CAR_Public/061130.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 30, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 238

                            Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Still Faces Suit in Fla. Over Use of Driver's Data
ADAMS GOLF: Consolidated Stock Suit Hearing Set June 18, 2007
AMERICA SERVICE: Amended Tenn. Stock Suit Names Secure Pharmacy
AMERICREDIT CORP: Appeal on Tex. Stock Suit Dismissal Withdrawn
ANSUL INC: Recalls Fire Extinguishers that Could Fail to Operate

AWB LTD: Maurice Blackburn Plans to File Shareholders' Lawsuit
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Fourth Amended Stock Lawsuit in Calif.
BROADWING INC: Court Gives Final Okay to ERISA Suit Settlement
BROADWING INC: Court Mulls Final Okay for Stock Suit Settlement
CEPHALON INC: Faces Suit in Penn. Over Patent Lawsuit Settlement

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Settles UPTA Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.
ENVIRONMENTAL LIGHTING: Recalls Desk Lamps Posing Shock Hazard
FMF CAPITAL: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Canada for $24.7M
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Made for Dismissed Suit
KAISER PERMANENTE: ACLU Plans to File Suit Over Discharge Policy

KINDER MORGAN: Tex. Royalty Interests Suit Trial Set June 2007
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling in Bias Suit Appeal by 2007
METASOLV INC: Discovery Partners Files Suit in Texas Over Merger
METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS: Faces Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in Mo.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face SRAM Antitrust Litigation

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class in DRAM Antitrust Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in Idaho
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Indirect DRAM Purchasers' Suits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Suits in Calif. Over Lexar Merger
NL INDUSTRIES: Class Claims Dropped in Mich. Lead Smelting Suit

NTS-PROPERTIES: Settles Financial Obligations in "Buchanan"
NTS REALTY: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Bohm" Suit in Kentucky
PMI MORTGAGE: Parties Settle FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
POLYMEDICA CORP: Settles Mass. Stock Suit with Certified Class
PRISON HEALTH: Faces Penn. Suit Over Fees Paid to Physicians

SANDISK CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in msystems Stock Lawsuit
STAAR SURGICAL: Calif. Court Okays $3.7M Stock Suit Settlement
TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Court in Ohio Approves "Buyer's Source" Suit
TIMCO WORLDWIDE: Recalls Cantaloupe on Salmonella Contamination
VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit

WORLDCOM INC: N.Y. Judge Okays $4.52B Distribution to Investors
YANKEE CANDLE: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Madison Dearborn Merger


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRANTLEY CAPITAL: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ACXIOM CORP: Still Faces Suit in Fla. Over Use of Driver's Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers remain
defendants in a purported class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed in state
court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003.  
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used driver's
license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees.

To date, a class has not been certified, according to the
company's Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data
Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Jose E. Martinez with referral to Judge Ted E. Bandstra.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Tod N. Aronovitz of Aronovitz Trial Lawyers, 150 W
         Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower, Miami, FL
         33130, Phone: 305-372-2772, Fax: 375-0243, E-mail:
         ta@aronovitzlaw.com;

     (2) Mark S. Fistos of James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich,
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200, Tallahassee, FL
         32308, Phone: 850-325-2680, Fax: 325-2681;

     (3) Lawrence Dean Goodman of Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells,
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850, Miami, FL 33131, Phone:
         305-374-8200, Fax: 374-8208, E-mail:
         lgoodman@devinegoodman.com; and

     (4) James Kellogg Green, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650
         Esperante, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phonr: 561-659-
         2029, Fax: 655-1357, E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net.


ADAMS GOLF: Consolidated Stock Suit Hearing Set June 18, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action against Adams Golf, Inc.,
currently pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of
Delaware, is currently set to go to trial on June 18, 2007,
according to the company's Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class actions was filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public
offering.   

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
the company's IPO.  In particular, the complaints alleged that
its prospectus, which became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was
materially false and misleading in at least two areas.

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the company's long-term profits.  They also
alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf
equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at
the retail level, which had an adverse impact on sales.

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including legal fees.   

On Dec. 10, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint.  
Plaintiffs appealed.   

On Aug. 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims relating to oversupply of retail inventory,
while reversing the dismissal of the claims relating to the
impact of gray market sales and remanding those claims for
further proceedings.

On Sept. 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
their complaint, which was granted on Jan. 24, 2006.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which
the District Court granted in part and denied in part on Apr.
11, 2006.

Now, in addition to the gray-market sales claim, the second
amended complaint alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose
that the company engaged in questionable sales practices,
including double shipping and unlimited rights of return, which
threatened post-IPO financial results.  Fact discovery closed on
June 30, 2006.  Trial is currently set for June 18, 2007.

The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Kent A. Jordan.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait,
Gross & Goddess, Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box
1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E-mail:
CKeener@rmgglaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kevin G. Abrams of Abrams & Laster, LLP, Brandywine  
         Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303, Wilmington, DE
         19803, Phone: (302) 778-1000, Fax: (302) 778-1001;

     (2) Jeffrey L. Moyer of Richards, Layton & Finger, One  
         Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551, Wilmington, DE 19899,  
         Phone: (302) 651-7700, E-mail: moyer@rlf.com; and

     (3) John E. James of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313  
         N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951,
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000, E-
         mail: jjames@potteranderson.com.


AMERICA SERVICE: Amended Tenn. Stock Suit Names Secure Pharmacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit pending
against America Service Group Inc. and its consolidated
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee have filed an amended complaint.

On April 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

Plaintiffs' allegations in these class actions are substantially
identical.  They are brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who purchased the company's common stock between
Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006.

Allegedly, prior to the company's announcement of the Audit
Committee investigation, the company and/or the company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements, or concealing information about
the company's business, forecasts and financial performance.

The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.  By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court
consolidated the lawsuits into one consolidated action.  On Oct.
31, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding as
defendants:

     * Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC;
     * Enoch E. Hartman III; and
     * Grant J. Bryson.

The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business which caused the company's securities to trade at
inflated prices during the class period.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form of
restitution; compensatory damages, including interest; and
reasonable costs and expenses.

The suit is "In Re: American Service Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.

Representing plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou at Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
         general_efile@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) George Edward Barrett at Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue, N, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615)
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.

Representing defendant Peoria Police Pension Fund is Marcia
Meredith Eason at Miller & Martin, Volunteer Building, 832
Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Chattanooga, TN 37402, Phone: (423)
756-8304, Fax: (423) 785-8480, E-mail: meason@millermartin.com.

Representing defendant America Service Group, Inc. is Benjamin
Lee, King & Spalding LLC, 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA
30309-3521, Phone: (404) 572-4600, Fax: (404) 572-5100, E-mail:
blee@kslaw.com.


AMERICREDIT CORP: Appeal on Tex. Stock Suit Dismissal Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a securities fraud suit filed against AmeriCredit
Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas agreed to withdraw a notice of appeal on the dismissal of
the suit.

In fiscal 2003, several complaints were filed by shareholders
against the company and certain of the its officers and
directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's
secondary public offering of common stock on Oct. 1, 2002.  

These complaints were consolidated into one action, "Pierce v.
AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," pending in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.   

The plaintiff in Pierce sought class-action status.  In Pierce,
the plaintiff claimed, among other allegations, that deferments
were improperly granted by the company to avoid delinquency
triggers in securitization transactions and enhance cash flows
and to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency
percentages, thereby causing the company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.  

The plaintiff also alleged that the company's registration
statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make other statements in the registration statement
not misleading.  

On Aug. 16, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing the
Pierce case as to all remaining claims and to all parties, with
prejudice.  

The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 15, 2006 but
later informed the company of its desire to withdraw the notice
of appeal.  Accordingly, on Oct. 10, 2006, the company, the
plaintiff and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to
withdraw the notice of appeal, which was granted by the court on
Oct. 23, 2006.  The Pierce case has now been resolved in the
company's favor.

The suit is "In Re: AmeriCredit Corp. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 03-CV-026," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Terry R. Means.   

Plaintiffs firms named in complaint:

      (1) Emerson Poynter, LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock,  
          AR, 72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
          tanya@emersonfirm.com; and

      (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA), 1801 Ave. of the  
          Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)  
          201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:  
          info@glancylaw.com.


ANSUL INC: Recalls Fire Extinguishers that Could Fail to Operate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ansul Inc. of Marinette, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 154,000
units of K-GUARD, SENTRY and FLAG FIRE model fire extinguishers.

The company said that if the fire extinguisher is dropped
horizontally from a height of approximately 2 to 3 ft., the
pick-up tube could crack at the threads between the pick-up tube
adaptor and the stainless steel tube.  If a pick-up tube is
cracked, the extinguisher can fail to discharge properly when
activated, which can put users at risk during a fire.  No
injuries were reported.

The recall involves K-GUARD Wet Chemical, FLAG FIRE KITCHEN ONE
Wet Chemical, FLAG FIRE Water and SENTRY Water Fire
Extinguishers manufactured and shipped between May 2003 and
September 9, 2005.

The recall program involves pick-up tube replacements in the
these extinguishers:

Brand                        Model            Part Number(s)

K-GUARD Wet Chemical         K01-1            430849 (UL)
                                              430850 (ULC)
                             K01-2            432843 (UL)
                                              432848 (ULC)

SENTRY Water                 W02-1            430847 (English)
                                              430848  
                                              (Spanish/English)

FLAG FIRE KITCHEN ONE        KS-6000          552055 (UL)
Wet Chemical                                  552500 (ULC)

FLAG FIRE Water              PWS-25G          552050 (UL)
                                              552501 (ULC)

Model numbers can be found on the fire extinguisher labels.  
Affected models meet the criteria: The year 2004 or 2005 is
stamped on the hanger hook attachment on the shell.  

For 2003 models, information on specific serial numbers included
in the recall can be found at http://www.ansul.comfor the K-
GUARD Wet Chemical and SENTRY Water extinguishers, or at
http://www.pyrochem.comfor the FLAG FIRE and KITCHEN ONE Wet  
Chemical extinguishers.  Contact the firm to determine if your
extinguisher is included in this replacement program.

Pictures of the recalled fire extinguishers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07507a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07507b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07507c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07507d.jpg

These recalled fire extinguishers were manufactured in the
United States and are being sold by Ansul Incorporated, through
its authorized fire equipment distributors, from May 2003
through September 2005.  Extinguishers were sold by distributors
to their end users for about $150 to $225 each for the kitchen
units and for about $100 each for the water units.

Pick-up tube replacements will be performed during routine
annual maintenance.  The pick-up tube assembly is inside the
extinguisher and cannot be visually inspected without de-
pressurizing and disassembling the extinguisher.  This work
should only be done by an authorized ANSUL distributor.

ANSUL on the Net: http://www.ansul.com;PYRO-CHEM on the Net:  
http://www.pyrochem.com.


AWB LTD: Maurice Blackburn Plans to File Shareholders' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman plans to file a
class action against AWB Ltd. (AWB.AU) by mid-December on behalf
of a group of shareholders, according to Dow Jones Commodities
News.

According to Maurice Blackburn managing principal Ben Slade, he
is finalizing the details of the suit, to be filed on behalf of
up to 100 retail and institutional AWB shareholders.

Earlier this year, the law firm indicated that is was
considering filing a class action against the Australian wheat
exporter on behalf of shareholders who lost money in the wake of
an inquiry into the firm's business deal with Iraqi government
under Saddam Hussein (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 14, 2006).

Shares in AWB fell 30% since the first revelations that retired
Judge Terence Cole is investigating the firm for payments it
made in Iraq through the United Nations' oil-for-food program.  

A United Nations report last year found out that AWB paid $221.7
million in kickbacks to a trucking company linked to Saddam
Hussein's deposed government.  The Cole inquiry began public
hearings since Jan. 16.

In his final report, released recently, Judge Cole found AWB, 11
of its former executives, and one former BHP Billiton executive
may have broken Australian laws, including criminal and banking
codes.

This final report is expected to strengthen the firm's planned
case against AWB, which Mr. Slade plans to file in the New South
Wales Supreme Court, seeking about AUD$60 million in damages.  

Mr. Slade said that a litigation funder would finance the case
in exchange for a percentage of any damages awarded.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman on the Net:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Fourth Amended Stock Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit against Biolase
Technology, Inc. have filed a fourth amended complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of an
alleged class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between Oct. 29, 2003 and July 16, 2004.  

The complaints alleged that the company and its officers
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material
information about the demand for the company's products and the
fact that the company would not achieve the alleged forecasted
growth.  The claimed misrepresentations included certain
statements in the company's press releases and the registration
statement the company filed in connection with the company's
public offering of stock, which closed in March 2004.

In January 2006, the company's motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaint was granted and the
action was dismissed, with leave to further amend, by the order
of the Honorable David O. Carter, U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California.  On March 10, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

The third amended complaint made the same allegations regarding
violations of the federal securities laws but is limited to an
alleged class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the
public offering of the company's stock that closed in March
2004.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint and on July
25, 2006, the court ruled on the motion, granting the motion on
the grounds that lead plaintiffs lack standing, denying the
motion on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim
and allowing plaintiffs to file a fourth amended complaint and a
motion to appoint new lead plaintiffs.  

On Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
which defendants answered on Oct. 20, 2006.  

In addition, three stockholders have filed derivative actions in
the state court in California seeking recovery on behalf of the
company, alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duties by those individual defendants and by the members of the
company's Board of Directors.

The class action and the derivative actions are still in the
pretrial stage and no discovery has been conducted by any of the
parties.

The suit is "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-947," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David
O. Carter.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Lionel Z. Glancy, Peter Arthur
         Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of
         the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone:
         310-201-9150;

     (2) Gregory M. Castaldo of Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala
         Plaza E, Ste. 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-
         667-7706; and

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller Bowman Coates &
         Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406, Melville, NY
         11747, Phone: 631-367-7263, E-mail:
         srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are Theodore K. Bell, Bruce A.
Ericson and Marci A Reichbach of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman, Phone: 650-233-4500, 415-983-1000 and 415-983-1422, E-
mail: tbell@pillsburywinthrop.com,  
bericson@pillsburywinthrop.com and
marci.reichbach@pillsburylaw.com;  


BROADWING INC: Court Gives Final Okay to ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave
final approval to the proposed settlement in the class action,
"In re Broadwing, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. C-1-02-857."

Between Nov. 18, 2002 and March 17, 2003, five putative class
actions were filed against, Broadwing Inc., a subsidiary of
Cincinnati Bell, Inc., and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  Fidelity Management Investment Trust
Co. was also named as a defendant in these actions.

These cases, which purport to be brought on behalf of the
Cincinnati Bell Inc. Savings and Security Plan, the Broadwing
Retirement Savings Plan, and a class of participants in the
plans, generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by improperly encouraging the plan participant-
plaintiffs to elect to invest in the company stock fund within
the relevant plan and by improperly continuing to make employer
contributions to the company stock fund within the relevant
plan.

On Oct. 22, 2003, a putative consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.  The company filed its motion to dismiss on Feb. 6,
2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 2, 2004 and
the company filed its reply May 17, 2004.

On Oct. 6, 2004, the judge issued a Scheduling Order in these
matters.  According to the Scheduling Order, discovery was
permitted to commence immediately and was to have been completed
by Nov. 15, 2005.  The trial was tentatively scheduled to take
place in May 2006.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement of ERISA Actions providing for the
settlement of the consolidated case with no finding or admission
of any wrongdoing by any of the defendants in the lawsuit.

Under the agreement, defendants are oblige to pay $11 million,
which payment will be made on their behalf by their insurers, to
a fund to settle the claims of, and obtain a release of all
claims from, the class members.

On March 13, 2006, the court issued an order giving preliminary
approval of the agreement and scheduled a settlement fairness
hearing on June 22, 2006.  

On Oct. 5, 2006, the court issued a final order approving the
settlement, as submitted by the parties.  Accordingly, this case
has been dismissed with prejudice, according to the Cincinnati
Bell, Inc.'s Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Broadwing, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. C-
1-02-857," filed in U.S District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio under Judge Michael H. Watson with referral to Judge
Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Willie Charles Briscoe of Provost Umphrey Law Firm,
         LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue, Sutie 700, Dallas, TX 75204,
         Phone: 214-744-3000, Fax: 214-744-3015, E-mail:
         provost_dallas@yahoo.com;

     (2) David A. Futscher of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks,
         PSC, 128 East Second Street, PO Box 2618, Covington, KY
         41012-2618, Phone: 859-291-9000, E-mail:
         dfutscher@pdfslaw.com; and

     (3) Ann Louise Lugbill, 2406 Auburn Avenue, Cincinnati, OH
         45219, Phone: 513-784-1280, E-mail:
         alugbill@choice.net.

Representing the defendants is Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost
Brown Todd, LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th Street, Cincinnati,
OH 45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745, E-mail:
gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


BROADWING INC: Court Mulls Final Okay for Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to grant final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action against Broadwing, Inc., a
subsidiary of Cincinnati Bell, Inc.

Between October and December 2002, five virtually identical
class actions were filed against Broadwing Inc. and two of its
former chief executive officers.

These complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002,
inclusive, and alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, inter alia:

      -- improperly recognizing revenue associated with
         Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreements; and

      -- failing to write-down goodwill associated with the
         company's 1999 acquisition of IXC Communications, Inc.
         
Plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and expert expenses.

On April 28, 2006, the company and plaintiffs entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, which sets forth an agreement in
principle to settle this matter.  

On July 12, 2006, the company and plaintiffs entered into a
definitive stipulation and agreement of settlement reflecting
the terms of the above-referenced MOU.  

On July 21, 2006, the court issued a preliminary order approving
the notice and proof of claim forms to be mailed to class
members and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing on Sept. 6,
2006.  

The settlement fairness hearing took place on that predetermined
date.  All objections to the proposed settlement have been
withdrawn and the parties are awaiting final approval by the
court, according to the Cincinnati Bell, Inc.'s Nov. 8, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is, "In re Broadwing, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-1-02-795," filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge Walter H. Rice.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Matthew Roberts Chasar of Strauss & Troy Co. LPA, The
         Federal Reserve Building, 150 East 4th Street,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-621-2120, Fax: 513-
         241-8259, E-mail: mrchasar@strausstroy.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Peter J. Beshar of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 200
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-351-4084,
         E-mail: pbeshar@gibsondunn.com; and

    (ii) Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 2200 PNC
         Center, 201 E. 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182,
         Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745, E-mail:
         gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


CEPHALON INC: Faces Suit in Penn. Over Patent Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Private parties filed a number of civil antitrust complaints,
purportedly filed as class actions, against Cephalon Inc.
Barr Laboratories Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit claims, among other things, that the patent litigation
settlements concerning PROVIGIL violate the antitrust laws of
the U.S. and certain state laws.

The proposed consolidated class action complaints have been
designated by plaintiffs, each of which seeks to certify
separate, purported classes of plaintiffs: direct purchasers of
PROVIGIL, and consumers and other indirect purchasers of
PROVIGIL.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking monetary damages and/or
equitable relief.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Settles UPTA Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Casualty Co. reached an agreement to settle a
lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia over the way it resolved asbestos claims.

Initially, Continental Casualty was named in the case "Adams v.
Aetna, Inc., et al.," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia on Jun. 28, 2002.  The case is a
purported class action alleging that the defendants violated
West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPTA) in handling
and resolving asbestos claims against five specifically named
asbestos defendants.  

A planned motion for an amended complaint by the plaintiffs that
reflected two June 2004 decisions of the West Virginia Supreme  
Court of Appeals stayed the Adams litigation.  

In June 2005, the court presiding over Adams and three similar
putative class actions against other insurers, on its own
motion, directed plaintiffs to file any amended complaints by
Jun. 13, 2005 and directed the parties to agree upon a case
management order that would supposedly result in trial being
commenced by July 2006.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint greatly expanded the scope of the
action against the insurers, including Continental Casualty.   
Under the Amended complaint, the defendant insurers, including  
Continental Casualty, were now being sued for alleged violations
of the UTPA in connection with handling and resolving asbestos
personal injury and wrongful death claims in West Virginia
courts against all their insureds if those claims were resolved
before Jun. 30, 2001.  

Continental Casualty, along with other insurer defendants
removed the Adams case to the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of West Virginia under the caption, "Adams v.  
Ins. Co. of North America (INA), et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-0527."   
A motion by plaintiffs to remand the case to state court was
granted on March 30, 2006.

Following remand to state court, Continental Casualty's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint was denied as to living
plaintiffs, but granted as to claims brought by two estates, and
the company subsequently answered the amended complaint, as it
had been narrowed by the plaintiffs in the interim.  

As narrowed, the amended complaint continues to seek
compensatory damages for the alleged delay in resolving
plaintiffs' underlying asbestos claims and for aggravation
allegedly caused by that delay and punitive damages, but no
longer seeks damages for the difference between the amount
plaintiffs received in their underlying asbestos settlement and
what they claim they should have received, damages for increased
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and damages for loss by
spouses of consortium.   

The trial court stated that it intends for trial in the case to
commence in July 2007.

On Sept. 18, 2006, Continental Casualty reached a settlement
with plaintiffs conditioned upon court approval, and completion
of satisfactory documentation, among other conditions.

In the event the settlement is not consummated, numerous factual
and legal issues would determine the final result in Adams, the
outcome of which cannot be predicted with any reliability.

These issues include:

     -- the legal sufficiency and factual validity of the novel
        statutory claims pled by the claimants;

     -- the applicability of claimants' legal theories to
        insurers who issued excess policies and/or neither
        defended nor controlled the defense of certain
        policyholders;

     -- the possibility that certain of the claims are barred by
        various Statutes of Limitation;

     -- the fact that the imposition of duties would interfere
        with the attorney-client privilege and the contractual
        rights and responsibilities of the parties to CAN
        Financial Corp.'s insurance policies;

     -- whether plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in
        part by injunctions that have been issued by bankruptcy
        courts that are overseeing, or that have overseen, the
        bankruptcies of various insureds;

     -- whether some or all of the named plaintiffs or members
        of the plaintiff class have released Continental
        Casualty from the claims alleged in the Amended
        Complaint when they resolved their underlying asbestos
        claims;

     -- the appropriateness of the case for class action
        treatment; and

     -- the potential and relative magnitude of liabilities of
        co-defendants.

The federal suit is "Adams, et al. v. Insurance Co. of North  
America, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00527," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under  
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) J. David Cecil of James F. Humphreys & Associates,
         United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street, East  
         Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/347-5050, Fax: 347-
         5055;  

     (2) W. Stuart Calwell of The Calwell Practice, P.O. Box  
         113, Charleston, WV 25321-0113, Phone: 304/343-4323,  
         Fax: 344-3864; and

     (3) David P. Chervenick of Goldberg Persky & White, Third  
         Floor, 1030 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295,  
         Phone: 412/471-3980, Fax: 471-8308.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) John D. Aldock, Frederick C. Schafrick and Mark S.  
         Raffman of Goodwin & Procter, 901 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202/346-4000, Fax: 346-
         4444; and

    (ii) Robert B. Allen of Allen Guthrie Mchugh & Thomas, P.O.  
         Box 3394, Charleston, WV 25333-3394, Phone: 304/345-
         7250, Fax: 345-9941, E-mail: rballen@agmtlaw.com.


ENVIRONMENTAL LIGHTING: Recalls Desk Lamps Posing Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Lighting Concepts Inc., of Tampa, Florida, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 6,800 units of Taylor desk lamps.

The company said the fiberglass sheath intended to protect the
electrical cord can become improperly aligned during consumer
assembly of the lamp.  This poses a shock hazard to consumers.

Environmental Lighting Concepts has received four reports of
minor electrical shocks.  No property damage has been reported.

This recall involves "Taylor" model burnished nickel metal desk
lamp.  The adjustable lamp is 16- to 24.75-inches high with
adjustment points at the base, mid-shaft and shade.  An "O" logo
is engraved on the tube cup under the rotary power switch and
the name "OTT-LITE" is engraved on the front of the base.  Model
number 13Z63BN9 or 13T63BN9 is printed on a black label on the
underside of the base.

Picture of recalled desk lamp:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07037.jpg

These recalled desk lamps were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Office Depot stores nationwide from May 2006 to
October 2006 for about $80.

Environmental Lighting on the Net: http://www.ott-lite.com


FMF CAPITAL: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Canada for $24.7M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds LLP announced that the FMF Capital
Group Ltd. securities class actions have been settled for over
$24.7 million (CAN$28 million).

The final settlement remains subject to each of the plaintiffs
and defendants executing the definitive settlement agreement and
court approval.  There can be no assurance that the settlement
will be approved by the courts.  Neither FMF Capital Group Ltd.
nor its directors will pay any part of the settlement amount.

Under the settlement agreement, $21 million will be paid by
FMF's insurers and by Michigan Fidelity Acceptance Corporation,
a privately-held affiliate of FMF.

The balance of the settlement proceeds ($20.15 million) will be
paid by FMF's auditors and by the underwriters of FMF's March
2005 initial public offering, led by BMO Nesbitt Burns, Inc.

Siskinds will seek court approval of the settlement in Ontario
on Jan. 25, 2007.

"We are very pleased with this historic settlement," said
Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds. "It will result in a substantial
recovery to Canadian investors who saw the value of their
investments plummet overnight."

Charles Wright of Siskinds added, "This litigation was hard
fought, but we succeeded in securing terms that are important to
Canadian investors.  FMF, the issuer of the securities, is
paying no monies toward the settlement, so class members who
continue to own shares of FMF are protected.  In addition, FMF's
Board has agreed to make certain clarifying changes to FMF's
Board mandate and Audit Committee charter.  This type of
settlement provides real relief to shareholders."

In February, shareholders of FMF Capital Group filed a purported
class action in Ontario, Canada against FMF Capital Group Ltd.,
FMF Holdings, LLC, FMF Capital, LLC, certain of the company's
officers and directors, the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering, the company's auditors and certain
other named individuals (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 07, 2006).

The suit alleges, among other things, prospectus
misrepresentations, breaches of the Competition Act and
negligent misrepresentation.  The company believes that the
claims alleged in the statement of claim are without merit.

In a press release, FMF Capital said that although this
settlement is important, the industry and the company continue
to face extremely challenging issues.  As a result, the company
does not anticipate making any future distributions on its IPSs
and continues to work with Genuity Capital Markets, a financial
advisory firm, to review and consider all potential strategic
alternatives.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, FMF Capital Group Ltd. --
http://www.fmfcapital.com-- is a residential mortgage lending  
company that originates and funds primarily nonconforming or
"nonprime" mortgage loans in the U.S. and sells those mortgage
loans to institutional loan purchasers within an average of 39
days of funding.

For FMF Class Action details, case background and timing
information, contact Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds LLP, Phone:
(519) 660-7844.


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Made for Dismissed Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers, have not
appealed the dismissal of their case, thus ending the matter in
favor of the defendants.

Beginning on July 2, 2004, three purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The actions were later consolidated and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of IntraBiotics common stock between Sept. 5, 2003 and June 22,  
2004.  

The amended complaint generally alleges that IntraBiotics and
several of its officers and directors made false or misleading
statements concerning the clinical trial of Isegana.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages.  

On Feb. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On Jan. 23,
2006, the court issued its decision on the motion, granting the
motion to dismiss the claim under the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, with leave to amend, and denying the motion to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 22, 2006.  The
company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 14, 2006.

In orders issued on Aug. 1 and 30, 2006, the court dismissed all
claims against the defendants.  The court entered judgment in
favor of defendants on Oct. 3, 2006.

Plaintiffs had 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal.  As
plaintiffs did not appeal the judgment before the end of that
time limit, the case has now ended in favor of IntraBiotics and
the individual defendants, according to IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals' Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.  

The suit is "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2675," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market  
         Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:  
         415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
         RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM; and  

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory M. Castaldo of Schiffrin &  
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706.

Representing the company are Boris Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung,  
Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E. Salceda of Wilson Sonsini  
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,  
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:  
boris.feldman@wsgr.com or cfoung@wsgr.com or knassiri@wsgr.com
or isalceda@wsgr.com.


KAISER PERMANENTE: ACLU Plans to File Suit Over Discharge Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a class action
against Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Bellflower to change its
policy in discharging homeless patients, a spokesman for the Los
Angeles chapter of ACLU said, according to Dailynews.com.

Kaiser is facing a lawsuit filed by the city prosecutor in March
after a surveillance video caught it of discharging a 63-year-
old homeless woman on Skid Row.  The hospital is accused of
false imprisonment and dependent-care abuse charges in relation
to the discharge of Carol Ann Reyes.  The office of the city
attorney is also suing Kaiser under a state law on unfair
business practices.

Authorities are investigating 10 hospitals for allegedly
discharging homeless patients to the streets of Skid Row rather
than to a relative or shelter.


KINDER MORGAN: Tex. Royalty Interests Suit Trial Set June 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Kinder  
Morgan C02 Co. L.P. over alleged underpayment of royalties on
carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome Unit is set June
11, 2007.  

Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., and
Cortez Pipeline Co. were among the named defendants in:

     -- "Shores, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., No. GC-99-
        01184 (Statutory Probate Court, Denton County, Texas
        filed December 22, 1999)," and

     -- "First State Bank of Denton, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
        et al., No. 8552-01 (Statutory Probate Court, Denton
        County, Texas filed March 29, 2001)."

These cases were originally filed as class actions on behalf of
classes of overriding royalty interest owners (Shores) and
royalty interest owners (Bank of Denton) for damages relating to
alleged underpayment of royalties on carbon dioxide produced
from the McElmo Dome Unit.  Although classes were initially
certified at the trial court level, appeals resulted in the
decertification and/or abandonment of the class claims.

In December 2004, the trial judge orally announced his intention
to dismiss both cases in response to motions filed by
defendants.  Although classes were initially certified at the
trial court level, appeals resulted in the decertification
and/or abandonment of the class claims.  On Feb. 22, 2005, the
trial judge dismissed both cases for lack of jurisdiction. Some
of the individual plaintiffs in these cases re-filed their
claims in new lawsuits.   

On May 13, 2004, William Armor, one of the former plaintiffs in
the Shores matter whose claims were dismissed by the Court of
Appeals for improper venue, filed a new case alleging the same
claims for underpayment of royalties against the same defendants
previously sued in the Shores case, including Kinder Morgan CO2
Co., L.P. and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.

The suit is "Armor v. Shell Oil Co., et al, No. 04-03559," filed
in the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas on May
13, 2004.

Defendants filed their answers and special exceptions on June 4,
2004.  

On May 20, 2005, Josephine Orr Reddy and Eastwood Capital, Ltd.,
two of the former plaintiffs in the Bank of Denton matter, filed
a new case in Dallas state district court alleging the same
claims for underpayment of royalties:

     -- "Reddy and Eastwood Capital, Ltd. v. Shell Oil Company,
        et al., No. 05-5021 (193rd Judicial District Court,
        Dallas County, Texas filed May 20, 2005)."

The defendants include Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P. and Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.  On June 23, 2005, the plaintiff in
the Armor lawsuit filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the
Reddy lawsuit with the Armor lawsuit.  On June 28, 2005, the
court in the Armor lawsuit granted the motion to transfer and
consolidate and ordered that the Reddy lawsuit be transferred
and consolidated into the Armor lawsuit.  The defendants filed
their answer and special exceptions on Aug. 10, 2005.

The consolidated Armor/Reddy trial is currently set for trial on
June 11, 2007.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling in Bias Suit Appeal by 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries Inc. expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit to rule in a race discrimination suit filed
against it by 2007.

An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination.   
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in  
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.   

In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that
certified a class for this case, which included all black
employees employed by the company from March 6, 1994, to the
present.  

The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began
in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and
was completed in October 2004.  The only claims made at trial
were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.  

On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.   

The District Court also concluded that the discrimination
resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and
ordered that the company pay those employees back pay to remedy
such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the
amount of 5%.   

On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the backpay
award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4 million
-- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a formula
for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a
total not to exceed $2.5 million.   

In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court
enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered
the company to pay court costs and expenses.  

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.   On Jan. 26, 2006, the Court of
Appeals notified the parties that the case had been docketed.  
The company has submitted its briefs and now anticipates a
decision in this case in the second quarter of 2007.   

The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.  
9:97-cv-00063-HC," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Howell Cobb.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Morris J. Baller, Teresa Demchak, Meetali Jain, Nina  
         Rabin, Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen 300 Lakeside Dr  
         Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800, Fax:  
         15108351417 E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com, dem@gdblegal.com,   
         mjain@gdblegal.com, nrabin@gdblegal.com;  
  
     (2) Timothy Borne Garrigan, Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter  
         2803 North Street PO Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-
         1902 Phone: 936/560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 E-mail:  
         tbgstugar@cox-internet.com; and
  
     (3) Darci E. Burrell, Linda M. Dardarian, Joshua G.  
         Konecky, Saperstein Goldstein Demchak & Baller 300  
         Lakeside Dr Ste 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510/763-
         9800 Fax: 15108351417 E-mail: deb@gdblegal.com and  
         jgk@gdblegal.com.  

Representing the company are Christopher V. Bacon, Douglas  
Edward Hamel and John H. Smither of Vinson & Elkins, 1001 Fannin  
St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760, Phone: 713/758-2222,  
Fax: 17136155014, E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com and dhamel@velaw.com.


METASOLV INC: Discovery Partners Files Suit in Texas Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery Partners filed a class action petition in the district
court of Collin County, Texas against MetaSolv, Inc., Oracle
Systems Corp., Marine Acquisition Corp. and all of the directors
of MetaSolv, according to a Nov. 28 company filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the petition, Discovery Partners alleges, among other things:

     -- that the MetaSolv directors breached their fiduciary
        duties to MetaSolv's stockholders in approving the
        Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among MetaSolv,
        Oracle Systems Corporation and Marine Acquisition
        Corporation dated October 23, 2006 (the Merger
        Agreement), and

     -- that the proxy statement distributed to MetaSolv
        stockholders in connection with the special meeting of
        stockholders called for the purpose of considering and
        voting upon the Merger Agreement contains insufficient
        or misleading information.

The petition seeks an injunction of MetaSolv's planned merger
and monetary damages.  

Oracle said the deal would likely close in late 2006 or early
2007.


METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS: Faces Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in four lawsuits filed against Metrologic
Instruments, Inc. over its privatization plan have filed an
amended complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2006, Metrologic Instruments, Inc. announced the
signing of a merger agreement, a consequence of which, upon
closing, will be that Metrologic will no longer be a publicly
held company.

Within approximately two weeks after the announcement, four
shareholder actions were filed naming as defendants the company
and its individual Board of Directors, among others.  All four
actions were initiated in New Jersey state courts.

An agreement has been reached to have these four matters
consolidated and heard by the Superior Court, Law Division,
Camden County.  

In anticipation of an order to consolidate the case, an amended
class action complaint was filed on Oct. 31, 2006.  This
pleading again asserts, among other things, that the redemption
price for the stock specified in the merger agreement is unfair
to shareholders.  

The amended complaint seeks among other relief, an injunction
blocking the merger or a rescission of the merger or damages.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face SRAM Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along other Static Random Access Memory
(SRAM) suppliers, remains a defendant in a number of purported
antitrust class actions over the sale of SRAM, according to the
company's Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2006.

Two cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM
directly from various SRAM suppliers during the period from Jan.
1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.  

Additionally, eight cases have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California and one in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals
and entities that indirectly purchased SRAM and/or products
containing SRAM from various SRAM suppliers during the time
period from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.  

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest
and attorneys' fees.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class in DRAM Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave class action status to a consolidated antitrust class
action against Micron Technology, Inc., and other Dynamic Random
Access Memory (DRAM) suppliers in relation to DRAM products
brought by direct purchasers.

Initially, several purported antitrust class actions in both
state and federal courts were filed against the defendants.
Eighteen cases have been filed in various federal district
courts (two of which have been dismissed) asserting claims on
behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that
purchased DRAM directly from the various DRAM suppliers during
the period from April 1, 1999 through at least June 30, 2002.

All of the cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated
proceedings.  

The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and seek treble monetary damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly
unlawful conduct.  

On June 5, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
the proposed class of direct purchasers, according to Micron
Technology's Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. M:02-cv-01486-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, East 1250 First National Bank Building
         322 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651-
         287-2100, Fax: 651-287-2103, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (3) Francis A. Bottini, Jr. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz LLP, Symphony Towers, 750 B Street
         Suite 2770, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/239-4599,
         Fax: 619-234-4599, E-mail: bottini@whafh.com;

     (4) Jeffrey J. Corrigan of Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC  
         1818 Market Street, 25th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com;

     (5) Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 555
         Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111,
         Phone: 415/772-4700, Fax: (415) 772-4707, E-mail:
         lking@kaplanfox.com; and

     (6) Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         tony@hbsslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kevin Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 425
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-
         455-2000;

     (2) G. Michael Barnhill of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
         PLLC, One Wachovia Center, Suite 3500, 301 College
         Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-6025, Phone: 704-331-4900,
         Fax: 704-331-4955;

     (3) Daniel Lee Alexander of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400
         South Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         430-6000, Fax: 213-430-6407, E-mail:
         dalexander@omm.com;

     (4) Debra L. Bouffard of Sheehey Furlong & Behm PC, P.O.
         Box 66, Burlington, VT 05402-0066, Phone: 802-864-9891,  
         E-mail: dbouffard@sheeheyvt.com; and

     (5) Aton Arbisser of Kaye Scholer LLP, 1999 Avenue of the
         Stars, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90067, L.A., Phone:
         310-788-1000, Fax: 310-788-1205, E-mail:  
         aarbisser@kayescholer.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho, according to the company's Nov. 7,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.  

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001 to Feb. 13,
2003.  

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.  

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

The suit is "City of Roseville et al v. Micron Technology, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce S. Bistline of Gordon Law Offices, 623 W Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345-7100, Fax: 1-
         208-345-0050, E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com;
         and

     (2) Mary Blasy of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
         mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Douglas W. Greene of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone:
         206-883-2529, Fax: 208/883-2699, E-mail:
         dgreene@wsgr.com; and

    (ii) Richard H. Greener of Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.,
         950 W. Bannock St. 900, Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208)
         319-2600, E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Indirect DRAM Purchasers' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., and other Dynamic Random Access Memory
(DRAM) suppliers, remain defendants in purported antitrust class
actions over DRAM products brought by indirect purchasers,
according to the company's Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2006.

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers from April 1, 1999 through at least June 30, 2002.  

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution,
costs, interest and attorneys' fees.  

In addition, at least 62 cases have been filed in various state
and federal courts (five of which have been dismissed) asserting
claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of
DRAM.  

Cases have been filed in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico.  

The complaints purport to be on behalf of individuals and
entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from 1999 through the filing date of the
various complaints.  

The complaints allege violations of various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek
treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.  

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) for consolidated proceedings.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Suits in Calif. Over Lexar Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. remains a defendant in two of four
purported class action complaints filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California, Alameda County against Lexar Media,
Inc.

Filed starting March 2006, the complaints allege that the
defendants breached, or aided and abetted the breach of,
fiduciary duties owed to Lexar shareholders by, among other
things, engaging in self-dealing, failing to engage in efforts
to obtain the highest price reasonably available, and failing to
properly value Lexar in a merger transaction.  

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing, or an order of rescission reversing, the merger,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.  

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to block the merger.  On May 31, 2006, the
court denied the motion.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2006.


NL INDUSTRIES: Class Claims Dropped in Mich. Lead Smelting Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against NL Industries Inc. on behalf
of a class of property owners living in the Krainz Woods
Neighborhood of Wayne County, Michigan have dropped class action
allegations.

The suit is "Brown, et al. v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.
(Circuit Court Wayne County, Michigan, Case No. 06-602096 CZ).

Plaintiffs, who filed the suit on January 2006, alleged causes
of action in negligence, nuisance, trespass, and under the
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act with
respect to a lead smelting facility formerly operated by the
company and another defendant.  They seek property damages,
personal injury damages, loss of income and medical expense and
medical monitoring costs.

In February 2006, the company filed a petition to remove the
case to federal court.  In August 2006, the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to drop the class action allegations, and are
now seeking recovery solely on their individual claims.


NTS-PROPERTIES: Settles Financial Obligations in "Buchanan"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Contra Costa entered an order indicating that the plaintiffs in
the case,

     * "Buchanan, et al. v. NTS-Properties Associates, et al.
        (Case No. C 01-05090)," filed on Dec. 5, 2003,

have fulfilled their financial obligations in the settlement of
the suit.

On May 6, 2004, the Superior Court granted its final approval of
the settlement agreement jointly filed by the general partners
of the Partnerships, along with certain of their affiliates,
with the class of plaintiffs

On Oct. 26, 2006, the Superior Court entered an order holding
that defendants had fulfilled their financial obligations
required by the settlement.


NTS REALTY: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Bohm" Suit in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Ltd. Partnership reached an agreement to
settle the suit, "Bohm, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et al., Case No.
03-CI-01740."

On Feb. 27, 2003, two individuals filed the class and derivative
action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky
against certain Former General Partners and several individuals
and entities affiliated with NTS Realty Holdings.

The complaint was amended on a number of occasions to add
parties such as the general partner of NTS-Properties III and
the general partner of NTS-Properties Plus Ltd., and to add
various claims seeking, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages in an unspecified amount, an accounting, a
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages in an unspecified amount, an accounting, a
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

The parties recently entered into an agreement for the
settlement of the case, according to the company's Nov. 7 form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30.  


PMI MORTGAGE: Parties Settle FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached for the class action, "Hogan, et al. v.
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.," which was filed in U.S. District
for the Northern District of California.

Filed on Sept. 23, 2005, the suit action sought certification of
a nationwide class of consumers, according to The PMI Group,
Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.  

Plaintiffs alleged that they were required to pay for private
mortgage insurance written by PMI and that their loans allegedly
were insured at greater than PMI's "best available rate."  

They also alleged that PMI had an obligation to notify them of
an adverse action based upon their credit information and failed
to do so in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The action sought, among other relief, actual and statutory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional claims under state law and FCRA, alleging that PMI
did not have a permissible purpose to access the plaintiffs'
credit information.

In July 2006, following a mediation, PMI reached an agreement in
principle to enter into a class action settlement of the action
under which PMI will provide certain payments and provide a free
credit report to class members who submit a completed claim
form.  

The company anticipates that the settlement will be presented to
the court for preliminary approval in the fourth quarter of
2006.

The suit is "Hogan et al v. PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, Case
No. 3:05-cv-03851-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Meagher of The Law
Offices of Stephen Meagher, 1 Embarcadero Center, Suite 523, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 773-2824, Fax: 415-773-2825,
E-mail: slm@meagherlawoffices.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael J. Agoglia of Morrison &
Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482,
Phone: (415) 268-7000, Fax: (415) 268-7522, E-mail:
magoglia@mofo.com.


POLYMEDICA CORP: Settles Mass. Stock Suit with Certified Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
PolyMedica Corp. reached an agreement to settle a consolidated
securities fraud suit filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On Nov. 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against PolyMedica and Steven J. Lee, PolyMedica's
former chief executive officer and chairman of the board, on
behalf of himself and purchasers of common stock.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys'
fees and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5,
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
various statements were misleading with respect to the company's
revenue and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce
fictitious sales.

Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against PolyMedica.

On July 30, 2001, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the complaints under the caption, "In re: PolyMedica
Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-12426-REK."

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Oct. 9,
2001.  The consolidated amended complaint extended the class
period to Oct. 26, 1998 through Aug. 21, 2001, and named as
defendants PolyMedica, Liberty Medical Supply Inc., and certain
former officers of PolyMedica.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on Dec. 10, 2001.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this
motion on Feb. 11, 2002, and defendants filed a reply memorandum
on March 11, 2002.  The court denied the motion without a
hearing on May 10, 2002.  On June 20, 2002, defendants filed
answers to the consolidated amended complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed an opposition on Feb.
27, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum on April 12, 2004
followed by additional briefing by the parties.  The court heard
oral argument on the motion on June 2, 2004.

On Sept. 8, 2004, the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class.  On Sept. 21, 2004, the defendants filed a
petition requesting that they be permitted to appeal the
decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs
filed a response to the defendants' petition on Oct. 7, 2004
opposing defendants' request to appeal the class certification.

Also on Oct. 7, 2004, the court stayed sending notice of the
class action pending a ruling on defendants' appeal of class
certification.  On Feb. 15, 2005, the First Circuit Court of
Appeals granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal the
class certification decision.  

Defendants-appellants filed their brief on March 15, 2005, and
plaintiffs-appellees filed an opposition on April 15, 2005.  
Defendants-appellants filed a reply brief on April 25, 2005.  
The First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 4,
2005 and took the matter under advisement.  On Dec. 13, 2005,
the First Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in
defendants-appellants' favor and entered an order vacating the
District Court's order certifying the class for the period from
January 2001 through August 2001 and remanding the matter for
further proceedings in the District Court consistent with its
opinion.

On Feb. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion in the District
Court to re-certify the class for the period from January 2001
through August 2001, which the defendants opposed.  On March 23,
2006, the court held an evidentiary hearing relating to class
certification and on March 31, 2006 the Court heard oral
argument regarding class certification.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to re-
certify the class for the period from January 2001 through
August 2001.  On Oct. 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial reconsideration of the court's order as to the period
Jan. 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001.

On Oct. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a petition requesting that
they be permitted to appeal the decision denying plaintiffs'
motion to re-certify the class for the period from January 2001
through August 2001 to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which
defendants opposed.

On or about Oct. 24, 2006, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter.  The settlement covers the class
as certified, is expected to be paid by insurance, and is
subject to court approval and potential appeal.

Defendants have not yet filed an opposition to the motion for
reconsideration as a result of the agreement regarding
settlement.  On or about Oct. 31, 2006, the parties filed a
joint motion to stay proceedings in the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The suit is "In Re Polymedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil  
Action No. 00-12426-WGY" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

Representing the lead plaintiff is R. Allan Miller of Robins,  
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., 800 Boylston Street, 25th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02199 (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-267-2300,  
Fax: 617-267-8288.


PRISON HEALTH: Faces Penn. Suit Over Fees Paid to Physicians
------------------------------------------------------------
Prison Health Services, Inc. and the city of Philadelphia are
facing a suit filed by Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., an individual
physician independent contractor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff filed the suit as a putative class action on or
about Aug. 2, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Trial Division.  The suit is seeking unspecified damages
for the class, but damages in the amount of at least $9,588
individually.

Plaintiff alleges that he provided services to inmates in the
Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the defendants and
that the defendants breached the alleged contractual duties owed
to him by paying an amount alleged to be less than the full
amount Plaintiff billed for his medical services.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the City of Philadelphia filed a New Matter
Cross claim against PHS alleging breach of contract, negligence
and seeking indemnification.  On Sept. 29, 2006, Prison Health
filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint, which answer included
a crossclaim against the City of Philadelphia for contribution
and indemnification.


SANDISK CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in msystems Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of msystems Ltd., a venture partner of Sandisk
Corp., filed an amended complaint that supersedes four original
complaints.

The company and msystems each own 50% of U3, LLC, or U3, an
entity established to develop and market a next generation
platform for universal serial bus flash drives.

On Aug. 7, 2006, two purported shareholder class and derivative
actions:

     -- "Capovilla v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068760," and

     -- "Dashiell v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068759,"

were filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara
County, California.

On Aug. 9, 2006, and Aug. 17, 2006, respectively, two additional
purported shareholder class and derivative actions:

     -- "Lopiccolo v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068946," and

     -- "Sachs v. SanDisk Corp., No. 1-06-CV-069534," were filed
        in that court.

These four lawsuits were subsequently consolidated as, "In re:
msystems Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, No. 106 CV 068759. "  On
Oct. 27, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that
supersedes the four original complaints.

The lawsuit is brought by purported shareholders of msystems.  
It names as defendants the company and each of msystems'
directors, including its president and chief executive officer,
and its former chief financial officer (now its chief operating
officer), and names msystems as a nominal defendant.  The
lawsuit asserts purported class action and derivative claims.

The alleged derivative claims assert, among other things, breach
of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, constructive fraud,
corporate waste, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement with
respect to past stock option grants.  

The alleged class and derivative claims also assert claims for
breach of fiduciary duty by msystems' board, which the company
is alleged to have aided an abetted, with respect to allegedly
inadequate consideration for the merger, and allegedly false or
misleading disclosures in proxy materials relating to the
merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief,
including enjoining the proposed merger, and compensatory and
punitive damages.


STAAR SURGICAL: Calif. Court Okays $3.7M Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave final approval to the $3.7 million settlement of the class
action, "In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities Litigation,"
according to the company's Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.  

A consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs on
April 29, 2005, generally alleged that the defendants, STAAR
Surgical Co. and its chief executive officer, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false
and misleading statements regarding the prospects for U.S. Food
and Drug Administration approval of STAAR's Visian ICL, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock.

Plaintiffs sought to recover compensatory damages, including
interest.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court held a hearing to consider granting
final approval to the settlement of the lawsuit.  At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the settlement
previously negotiated to resolve the lawsuit was fair, just,
reasonable and adequate and approved the settlement in all
respects.  

The court finally certified for settlement purposes a class
comprised of purchasers of STAAR's securities between Oct. 6,
2003 and Jan. 5, 2004.

Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for dismissal of
the lawsuit and a general release of claims and without
admission of liability, STAAR caused payment of $3,700,000 to be
made, all but $100,000 of which was borne by STAAR's insurance
carrier.

STAAR's total expenditure in connection with the lawsuit will
not exceed the $500,000 retention amount under its insurance
policy, which was fully accrued as of Dec. 30, 2005.

The suit is "In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities Litigation, No.
CV 04-8007S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge James Otero.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Avi N. Wagner of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150.  

Representing the company are Dan Marmalefsky and Mark R.
McDonald of Morrison & Foerster, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los
Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: 213-892-5200, E-mail:
mmcdonald@mofo.com.


TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Court in Ohio Approves "Buyer's Source" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for Knox County, Ohio approved a
settlement in a suit filed against Textron Financial Corp. in
relation to its financing of certain land purchases by consumers
through a third-party land developer commonly known as "Buyer's
Source."

The suit was filed on Feb. 3, 2004 as a purported class action
against the company and Litchfield, certain of their current and
former officers, and other third-parties.

Among other claims, the purported class action alleges fraud and
failure to disclose certain information in the financing of
Buyer's Source and seeks compensatory damages and punitive
damages in excess of $10 million.

A settlement order was approved by the court on Oct. 26, 2006.


TIMCO WORLDWIDE: Recalls Cantaloupe on Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timco Worldwide Inc. of Woodland, California is voluntarily
recalling its Sundia brand cantaloupe, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses.

Five hundred and four cartons of cantaloupe were distributed in
Phoenix, Arizona; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and
Okeechobee, Florida between October 30 and November 6, 2006.

The cantaloupe was distributed for sale in bulk in cardboard
cartons, numbering either 9 or 15 cantaloupes to a carton, under
the Sundia label.  The cantaloupes are straw- colored on the
exterior, with orange flesh.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was a result of a routine sampling program by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 30, 2006.  That
testing revealed that a portion of the finished products
contained the bacteria.

Timco Worldwide Inc. ceased the distribution of this product as
soon as FDA apprised the company of the test results.  The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and Timco Worldwide continue their
investigation as to what caused the problem.


VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of the securities
class action filed against Visteon Corp. and its current and
former officers Peter Pestillo, Michael Johnston, Glenda J.
Minor, Daniel R. Coulson, and James Palmer.

The shareholder suit was first filed in February 2005.  In July
2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was
appointed as lead plaintiff in the matter.  

In September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which alleges, among other things, that the company
and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of
material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.  

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period between
June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005.

In December 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, and oral arguments on
that motion were held in May 2006.

On Aug. 31, 2006, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim was granted.  The
plaintiffs have appealed this decision, according to Visteon
Corp.'s Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.  

The suit is "Ley v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Robert H. Cleland with referral to
Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) E. Powell Miller and Marc L. Newman of Miller Shea
         (Rochester) 950 W. University Drive Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail:
         emiller335@aol.com; and

     (2) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway (Radnor) 280 King
         of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E.
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:  
         312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail:
         maduffy@kirkland.com;

    (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and

   (iii) Thomas P. Bruetsch, Bodman (Troy), 201 W. Big Beaver
         Road, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084, Phone: 248-743-6000,
         E-mail: tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com.


WORLDCOM INC: N.Y. Judge Okays $4.52B Distribution to Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has authorized the release of a $4.52 billion payout in the main
class action over WorldCom, Inc.'s collapse.

In her four-page order, Judge Denise L. Cote said the payout,
which is just a portion of the billions paid by some defendants,
should be made as soon as practicable to aggrieved investors,
according to a report by Reuters.

Judge Cote adds that the remaining balance from available
settlement funds will continue to accrue interest until other
claims are processed and disputed claims are resolved.

In last several months, several defendants have made payments
billion to resolve allegations that they helped WorldCom sell
bonds when they should have known the phone company was
concealing its true financial condition.

                        Case Background

The litigation -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com/-- is a   
consolidated, certified class action that is being prosecuted on
behalf of a court-certified class of all individuals or entities
who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of
WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through and including June
25, 2002, and who were injured thereby.  

                         Lead Plaintiff  

On Aug. 15, 2002, Judge Cote appointed the Comptroller of the  
State of New York, the sole Trustee of the New York State Common  
Retirement Fund, which is the nation's second-largest public  
pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff in the WorldCom  
Securities Litigation and approved lead plaintiff's selection of  
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &  
Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.  Fresno County  
Employees Retirement Association, the County of Fresno,  
California and HGK Asset Management are additional named  
plaintiffs and class representatives.

The consolidated complaint of the lead plaintiff was filed in  
the fall of 2002, and updated in August 2003 and in December  
2003.

On Nov. 7, 2002, Judge Cote ordered the parties to participate  
in settlement negotiations under the supervision of Magistrate  
Judge Michael H. Dolinger.  In the fall of 2003, the court  
invited the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court  
Judge, to assist in oversight of the settlement discussions.

Judge Cote certified the lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 24,  
2003.   

                           Defendants

The director defendants were: Bernard J. Ebbers, former  
president, CEO; Scott D. Sullivan, former CFO; James C. Allen,  
former member of the audit committee; Judith Areen, former  
member of the audit committee; Carl J. Aycock; Max E. Bobbitt,  
former chairman of the audit committee; Francesco Galesi, former  
member of the audit committee; Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.;  
Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., former chairman of compensation  
committee; Gordon S. Macklin; John A. Porter; Bert C. Roberts,  
Jr., former chairman; John W. Sidgmore, former vice chairman;  
and Lawrence C. Tucker,  

Other individual defendants were: David F. Myers, controller and  
senior vice president; Buford Yates, Jr., director of General  
Accounting; and Arthur Andersen LLP.  

Underwriter defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Salomon  
Brothers International Limited; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P.  
Morgan Securities, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd.; Banc of  
America Securities LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (n/k/a  
Deutsche Bank Alex Brown Inc.; Chase Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P.  
Morgan Securities, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Blaylock &  
Partners, L.P.; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; Goldman, Sachs  
& Co.; UBS Warburg LLC; ABN/AMRO Inc.; Utendahl Capital; Tokyo-
Mitsubishi International plc; Westdeutsche Landesbank;  
Girozentrale (n/k/a WestLB AG); BNP Paribas Securities Corp.;  
Caboto Holding SIM S.p.A.; Fleet Securities, Inc.; Mizuho  
International plc.  

The Salomon defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., as  
employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International  
Limited; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at  
Salomon; Citigroup, Inc., corporate parent of Salomon.

WorldCom, Inc. -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- was not a   
defendant because on July 21, 2002, it filed for bankruptcy  
protection.  The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of  
New York confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr.  
20, 2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11  
protection as MCI, Inc.

                           Settlements

* Former WorldCom executives                   $6.136 billion
  Scott Sullivan, David Myers,
  and Buford Yates (taken with the  
  anticipated proceeds from the  
  Sullivan settlement)                    

* Arthur Andersen LLP                         $65 million  
  (funds have already been transferred  
   to an escrow account)

* Former Chairman Bert Roberts                 $4.5 million  

* 11 Other former director defendants         $20.25 million  

* Insurance companies that had written        $36 million
  directors and officers liability coverage  
  ($1 million to settle the claims against  
   Mr. Roberts and an additional $35 million  
   to settle the claims against the other  
   former directors)

* Bank of America                            $460.5 million  

* Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs,            $100.3 million
  Credit Suisse First Boston, and  
  UBS Warburg  

* ABN AMRO, Mitsubishi Securities            $428.4 million
  International, BNP Paribas  
  Securities Corp. and Mizuho Int'l.     

* WestLB and Cabato Holding                   $112.5 million  

* Deutsche Bank                               $325 million  

* Blaylock & Partners, L.P.                   $572,840  

* Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P.             $234,000  

* J. P. Morgan Securities  
  and certain of affiliates                   $2 billion  

* Citigroup Defendants                        $2.575 billion  
  (including Salomon Smith Barney,  
  Inc. as employer of Jack Grubman;  
  Salomon Brothers International Ltd.;
  Jack B. Grubman, former  
  telecommunications analyst at  
  Salomon; Citigroup, Inc.)


YANKEE CANDLE: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Madison Dearborn Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Yankee Candle Co. Inc. is facing a putative shareholder
class action in relation to its definitive merger agreement
under which an affiliate of Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, is
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the company.

On Oct. 25, 2006, The Yankee Candle Co. Inc. announced that it
had entered into a definitive merger agreement to sell
outstanding shares of the company for approximately $34.75 per
share in cash.

On the same day as the announcement of the merger, a putative
shareholder class action was filed against the company and its
directors, as well as against Madison Dearborn, in state court
in Massachusetts.  

The complaint alleges that the company and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders in
approving the proposed transaction between the company and
Madison Dearborn, and that Madison Dearborn aided and abetted
the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Specifically, among other things, the complaint alleges that the
directors:

     -- failed to properly value the company;

     -- failed to take steps to maximize the value of the
        company by failing to adequately solicit alternative
        potential acquirers or alternative transactions; and

     -- favored the Madison Dearborn transaction over other
        potential transactions due to loyalty to current
        management.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
preventing the completion of the proposed transaction,
rescission if the transaction is consummated, monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses associated with the lawsuit, and
any other further equitable relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

The board of directors has approved the merger agreement and has
resolved to recommend that the company's shareholders adopt the
agreement.  The transaction is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2007.


                   New Securities Fraud Case


BRANTLEY CAPITAL: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Brantley Capital Corp. between Aug. 14, 2003 and Oct.
24, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Brantley and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements concerning the company's
valuation.  

Specifically, Brantley grossly overvalued its investment in a
material asset.  As a result, Brantley's stock fell from a Class
Period high of approximately $12 per share to a price of
approximately $2, and the company has now stated its intent to
liquidate.

Interested parties may no later than Jan. 16, 2007, request for
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schatz Nobel Izard, Phone: (800) 797-
5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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  * * *