health and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act by issuing materially false and
misleading statements about key characteristics of the company's
multi-level marketing business model, violations of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, and the company's financial
condition.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period
the company:  

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

      -- internal controls and procedures were inadequate and  
         enabled and assisted the defendants in engaging in  
         improper transactions;  

      -- earnings were significantly impacted from returns by  
         its distributors which reflected the true market  
         penetration and acceptance of the company's products;  
         and  

      -- the company's financial statements filed with the U.S.  
         Securities and Exchange Commission were not prepared in
         accordance with GAAP.  

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1191

The suit is "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01654," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana  
         St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-
         7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com;
  
     (2) Christopher S. Hinton of The Hinton Law Firm, 350 Fifth  
         Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 646/723-
         3377, Fax: 212/202-3827; and

     (3) Phillip Kim and Laurence Rosen both of The Rosen Law  
         Firm, 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118,  
         Phone: 212/686-1060, Fax: 214/202-3827.


NAVARRE CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corp. remains a defendant in consolidated class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
which alleges securities fraud by the company and certain of its
officers and directors, according to the company's Nov. 9 Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ending Sept. 30, 2006.

Early this year, two groups filed lead plaintiff motions for the
consolidated class action litigation against Navarre Corp.,
which were initially commenced in June 2005, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  

The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities
benefited company insiders including the individual defendants.
It further alleged that the company failed to properly recognize
executive deferred compensation and improperly recognized a
deferred tax benefit as income.  

Plaintiffs sought compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.   

The actions are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for
plaintiffs in each of these cases to postpone the time for
bringing a motion to dismiss until after a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel are appointed by the court, and an amended
consolidated complaint is filed.

By memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 12, 2005, the court
appointed "The Pension Group," comprised of the Operating
Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund
and Ms. Grace W. Lai, as Lead Plaintiff, and appointed the
Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as liaison counsel and
the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead counsel.  

The court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the
caption In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, and further
ordered that a consolidated amended complaint be filed.

On Feb. 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint with the court.  This consolidated amended complaint
reiterates the allegations made in the individual complaints and
extends these allegations to the company's restatements of its
previously issued financial statements that were made in
November 2005.  A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was
held on May 10, 2006.

And by an order dated June 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota dismissed the amended class action
brought against Navarre Corp. which alleges securities fraud by
the company and certain of its officers and directors (Class
Action Reporter, June 29, 2006).

The dismissal by the court was without prejudice, meaning that
the plaintiffs were granted 30 days if so desired to amend their
complaint to cure its deficiencies.  If not, the complaint will
be dismissed with prejudice.

On July 28, 2006 Plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaint against defendants.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting,
among other things, that plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured
the defects present in the original consolidated amended
complaint.

Oral argument in connection with defendant's motion to dismiss
was scheduled for Nov. 16, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A.
Magnuson with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laura M Andracchio, Amber L Eck and Trig R Smith all of  
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP - SD,  
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:  
         619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858, E-mail:  
         lauraa@lerachlaw.com or ambere@lerachlaw.com or  
         trigs@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Frances E Baillon of Halunen & Associates, 220 South  
         Sixth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:  
         612-605-4098, Fax: 612-605-4099, E-mail:  
         baillon@halunenlaw.com;

     (3) Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr of Reinhardt Wendorf &  
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250, St Paul, MN  
         55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:  
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (4) Richard B Brualdi of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway  
         24th Floor, New York, NY 10006, Phone: 212-952-0602, E-
         mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com;

     (5) Gregg M Fishbein, Richard A Lockridge and Gregory J  
         Myers all of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, 100  
         Washington Ave S Ste 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179,  
         Phone: (612) 339-6900, Fax: (612)339-0981, E-mail:  
         gmfishbein@locklaw.com or lockrra@locklaw.com or  
         myersgj@locklaw.com; and

     (6) Andrei V Rado, Steven G Schulman and Peter E Seidman  
         all of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One  
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-  
         0165, Phone: 212-946-4474 or 212-946-9356 or 212-631-
         8625, E-mail: arado@milbergweiss.com or  
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com or  
         pseidman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are David A Davenport, Geoffrey P  
Jarpe, Kyle J Kaiser, and William A McNab all of Winthrop &  
Weinstine, PA, 225 S 6th St Ste 3500 Mpls, MN 55402-4629, Phone:  
612-604-6716 or 612-604-6697 or 612-604-6735 or 612-604-6652,  
Fax: 612-604-6816 or 612-604-6897 or 612-604-6835 or 612-604-
6852, E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com or gjarpe@winthrop.com or  
kkaiser@winthrop.com or wmcnab@winthrop.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
issued an order granting in part and denying in part a new
motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint in the
lawsuit against Nortel Networks Ltd. by members of its Long-Term
Investment Plan.

A purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on Dec. 21, 2001, on behalf
of:

     -- participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Long-Term
        Investment Plan at any time during the period of March
        7, 2000 through the filing date; and

     -- who made or maintained Plan investments in Nortel
        Networks Corp. (NNC) common shares, under the Employee
        Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for Plan-wide
        relief.

The suit alleges material misrepresentations and omissions to
induce Plan participants to continue to invest in and maintain
investments in NNC common shares in the Plan.

A second purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
purchased NNC common shares during the period from Oct. 27, 2000
to Feb. 15, 2001 and making similar allegations, was filed in
the same court on March 12, 2002.

A third purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of persons who
are or were Plan participants or beneficiaries at any time since
March 1, 1999 to the filing date and making similar allegations,
was filed in the same court on March 21, 2002.

The first and second purported class actions were consolidated
by a new purported class action complaint, filed on May 15, 2002
in the same court and making similar allegations, on behalf of
Plan participants and beneficiaries who directed the Plan to
purchase or hold shares of certain funds, which held primarily
NNC common shares, during the period from March 7, 2000 through
Dec. 21, 2001.

A fourth purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
held NNC common shares during the period from March 7, 2000
through March 31, 2001 and making similar allegations, was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on March 12, 2003.

On March 18, 2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class
action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer all the actions to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407.

On June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order transferring the Southern District of
New York action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (Consolidated ERISA Action).

On Sept. 12, 2003, the plaintiffs in all the actions filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  On October 28, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion
to stay discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss.

On March 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a class consisting of participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the Plan who held shares of the Nortel Stock
Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31,
2001.

On April 27, 2004, the court granted the defendants' motion to
stay discovery pending resolution of defendants' motion to
dismiss.  

On June 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint that added additional
current and former officers and employees as defendants and
expanded the purported class period to extend from March 7, 2000
through to June 15, 2004.

       Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint

On June 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint that added additional
current and former directors, officers and employees as
defendants and alleged breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the
Plan and as a purported class action on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan who held shares of the Nortel
Networks Stock Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through
June 17, 2005.

On July 8, 2005, the defendants filed a renewed motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action
complaint.  

On July 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion,
and defendants filed a reply memorandum on Aug. 12, 2005.  On
March 30, 2006, the defendants filed an additional motion to
dismiss raising the jurisdictional challenge that all former
plan participants, including one of the named plaintiffs, lack
standing to assert a claim under ERISA.

On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike this
motion to dismiss.  On May 5, 2006, the defendants filed a reply
brief in support of this motion to dismiss.  

On Oct. 11, 2006, the court issued a memorandum order granting
in part and denying in part the renewed motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended consolidated class action complaint.

The suit is "In re Nortel Networks Corp. 'ERISA' Litigation,  
3:03-md-01537," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to  
Judge Juliet Griffin.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laurie B. Ashton of Keller Rohrback, P.L.C., 3101 N.
         Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone:
         (602) 248-0088;
  
     (2) George Edward Barrett of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley,
         217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615)  
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com;   

     (3) Paul Kent Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box
         150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734, Phone: (615) 248-
         2828, Fax: (615) 254-4116, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com;   

     (4) Clifton David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC, 511  
         Union Street, Suite 1610, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone:  
         (615) 986-2684, E-mail: david@brileylaw.com;   

     (5) Todd S. Collins of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust  
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 875-3040,  
         Fax: (215) 875-5715, E-mail: tcollins@bm.net;   

     (6) Kenneth A. Elan of The Law Office of Kenneth A. Elan,
         217 Broadway, Suite 606, New York, NY 10007, Phone:  
         (212) 619-0261.

     (7) Robert Izard of Schatz & Nobel, 1 Corporate Center,  
         Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: (860) 493-
         6292, E-mail: firm@snlaw.net; and

     (8) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull & Brody, Six East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, Fax:
         (212) 490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr. and Gerald David Neenan of Neal  
         & Harwell, 150 Fourth Avenue, N. 2000 First Union  
         Tower, Nashville, TN 37219-2498, Phone: (615) 244-1713,  
         E-mail: aharwell@nealharwell.com and  
         gneenan@nealharwell.com; and  

    (ii) Stuart J. Baskin and Tai H. Park of Shearman &  
         Sterling, 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022-
         6069, Phone: (212) 848-4000.


OFFICEMAX INC: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois
granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action, "Roth v. OfficeMax Inc.,
et al.," according to its Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The company and several former officers and/or directors of the
company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated
class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to
disclose:

      -- that vendor income had been improperly recorded,

      -- that the company lacked internal controls necessary to
         ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance
         with generally accepted accounting principles, and

      -- that the company 's 2004 and later results would be
         adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper
         practices.

The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  On Sept. 21,
2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which is pending.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the court granted the defendant group's joint
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
plaintiffs have 60 days from the date of the order within which
to seek leave to file an amended complaint.

The suit is "Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00236," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  

Representing the plaintiffs are William J. Doyle and William S.
Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655
West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
231-1058.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Phillip M. Goldberg of Foley & Lardner, 321 North Clark
         Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-832-
         4500;

     (2) John William Rotunno of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC, 70
         West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60602-
         4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121, E-mail:
         jrotunno@bellboyd.com; and

     (3) Patrick Thomas Stanton of Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg &
         Krauss, 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700, Chicago,
         IL 60601, Phone: (312) 516-4489, E-mail:
         pstanton@scgk.com.


PRECISION BRAND: Ill. Court Approves Pollution Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has preliminarily approved a $15,750 settlement in a suit filed
against Precision Brand Products, Inc. over alleged
contamination of soil and groundwater.

Precision Brand Products (PBP), Precision Steel, and other
parties have been named in several civil lawsuits brought by and
on behalf of area residents relating to alleged contamination of
soil and groundwater with trichloroethylene and
perchloroethylene.

"Muniz v. Precision Brand Products, Inc., et al.," filed in
April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, is a class action alleging that PBP and the other
defendants caused diminution in property values of nearby homes
and put the residents at an increased risk of contracting
cancer.

The court has granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class on liability issues, but not on damages. Plaintiffs have
recently agreed, in arbitration, to a group settlement
aggregating $15,750, following which each of the 13 plaintiffs,
including PBP, deposited $1,211 into an escrow account.  

The court has approved the agreement on a preliminary basis with
finalization expected to occur early in the fourth quarter of
2006, after which the funds are to be released to the
plaintiffs.

Each defendant's $1,211 payment is subject to reallocation among
the group based on each defendant's relative responsibility for
the contamination, to be determined by arbitration, if possible,
or otherwise, by sampling and analysis of the soils and
groundwater.

Although PBP's and Precision Steel's insurers had undertaken
their defense of this matter, PBP and Precision are involved in
negotiations with the insurers as to amounts ultimately to be
collected from them.

The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Myron Milton Cherry of Myron M.
Cherry & Associates, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100, E-mail:
mcherry@cherry-law.com.  

Representing the defendants is Alan Bruce White of Karaganis,
White & Magel, Ltd., 414 North Orleans, Suite 810, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: (312) 836-1177.


TEPPCO PARTNERS: TEPPCO Unit Holder Sues Over Business Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Co., LLC, the general partner of
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership) is facing a suit
filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of Chancery of New
Castle County in the State of Delaware.

On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as a putative class action on behalf of:

     -- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and
     -- derivatively on its behalf.

It concerns proposals made to its unit holders in its definitive
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Sept. 11, 2006 and other transactions involving
the Parent Partnership and Enterprise or its affiliates.  

The complaint names as defendants:
     
      -- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline;

      -- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products;

      -- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products,
         including EPCO Inc., a privately held company
         controlled by Dan L. Duncan;

      -- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its
         affiliates; and -- Mr. Duncan.  

The Parent Partnership is named as a nominal defendant.

The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposed
in the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the Texas
Eastern Products's maximum percentage interest in the Parent
Partnership's distributions in exchange for limited partner
units, are unfair to its unit holders and constitute a breach by
the defendants of fiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and
that the Proxy Statement fails to provide its unit holders with
all material facts necessary for them to make an informed
decision whether to vote in favor of or against the proposals.  

The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquired
control of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, in
breach of their fiduciary duties to the Parent Partnership and
its unit holders, have caused the Parent Partnership to enter
into certain transactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that
are unfair to it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its
affiliates over the Parent Partnership.  

These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah Gas
Gathering Company joint venture entered into by the Parent
Partnership and an Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale
by the Parent Partnership to an Enterprise affiliate of the
Pioneer plant in March 2006 and the impending divestiture of our
interest in MB Storage in connection with an investigation by
the Federal Trade Commission.

As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit and
Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern
Products recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by the
Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products.  

The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B.
Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members of
the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of
Texas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent because
of their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and its
affiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan.

The complaint seeks relief:

     -- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy
        statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and
        omissions in the Proxy Statement;

     -- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders
        provided for in the Proxy Statement;

     -- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been
        consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect
        thereof, including the impending divestiture of our
        interest in MB Storage;

     -- awarding damages for profits and special benefits
        allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the
        alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and

     -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
        and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the plaintiff in the action filed a motion to
expedite the proceedings, requesting the Court to schedule a
hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to
enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Oct. 26, 2006
special meeting of unit holders.  

On Sept. 26, 2006, the defendants advised the court that the
Parent Partnership would provide to its unitholders specified
supplemental disclosures, which were included in the Form 8-K
and supplemental proxy materials the Parent Partnership filed
with the SEC on Oct. 5, 2006.  

In light of the foregoing, the Parent Partnership believes that
the plaintiff's motion requesting the court to schedule a
hearing to consider his motion to enjoin the special meeting is
moot.  

The special meeting was convened on Oct. 26, 2006, and
adjourned, without voting on the proposals, to Nov. 30, 2006 by
Texas Eastern Products for lack of a quorum.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Court Approves Racial Bias Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
approved an agreement entered by Toyota Motor Credit Corp. to
settle suits alleging that its pricing practices discriminate
against African-Americans and Hispanics.

An alleged class action, "Baltimore v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corp.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for Central
District of California in November 2000.

Two additional cases in the state courts in California were also
filed that contained similar allegations claiming discrimination
against minorities, these are:

     -- "Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.," and
     -- "Gonzales v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.,"

"Herra" was filed in the Superior Court of California Alameda
County on April 2003, while "Gonzales" was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on August 2003, respectively.

Various individuals brought the cases.  Injunctive relief was
sought in all three cases and the cases also included a claim
for actual damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties reached an agreement to settle these cases.  The
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
approved the settlement on Nov. 6, 2006.

Under the settlement, TMCC agreed to stop purchasing contracts
with markups greater than amounts approved under the settlement
and to include disclosures on TMCC's contracts that explain that
the finance charge may be negotiable and that the dealer may
keep part of the finance charge.

TMCC also agreed to:

     -- offer 850,000 pre-approved offers of credit (that cannot
        be marked up) to African-American and Hispanic
        consumers;

     -- contribute $750,000 to non-profit entities for consumer
        education purposes with a focus on minorities;

     -- pay $95,000 in damages;

     -- pay up to $10,600,000 in attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- on submission of a valid claim, provide eligible class
        members with either a certificate of credit applicable
        to their next financing with TMCC in amounts ranging
        from $50 to $400 or a check in amounts ranging from $25
        to $225, depending upon the amount of their payment over
        the applicable buy rate or, in certain circumstances,
        the time their contracts were assigned to TMCC.

There are also non-class action cases making similar claims in
other jurisdictions.

The suit is "Baltimore, et al. v. Toyota Motor Credit, et al.,  
Case No. 2:01-cv-05564-NM-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M.
Manella with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Daniel L. Berger, Hannah E. Greenwald, Hannah E.  
         Greenwald, Marcus Jackson, Seth R. Lesser, Samera Syeda  
         Ludwig, Blair A. Nicholas, Alan Schulman and Darnley D.  
         Stewart of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, 1285  
         Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Fl., New York, NY 10019,  
         Phone: 212-554-1400; and  

     (2) Wyman O Gilmore, Jr. of Wyman O Gilmore Law Offices,  
         115 Court St., P.O. Box 729, Grove Hill, AL 36451,  
         Phone: 251-275-3115, Fax: 251-275-3847.   

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Brandon A. Block of Buchalter Nemer, 1000 Wilshire  
         Boulevard, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:  
         213-891-5108, E-mail: bblock@buchalter.com; and  

    (ii) Lisa M. Simonetti and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock  
         Stroock & Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los  
         Angeles, CA 90067-3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-
         556-5959.


TOYOTA MOTOR: N.J. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Act Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Superior Court vacated its order to grant class
action status to a suit filed against Toyota Motor Insurance
Services (TMIS), challenging its Gold Plan Vehicle Service
Agreement.

The suit was filed in November 2002, claiming that the TMIS Gold
Plan Vehicle Service Agreement is unconscionable on its face and
violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

In September 2004, the case was certified as a class action
consisting of all New Jersey consumers who purchased a TMIS Gold
Plan VSA.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as well as
actual damages and treble damages in an unspecified amount.

In an opinion dated Aug. 1, 2006, the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court of New Jersey issued a decision vacating the
trial court's certification of the class and reversing the
denial of TMIS' Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court
for the entry of judgment in favor of TMIS.  On Sept. 8, 2006,
upon direction of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey
Superior Court, the trial Court vacated its ruling granting
class-action status to the lawsuit and further dismissed the
lawsuit with prejudice.

Torrance, California-based Toyota Motor Insurance Services --
http://www.toyotafinancial.com/-- offers credit insurance,  
extended service contracts, and other vehicle protection plans.
It is part of the worldwide financial services operations for
Toyota Financial Services Corp., which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan.


WELDING LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Lose Ill., Tex. Welding Fume Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juries in Madison County, Illinois, and the other in Galveston
County, Texas, have each decided in favor of welding rod
manufacturers in suits filed by welders alleging welding rod
fumes could cause Parkinson's Disease, the Insider reports.

Michael Haskell, a welder in Madison County, filed the Illinois
suit against, among others:

      -- The Lincoln Electric Co.,
      -- Airco/BOC Group,
      -- The ESAB Group, Inc.,
      -- Hobart Brothers Co.,
      -- Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and
      -- J.W. Harris Co.

The Texas suit, known as the Godwin case, was filed against:

      -- The Lincoln Electric Co.,
      -- Hobart Brothers Co.,
      -- The ESAB Group, Inc.,
      -- Praxair,
      -- Union Carbide Corp., and
      -- Miller Electric Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Lead defense trial counsel in the Godwin case were Bruce Hurley
and Reagan Simpson of King & Spalding LLP --
http://www.kslaw.com/-- John Bissell of Strong, Pipkin, Bissell  
& Ledyard, LLP -- http://www.strongpipkin.com/-- and Ernest J.  
Blansfield, Jr., Attorney at Law.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Claims in Hip, Knee Implant Suit Exceeds 4,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
The claims administrator in the settlement of a suit over
defective hip and knee implant produced by Centerpulse AG, which
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. acquired, received more than 4,000 claims
as of October.

As a result of the Centerpulse transaction, Zimmer acquired the
entity involved in Centerpulse's hip and knee implant litigation
matter.  The litigation was a result of a voluntary recall of
certain hip and knee implants manufactured and sold by
Centerpulse.  

On March 13, 2002, a U.S. class action settlement agreement was
entered into by Centerpulse, which resolved U.S. claims related
to the affected products, and a settlement trust was established
and funded for the most part by Centerpulse.

The court approved the settlement arrangement on May 8, 2002.  
Under the terms of the settlement, the company will reimburse
the settlement trust a specified amount for each revision
surgery over 4,000 and revisions on reprocessed shells over 64.

As of Oct. 2, 2006, the claims administrator has received 4,133
likely valid claims for hips (cut-off date June 5, 2003) and
knees (cut-off date Nov. 17, 2003) and 200 claims for
reprocessed shells (cut-off date Sept. 8, 2004).


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Several Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. is facing several class actions brought by
direct and indirect purchasers of the company's orthopedic
products.  

Following the commencement of the Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division's investigation, Zimmer Holdings and several
other major orthopaedic manufacturers have been named as
defendants in six putative class action lawsuits as of October
27, 2006.

Direct and indirect purchasers of orthopedic products, alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws and certain state
consumer protection statutes, brought these lawsuits.  

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of orthopedic
implant devices.

The direct purchaser cases are:

     -- "South Central Surgical Center, LLC v. Zimmer Holdings,
        Inc. et al." and

     -- "Chaiken DDS, P.C. v. Biomet, Inc. et al."

Theses cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on July 13, 2006 and in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on July 26,
2006, respectively.

The indirect purchaser cases:

     -- "Morganti v. Johnson & Johnson et al.,"
   
     -- "Thomas v. Biomet, Inc. et al.,"

     -- "Kirschner v. Biomet, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Williams v. Biomet, Inc. et al."

These cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on July 19, 2006 (Morganti) and in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee on July 18, 2006,
July 24, 2006 and July 27, 2006, respectively.

In all of these cases, the plaintiffs seek damages of
unspecified amounts, in some cases to be trebled under
applicable law, attorneys' fees and injunctive or other
unspecified relief.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 4-5, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 4-5, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
MTBE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7-8, 2006
COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealeys Seminars
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7-8, 2006
SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8, 2006
NITA'S COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT: ARGUING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Mealeys Seminars
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2006
CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Key Biscayne, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13-15, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 22-23, 2007
MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP
10 ISSUES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

November 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

November 28, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #2 - FOSAMAX
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 28, 2006
WHITE COLLAR CRIME
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 29, 2006
RETAIL IN-HOUSE PERSPECTIVES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 4, 2006
IMMIGRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #3 - SSRI's
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5, 2006
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6, 2006
CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #4 - CONTACT LENS SOLUTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2006
E-DISCOVERY - HOW TO CREATE AN E-DISCOVERY PRACTICE TEAM AT YOUR
FIRM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13, 2006
ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2006
DETERMINING WHAT EXPENSES MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTINGENT FEE
CLIENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org  


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Tier Technologies, Inc.
between Nov. 29, 2001 and Oct. 25, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed
against Tier and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tier issued a series of
false and misleading financial statements by overstating company
earnings and underreporting company losses.

On Dec. 14, 2005, Tier announced that its financial statements
for the fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2004
and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005 should no longer be
relied upon as a restatement of these financial results would be
necessary.  

On October 25, 2006, the company finally restated its financial
statements indicating that the company had over reported its net
income and underreported losses for approximately five years.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 9, 2007
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.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  * * *