CAR_Public/061208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 8, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 244

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: FLSA Suit Oral Argument Date Yet to be Set
ALABAMA: Parties Settle Suit Over University Racial Integration
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Continues to Face Casket-Related Suits in Tex.
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Inability to Locate Graves
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Funeral Service Contracts Lawsuit

ALDERWOODS GROUP: Tex. Court Okays "Fancher" Voluntary Dismissal
ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Royalty Underpayment
CALIFORNIA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Jail Policy
CALIFORNIA: Oakland Settles Litigation by Harassed Asian Women
CANADA: Ottawa Faces Possible CAD$1B Litigation Over LRT System

CENTRACORE PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuits in Fla., Md. Over Merger
CHARTER COMMS: Ore. Attorney Mulls Suit Over Internet Connection
DICK'S SPORTING: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suits in N.Y., Pa.
HOMETOWN AUTO: Settles Securities Fraud Litigation in Delaware
HORIZON BLUE: Doctors Urged to Opt Out of "Sutter" Settlement

HOST AMERICA: Files Status Report on Conn. Securities Lawsuit
HOT TOPIC: Consolidation of Settled Calif. Customer Suit Ordered
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Still Faces Stock Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
IPASS INC: No Appeal Filed in Calif. Securities Suit Dismissal
JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Defibrillator Defect
MEDTRONIC INC: N.Y. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Defibrillator Suit
ONVIA INC: Securities Settlement Final Hearing Set for Late 2006
PDI INC: Calif. Superior Court Approves Labor Lawsuit Settlement
PENNSYLVANIA: Park Operators Still Faces Landowners' Litigation

PIXAR ANIMATION: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
RECKSON ASSOCIATES: Settles Suits Over SL Green Realty Merger
ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Wipes Over B. cepacia Contamination
SEARS HOLDINGS: $215M Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today
SEARS HOLDINGS: Settles 401(k) Savings Plan Lawsuit in Ill.

STOCK EXCHANGES: $53M Options Contracts Suit Settlement Approved
TENET HEALTHCARE: Fla. Judge Refuses to Certify Hospital's Suit
THIESS JOHN: Residents Mull Suit Over Toll Way Construction
TVIA INC: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Litigation
TVIA INC: Whalehaven Capital Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

VAN DER MOOLEN: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Sued in Del. Over Planned Innovation Merger
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Trends Footstools for Collapse Hazard
XL CAPITAL: Court Finds Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit Deficient


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Group Reserves $164.7M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Has $453.5M Liability in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Inc. Resolves 339,600 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide's French Unit Has 64 Employee Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Faces Mounting Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Standard Motor Rise to 3,300 in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims v. Westinghouse Air Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Insurance Has $23.9M Reserves in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Drop to 571 in 3Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chemicals Still Indemnifies Kraton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 94 Hilco Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. American Biltrite Drop to 1,314
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $16.6M Liabilities in 3Q

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Files $2.5M Claim to Recover Fees
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intricon Corp. Has 124 Pending Suits in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Shuts Down Plant Due to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Convicts 5 Individuals in AAR Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Seeks Reorganization Plan Extension

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Borough Council Pays GBP130,000 to Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Supervisor Charged for Removal Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Supreme Court Bars Out-of-State Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Head Teacher Cleared in Exposure Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Lawyer Files 12 Lawsuits in W.Va. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves $24.9M for A&E Coverages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Sees Settlement With Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $115.2M Interest in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Updates Grace Lawsuit in Canada


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HANSEN NATURAL: Howard Smith Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
PFIZER INC: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: FLSA Suit Oral Argument Date Yet to be Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The notice of appeal by plaintiffs in the suit, "Melissa
Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc.," has fully been fully briefed as of October.

The purported class action, filed on June 13, 2003, alleges that
assistant managers and store managers were not paid overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Ohio law.   

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add Scott Oros as a
named plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2004.  On June 17, 2005, plaintiffs
filed a motion to further amend the complaint to add claims
under the laws of a number of states, and the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted that motion on
Nov. 8, 2005.  

On June 24, 2005, the defendants filed motions seeking summary
judgment on all of the claims of each of the three plaintiffs.  
On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 Motion for  
Certification of a Class of State Wage Act Claimants and a
Motion for Designation of FLSA Claims as Collective Action and
Authority to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees.  The
defendants filed their opposition to both motions on Dec. 8,  
2005.  

On March 27, 2006, the court issued an order indicating that it
intended to rule on the defendants' motions for summary judgment
forthwith and, for purposes of docket administration, denied the
plaintiffs motions to certify their class.   

The court also indicated that it would reactivate, as
appropriate, the motions to certify following resolution of the
defendants' motions for summary judgment.  

On March 31, 2006, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motions for summary judgment on all of the claims of
each of the three plaintiffs.  

All three plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 28, 2006.  The matter was
fully briefed on Oct. 26, 2006.  

An oral argument has not yet been scheduled, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 28, 2006.

The suit is "Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al.,  
Case No. 2:04-cv-00306-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A.
Sargus with referral to Judge Norah McCann King.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Bryan L.  Clobes of Miller  
Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18th &  
Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800,  
Fax: 215-864-2810, E-mail: bclobes@millerfaucher.com.  

Representing the company is Thomas Brennan Ridgley of Vorys  
Sater Seymour & Pease, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay Street,  
Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, E-mail:  
tbridgley@vssp.com.


ALABAMA: Parties Settle Suit Over University Racial Integration
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the protracted class action,
"Knight and Sims v. Alabama," which was in relation to
integration at the Alabama's public universities, The University
Wire reports.

John F. Knight and Alease Sims filed the suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  The case
was brought on behalf of all black students seeking higher
education in the state.  

Despite three minor objections, the settlements were recently
reached between all parties involved in the protracted case,
which was promptly approved by a federal judge.  

According to Rob Hunter, an attorney for the Alabama Commission
on Higher Education, the Auburn Black Caucus filed an objection
regarding some of the changes they still want to see.

Essentially, the state settled with the plaintiffs in addition
to each institution entering into separate settlements.  Mr.
Hunter explains that under the deal, the state agreed to address
issues regarding capital funding, need-based and diversity
scholarship and to continue fulfilling its obligations to all
universities.

He adds that each institution has also entered into similar
agreements and also agreements regarding minority faculty
retention.

Additionally, Norma Lemley, an attorney for the University of
Arizona System said that the Capstone and the universities of
Alabama at Birmingham and Huntsville agreed to publish annual
reports for the next five years as part of their settlements.  
She said the schools were required by court to publish these
reports, but now the reports only have to be internal.

The annual report will include the racial composition of the
student body, the composition of the full-time faculty and a
racial analysis of faculty searches from the previous year, Ms.
Lemley said.

The suit is "John F. Knight, Jr., and Alease S. Sims, et al.,
United States of America, v. The State of Alabama, et al., Civil
Action No. 2:83-CV-1676-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James U. Blacksher, P.O. Box 636, Birmingham, AL 35201,
         Phone: 205-591-7238, Fax: 866-845-4395, E-mail:
         jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca; and

     (2) Sarah L. Thompson of Sarah L Thompson, Attorney At Law,
         P.O. Box 947, Northport, AL 35476, Phone: 1-205-339-
         4621, Fax: 1-205-339-3219, E-mail:
         thompsonsue@bellsouth.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert D. Hunter of ALTEC, Inc., 210 Inverness Center
         Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242, Phone: 991-7733, Fax: 991-
         9993, E-mail: rob.hunter@altec.com;

    (ii) Norma M. Lemley, University Of Alabama System
         University Counsel, Rose Administration Building, Room
         222, P.O. Box 870106, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0106, Phone:
         1-205-348-5490, E-mail: nlemley@uasystem.ua.edu; and

   (iii) Darnell D. Coley of State Of Alabama Department Of
         Education, 50 North Ripley Street, P.O. Box 302101,
         Montgomery, AL 36130-2101, Phone: 334-242-1899, Fax:
         334-242-0982, E-mail: dcoley@alsde.edu.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Continues to Face Casket-Related Suits in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc. remains a defendant in two cases over the
sale of caskets in U.S. that are currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to
the company's Nov. 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 7,
2006.

Initially, the company was named as one of the defendants in the
purported class action, "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. et al
v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al.," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in April
2005.  

The Funeral Consumer Case has been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Case
No. CV3394.  To date, six separate class actions have been
consolidated to this lawsuit, which includes:

      -- "Francis H. Rocha v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al.,"
    
      -- "Marcia Berger v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al.,"
  
      -- "Maria Magsarili and Tony Magsarili v. Alderwoods
         Group, Inc. et al.,"

      -- "Caren Speizer v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al.," and

      -- "Frank Moroz v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al."

Two other cases, also transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, "Pioneer Valley Casket Co. v.
Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al.," (Pioneer Valley), and "Ralph
Fancher et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al.," (Fancher),
were consolidated into the Funeral Consumer Case for purposes of
discovery only.  

On June 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted Fancher's Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, with permission to refile its case at another time.

Thus, the only two remaining cases are the Funeral Consumer
Case, a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers
throughout the U.S., and Pioneer Valley, a purported class
action on behalf of independent casket distributors throughout
the U.S.

Aside from the company, the class actions also name as
defendants three other public companies involved in the funeral
or casket industry.  

Both cases are alleging that the defendants violated federal and
state antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive practices
with respect to the sale and pricing of caskets.  They are
seeking injunctions, unspecified amounts of monetary damages,
and treble damages.  


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Inability to Locate Graves
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida has yet to certify a class in the
case, "Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group,
Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc, a Florida corporation,
d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial
Gardens, Inc., Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32."

Plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in December 2004, are
the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was
buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the
cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.  

Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of
the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia, who
essentially claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing
issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford
to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be located.

In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at the cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this is due to
poor record keeping, maps and surveys at the cemetery.  They are
also seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable
and injunctive relief.  

No class has been certified in this matter, according to the
company's Nov. 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 7,
2006.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Funeral Service Contracts Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action over funeral service contracts that is pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los
Angeles, Central District.

The suit, "Richard Sanchez et al v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. BC328962," was filed in February 2005.  It seeks
to certify a nationwide class on behalf of all consumers who
purchased funeral goods and services from the company.

Plaintiffs allege in essence that the Federal Trade Commission's
Funeral Rule requires the company to disclose its markups on all
items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral
service contracts.  They further allege that the company has
failed to make such disclosures.  

The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, attorney's fees, costs and unspecified injunctive and
declaratory relief, according to the company's Nov. 15, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Oct. 7, 2006.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Tex. Court Okays "Fancher" Voluntary Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, with
permission to re-file a class action against Alderwoods Group,
Inc.

Initially, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee as Case No. 2:05-145.  It was
later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas as Case No. 4:05-cv-04120.

The suit is a purported class action on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased caskets in the U.S.  It names as
defendants the company and four other public companies involved
in the funeral or casket industry including:

      -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
      -- Service Corporation International,
      -- Batesville Casket Co., and
      -- Hellenbrand Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Ralph Lee Fancher alleges that defendants overcharged
for caskets and violated federal and state antitrust laws by
engaging in anticompetitive practices with respect to sales of
caskets.  

The lawsuit seeks injunctions, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages and treble damages.

On June 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted Mr. Fancher's Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, with permission to re-file its case at another time,
according to the company's Nov. 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Oct. 7, 2006.

The suit is "Fancher v. Service Corp. International et al., Case
No. 4:05-cv-04120," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with
referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550
W Main Ave., Ste. 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028,
Fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrew K. Doty of Iverson Yoakum Papiano, 624 South
         Grand Ave., Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-624-7444, Fax: 213-629-4563, E-mail:
         mkagley@iyph.com;

     (2) Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, 711
         Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
         andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com; and

     (3) Victoria L. Cook of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-653-
         7870, Fax: 713-654-3343, E-mail:
         vcook@susmangodfrey.com.


ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Royalty Underpayment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atmos Energy Corp. is a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed
by Quinque Operating Co., Tom Boles, and Robert Ditto in
September 1999 in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas
against more than 200 companies in the natural gas industry.

Plaintiffs, who purport to represent a class of royalty owners,
allege that the defendants have underpaid royalties on gas taken
from wells situated on non-federal and non-Indian lands in
Kansas, predicated upon allegations that the defendants' gas
measurements were inaccurate.  They have not specifically
alleged an amount of damages.

The company is also a defendant, along with over 50 other
companies in the natural gas industry, in another proposed class
action lawsuit filed in the same court by Will Price, Tom Boles
and The Cooper Clarke Foundation in May 2003 involving similar
allegations.

The company is also a defendant in another lawsuit, "In Re
Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation," involving similar
allegations filed in June 1997 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado, which was later transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, where it was
consolidated with approximately 50 additional lawsuits in
October 1999.

On Oct. 20, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Atmos Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.atmosenergy.com/.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Jail Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has denied motion to dismiss a purported class action against
Riverside County over a jail policy that allegedly involves
recording conversations between inmates and their attorneys, The
Press-Enterprise reports.

In a recently issued ruling, Judge Audrey B. Collins denied a
motion by the county to throw out the civil-rights case, "Medina
v. Riverside County," which was filed by defense attorney Amador
L. Corona on behalf of his client, Jaime Medina.

Basically, the judge turned aside the county's claim of immunity
for Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle and ruled federal wiretap
rules do apply to the case.

The judge though left undecided whether there was any actual
violation of federal law.  But, she granted a request by Messrs.
Corona and Medina to conduct additional investigation for their
case, called discovery.

Mr. Corona explains that with the decision means he and his
client can pursue details on seeking to turn their case into a
class action, in which people who claim they suffered similar
damages are allowed into the case, if a judge certifies it.

                        Case Background

Filed on June 29, 2006, the suit was brought on behalf of
defense attorney Messrs. Corona and Medina.  It seeks to force
Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle to change the jailhouse
policy that allegedly permits deputies to record conversations
between attorneys and their clients (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
22, 2006).

According to Mr. Corona, he learned while preparing for trial in
a murder case back in 2005 that several conversations he had had
with his client was recorded and supplied to the Riverside
County District Attorney's office.  Mr. Corona alleges that the
conversations were one of about 700 calls Mr. Medina made in
2003 and 2004 and recorded on a CD.

Riverside County's jail taping policy started three years ago,
and inmates are routinely notified by voice prompt that
conversations may be recorded, a report by The Daily Journal
revealed.

In the suit, Mr. Corona alleges violations of state wiretapping
statutes, invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of
mandatory duty.  

Thus, Mr. Corona is calling for the county to meet three
conditions:

      -- Stop taping calls,

      -- Inform all attorneys what procedure they need to follow
         to make sure calls are not recorded, and
  
      -- Sanctions awarded to all members of the class for these
         violations.

The county for its part has sought to have the case dismissed in
a summary judgment motion it filed previously.

The suit is "Jaime Medina et al v. Riverside County of, et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-04144-ABC-E," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Audrey B.
Collins with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lee Wei Chen and Scott E.
Schutzman of Scott E. Schutzman Law Offices, 3700 South Susan
Street, Suite 120, Santa Ana, CA 92704, Phone: 714-543-3638,
Fax: 714-245-2449.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Arthur K. Cunningham of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
         Smith, Tri-City Corp Center, 650 East Hospitality Lane,
         Ste. 600, San Bernardino, CA 92408-3508, Phone: 909-
         387-1130, E-mail: akcatty@lbbslaw.com; and

     (2) Christopher D. Lockwood of Arias and Lockwood, 225 West
         Hospitality Lane, Suite 314, San Bernardino, CA 92408,
         Phone: 951-890-0125, Fax: 909-890-0185.


CALIFORNIA: Oakland Settles Litigation by Harassed Asian Women
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Oakland settled a purported class action that was
filed by five women of Asian descent who claim their civil
rights were violated when they were stopped and harassed by an
Oakland police officer.

Two weeks after its filing, the city recently announced that it
would pay $190,000 to settle the federal suit, which is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Plaintiffs in the suit, who were not identified, claim that the
city should have done more to prevent former Officer Richard
Valerga from pulling them over for no reason, touching them
inappropriately and asking them personal questions.  The women
also claim that they were targeted because of their race (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2006).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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


CANADA: Ottawa Faces Possible CAD$1B Litigation Over LRT System
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Ottawa could be facing a possible class action from
Siemens, south-end developers and the two companies that lost
the bid to build a proposed 30-km light rail line if the city
doesn't honor the signed contract, The Ottawa Sun Reports.

According to Barrhaven Councilor Jan Harder, after talks with
Siemens, the company has indicated it would be in a position to
sue the city for the entire amount of the contract plus millions
of dollars in additional costs.  

Mr. Harder added that the company will include the almost $220
million in revenue it could lose in operating costs over 15
years.  He also made allusions to damages that could amount to
CAD$1 billion ($869,852,155.90).

River Councilor Maria McRae said that Siemens has indicated to
her that since the delays, the company is out of pocket almost
CAD$90 million ($78,286,694.03).  

The councilor also said, "The impression I got from Siemens is
that if the city is planning to bail out of the contract for no
reason they will wholeheartedly defend the contract."

A City Hall source also told The Ottawa Sun recently that the
lawsuit could reach almost $1 billion if city council does an
about-face and votes against building the Light Rail Transit
(LRT) system from Barrhaven to the University of Ottawa.

The source also said that Siemens, which was chosen to build the
line, already sent two letters to city officials saying it will
proceed with legal action if the project is nixed.

The city has said if it doesn't proceed with the plan that was
approved by the previous council last July, it could cost the
city at least CAD$65 million ($56,541,202.59).

The two councilors say the city could face years of litigation
by not only Siemens but by developers who have built along the
north-south route.

Councilor McRae said that she has convinced colleagues and Mayor
Larry O'Brien to conduct in public most of the meeting that was
scheduled to be behind closed doors.

Both councilors, who have voted in favor of the project, say
they want to come away from the meeting knowing the amount of
the bids from the two losing companies, Bombardier and
Kinkashario.  Or else, according Councilor McRae, "they could
also sue us."


CENTRACORE PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuits in Fla., Md. Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
CentraCore Properties Trust is facing purported class actions in
Circuit Courts of Florida and Maryland in relation to a planned
merger with a subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc.

On Sept. 19, the company entered into a merger agreement with
The GEO Group, Inc. and GEO Acquisition II, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc.  At the company's Nov. 9 form
10-Q filing, CentraCore said it is aware of two lawsuits filed
against it in relation to the merger.

One suit is filed by John Fayant against:

        * CentraCore Properties Trust,
        * Robert R. Veach, Jr.,
        * Richard R. Wackenhut,
        * Anthony P. Travisono,
        * Charles R. Jones,
        * Clarence E. Anthony,
        * James D. Motta,
        * Donna Arduin, and
        * Kevin J. Foley

The case is numbered 50 2006CA 010623XXXXMB(AJ).  It was filed
on Oct. 11, 2006, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the merger
consideration to be paid to the company's shareholders in the
Merger is unfair and inadequate and unfairly favors insiders.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the company's trustees
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing
to take all reasonable steps to assure the maximization of
shareholder value, including the implementation of a bidding
mechanism to foster a fair auction of the company to the highest
bidder or the exploration of strategic alternatives that will
return greater or equivalent short-term value to the Company's
shareholders.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the
lawsuit as a class action, a declaration that the merger
agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, an injunction
preventing the merger agreement to proceed, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger until the trustees implement
procedures to obtain the highest possible price for the company,
direction to the trustees to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction in the best interests of shareholders,
compensatory damages to the class, attorneys' fees and expenses,
along with such other relief as the court might find just and
proper.

Another suit is filed by Robert Cuti against:

      -- Clarence R. Anthony,
      -- Donna Arduin,
      -- Charles R. Jones,
      -- James D. Motta,
      -- Robert R. Veach, Jr.,
      -- Richard R. Wackenhut,
      -- Kevin J. Foley,
      -- GEO Acquisition II, Inc., and
      -- CentraCore Properties Trust.

The case is numbered 24-C-06-008163.  It was filed on October
13, 2006, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the merger
consideration to be paid to the company's shareholders in the
Merger is unfair and inadequate and unfairly favors insiders and
that the Independent Committee of the company's board of
trustees failed to perform its function and to act independently
with respect to the merger transaction.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the company's trustees
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing
to shop the company prior to approving the merger agreement in
efforts to secure an offer of more substantial consideration for
shareholders.  

The complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the
lawsuit as a class action, a preliminary and permanent
injunction preventing the merger agreement to proceed,
rescission of the merger and the award of rescissory damages
should the merger be consummated, compensatory damages to the
class, an accounting of all profits and any special benefits
obtained by defendants, plaintiff's costs, attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses, along with such other relief as the
court might find just and proper.

CentraCore Properties Trust on the Net:
http://www.correctionalpropertiestrust.com/.


CHARTER COMMS: Ore. Attorney Mulls Suit Over Internet Connection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silverton, Oregon attorney Jim Little prepares to possibly
initiate a class action against Charter Communications, Inc.,
The Appeal Tribune reports.

Mr. Little alleges the company is not living up to its promise
of high-speed Internet connection.  He said for more than 6
months he has paid for service connections of up to three
megabytes per second.

The company is currently advertising 3 Mbps service in
Silverton.  The monthly rate is $51.99 not including taxes and
fees.  Mr. Little said more than 700 people in Silverton use
Charter High Speed.

However, Mr. Little claims he typically receives less than a
quarter of those speeds during working hours.

Also, City Manager Bryan Cosgrove said he received complaints
about Charter's service.  He said a company representative
acknowledged problems in the high-speed line and said they are
working to get them fixed.

City councilors authorized Mr. Cosgrove to send a letter to
Charter asking them to remedy the problem and give the company a
deadline to respond.  If they do not respond, Silverton Mayor
Ken Hector said the information may be forwarded to the state
Attorney General's Office.

Craig Watson, Charter's Vice President of Communications West
Coast Division said efforts are being made to rectify the
problems.

He said ongoing issues stem partly from an agreement with AT&T
to buy bandwidth that didn't work out.  The company has reached
an agreement with LS Networks and said the company plans to have
full service restored in Silverton and Mount Angel sometime in
January, he added.

Mr. Watson said customers with bandwidth issues would be taken
care of although he declined to comment on how those customers
would be compensated.  He did not say whether the company would
continue to sell 3 Mbps service in Silverton while the problems
are being fixed.

While he said there have been some complaints, he also noted
that many customers are happy with the level of service they are
receiving.

Mr. Little is currently researching the issue and is asking
residents with Charter High Speed Internet to check their line
speeds at http://bluefield.speedtest.frontiernet.net/and send  
the results to his E-mail: littlejf@open.org.

He said while no paperwork has been filed, this would help him
determine whether to pursue a class action against Charter.

Charter Communications, Inc. on the Net: http://www.charter.com.


DICK'S SPORTING: Still Faces FLSA Violations Suits in N.Y., Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a defendant in three federal
lawsuits that make claims concerning alleged failures to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and applicable state labor law.

The cases, which were filed in May and November of 2005, and
April of 2006, are:

      -- "Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., and
         Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. (Barrus)," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
         York;

      -- "Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (Parks),"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
         District of New York; and

      -- "James Premick v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.
         (Premick)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Western District of Pennsylvania.

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business, according to the company's Nov. 15,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Oct. 28, 2006.  

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases.

The company appealed these conditional certifications by the
magistrate judge in the Barrus and Parks cases to the U.S.
District Court in the Western District of New York.

The court has denied the company's appeal as to conditional
class certification in the Barrus case and has set a hearing to
determine the schedule and scope of discovery in that case for
the end of November 2006.


HOMETOWN AUTO: Settles Securities Fraud Litigation in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. settled a purported class action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware over a
June 2005 Exchange Agreement with subsidiaries, according to the
company's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended  
Sept. 30, 2006.

On June 2, 2005, the company entered into an exchange agreement
with the New England subsidiaries of the company and the
stockholders of the company in the Shaker Group.  

The exchange agreement was also approved by the written consent
of stockholders owning a majority of the voting power of the
shares of stock of the company.

In June 30, 2005 a suit was filed naming as defendants
directors:

      -- Corey E. Shaker,   
      -- William C. Muller, Jr.,  
      -- Joseph Shaker,   
      -- Bernard J. Dzinski, Jr.,   
      -- Steven A. Fournier,   
      -- H. Dennis Lauzon,  
      -- Timothy C. Moynihan  

Steven N. Bronson, Louis J. Meade and Leonard Hagan as the
plaintiffs purport to bring the action individually,
derivatively and as a class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of the company's Class A shares.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the directors and
controlling stockholders have breached their fiduciary duties to
Hometown and the Class A stockholders, have failed to seek a
transaction that would maximize value for Hometown and all its
stockholders, and have initiated a transaction that is not fair
to Hometown and its public stockholders.

The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, including,
rescission of the exchange agreement, a preliminary and
permanent injunction against the exchange agreement
transactions, a declaration that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties, a constructive trust on any assets
transferred pursuant to the exchange agreement transactions,
damages for the injury suffered by plaintiffs and the class as a
result of defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, certification
of the action as a class action, and an order requiring
defendants to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

In order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the
parties negotiated a settlement.  Under the terms of a
stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release
dated June 7, 2006 Hometown agreed, among other things, to enter
into a merger pursuant to which:

      -- a newly-formed corporation called Hometown Acquisition
         Corp. will be merged with and into Hometown;

      -- the stockholders of Hometown other than the members of
         the Shaker Group and the Muller Group will receive
         $2.40 in cash (reduced by certain legal fees) for each
         share of Hometown's Class A Common Stock which they
         own; and

      -- the Public Stockholders will receive a per share cash
         payment equal to the excess, if any, of $2.40 (reduced
         by certain legal fees) over the exercise price per
         share of any options to acquire shares of Class A
         Common Stock, which they own.

The Court of Chancery approved the settlement agreement on July
27, 2006.  The court also awarded plaintiffs' counsel attorneys'
fees and expenses in the amount of $300,000.  Accordingly, if
the merger is consummated, the Public Stockholders will receive
approximately $2.30 per share.

Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. on the Net: http://www.htauto.com.


HORIZON BLUE: Doctors Urged to Opt Out of "Sutter" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm WolfBlock is strongly encouraging the physicians it
represents in New Jersey to reject a proposed class action
settlement of a lawsuit accusing Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield
of poor reimbursement practices.

According to WolfBlock partner Charles X. Gormally, much of the
settlement in Sutter v. Horizon "is already required either by
law or the contract provisions in the typical Horizon provider
agreement. Perhaps more distressing is that some parts the
settlement consideration fail to meet the requirements of
applicable law and thus offers less of a benefit to class
members."

Additionally, wrote Mr. Gormally to Essex County Superior Court
Judge Stephen Bernstein, the settlement "provides no direct
financial payment to any of the class members."

"The settlement ... is based not on payment to class members,
but merely an acknowledgement that applicable law in fact
applies to Horizon," wrote Mr. Gormally. "While it may be
therapeutic to some to know that Horizon is not above the law,
the value ascribed to the class members, and the dubious nature
of the 'consideration' since it is already largely required by
law, is objectionable and suspect."

Deadline to opt out of the settlement is Dec. 8, 2006.

The suit claims the carrier denied legitimate reimbursement
claims, sent payments too slowly and cost medical professionals
nightmarish administrative costs.

Under a settlement announced in October, Horizon BCBSNJ
committed to continue significant business practice improvements
related to physicians to increase transparency in payment of
claims, reduce administrative overhead, and improve interactions
between the health plan and physicians (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 24, 2006).  These improvements will help enhance the
efficiency and quality of the health care delivery system in New
Jersey.

The settlement does not say how the parties arrived at the $6.5
million fee, according to the report.  It represents one-sixth
of the $39 million estimated minimum value of the deal to
doctors, compared with the typical one-third fee in contingency
cases.

Key settlement agreement points include:

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will make fee schedules for commonly used  
        procedures available to participating physicians by CD-
        ROM or electronically;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will disclose the significant automated  
        edits it uses to process physician claims;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ will provide 90 days notice to  
        participating physicians of material changes to its  
        contracts, policies, and procedures;

     -- Participating primary care physicians will be allowed to  
        close their practices to new patients covered by Horizon  
        BCBSNJ;

     -- Most fees shall not be reduced for participating  
        physicians, if at all, more than once a year and Horizon  
        BCBSNJ shall maintain standard fee schedules within  
        geographic regions;

     -- Horizon BCBSNJ agrees not to recover for overpayments to  
        physicians after more than 18 months of the original  
        payment and to provide more notice and information  
        regarding any overpayments;

     -- A determination of medical necessity by Horizon BCBSNJ  
        shall not subsequently be revoked absent evidence of  
        fraud, material error, or material change in the  
        condition of a patient prior to service;

     -- Horizon will provide detailed monthly capitation reports  
        and a dedicated liaison to address physician inquiries  
        concerning capitation payments.

If approved by a state judge, the settlement will end Horizon
Blue's involvement in a lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of at
least 40,000 New Jersey doctors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18,
2006).

Other defendants named in the suit were:  

     -- Cigna Healthcare of New Jersey, a part of Cigna Corp.,   
        of Philadelphia;   

     -- United Healthcare of New Jersey, a unit of UnitedHealth   
        Group of Minneapolis; and   

     -- Oxford Health Plans of Trumbull, Conn.  

Since then, the Cigna and United Healthcare cases have become
part of other national class actions in Florida.  The case
against Oxford, whose parent company merged with UnitedHealth in
2004, is in arbitration, according to class action attorney Eric
Katz, who is representing the plaintiff physician class.

As is the standard in such a deal, Horizon Blue, which insures
more than 3.2 million people in New Jersey, did not admit any
wrongdoing, according to company spokesman Thomas Rubino.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey on the Net:  
http://www.bcbsnj.com/.
  
The suit is "John Ivan Sutter, M.D. et al. v. Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield of New Jersey, Case No. L-3685-02."

For more details, contact:

     (1) Charles X. Gormally of WolfBlock, Phone: (973) 403-
         3111, E-mail: cgormally@wolfblock.com, Web site:
         http://www.wolfblock.com;and

     (2) Eric D. Katz of Nagel Rice Dreifuss & Mazie, LLP, 103
         Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey 07068, Phone:
         973-618-0400, Fax: 973-618-9194, Web site:
         http://nrdm-law.com/.


HOST AMERICA: Files Status Report on Conn. Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending
against Host America Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut over statements made by the company
regarding its commercial relationship with Wal-Mart have filed a
status report on the suit in November.

In August 2005 and Sept. 2005, 12 putative class action
complaints were filed, naming as defendants the company,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and David J. Murphy.  One or more of the
complaints also named Gilbert Rossomando, Peter Sarmanian, Roger  
D. Lockhart and EnergyNsync, Inc.  

The complaints are:  

      -- "Mintz v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.  
         05-cv-1260-SRU (filed on Aug. 9, 2005);  

      -- "RFC Securities LLC v. Host America Corp., et al.,  
         Civil Action No. 05-cv-01269-JBA (filed on Aug. 11,  
         2005);"  

      -- "Collins v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action  
         No. 05-cv-01270-JBA (filed on Aug. 11, 2005);"  

      -- "Conlin v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.  
         05-cv-01291-WWE (filed on Aug. 15, 2005);"  

      -- "Sutton v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action 05-
         cv-01292-JBA (filed on Aug. 15, 2005);"  

      -- "Dombrowski v. Host American Corp., et al., Civil  
         Action No. 05-cv-01329-RNC (filed on Aug. 19, 2005);"

      -- "Yorks v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.  
         05-cv-1250 (filed on Aug. 8, 2005);"  

      -- "Sullivan v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action  
         No. 05-01391 (filed on Sept. 2, 2005);"  

      -- "George Theall v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil  
         Action No. 05-cv-1389 (JBA) (filed Sept. 1, 2005);"

      -- "Sonia Kilgore v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil  
         Action No. 05-cv-1435 (JBA)(filed Sept. 12, 2005);"  

      -- "Jonathan Destler v. Host America Corp., et al., No.  
         05-cv-01479 (JBA) (filed Sept. 21, 2005);" and

      -- "Brett Reeves v. Host America Corp. et al., Civil  
         Action No. 05-cv-01511 (JBA) (filed Sept. 27,  
         2005)."  
           
The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between
July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005.  

In general, plaintiffs alleged that the company's July 12, 2005
press release contained materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's commercial relationship with
Wal-Mart.  

The complaints alleged that these statements harmed the
purported class by artificially inflating the price of the
company's securities and that certain defendants personally
benefited from the inflated price by selling stock during the
alleged class period.  

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages based on alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
  
On Sept. 21, 2005, as amended on Sept. 26, 2005, the court
issued a Consolidation and Scheduling Order, consolidating the
class actions as, "In re Host America Securities Litigation,  
Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250 (JBA)."  

On June 15, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint for violations of the securities laws.  The
consolidated complaint, which supersedes the previously filed
class action complaints, names as defendants the company,  
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, David J. Murphy, Peter Sarmanian and Roger  
D. Lockhart, and purports to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased our publicly traded securities between July 12,  
2005 and Sept. 1, 2005.  

The consolidated complaint is based on substantially the same
allegations as the earlier filed complaints, and adds
allegations based on the company's disclosure in May 2006
concerning the resignation of the company's former independent
auditors.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages based on alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and under Section
20A against defendants Sarmanian and Lockhart.  

A time for answering or otherwise responding to the consolidated
complaint has not been established, according to the company's
Form 10-K filing for the period ended June 30.   Pursuant to
court order, the parties filed a status report on Nov. 13, 2006.

The suit is "Yorks v. Host America Corp et al. Case No. 3:05-cv-
01250-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elias A. Alexiades, 215 Church Street, 2nd Floor, New  
         Haven, CT 06510, Phone: 203-777-4720, Fax: 203-777-
         4722, E-mail: alexiades@mindspring.com;  

     (2) Jeffrey P. Campisi of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP - NY  
         805 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:  
         212-687-1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail:
         jcampisi@kaplanfox.com; and

     (3) Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov Stone & Bonner, 485  
         Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:  
         212-239-4340, Fax: 212-239-4310, E-mail:
         tciarlone@lawssb.com.  

Representing the defendants is Peter M. Casey of Greenberg &  
Traurig-MA, One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:  
617-310-6048, Fax: 617-310-6001, E-mail: caseyp@gtlaw.com.


HOT TOPIC: Consolidation of Settled Calif. Customer Suit Ordered
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court has ordered the
consolidation of two lawsuits filed against Hot Topic, Inc., one
concerning alleged customer privacy violations and another
concerning stock option grants.

In April 2006, a California resident filed a lawsuit against the
company in Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that
we violated California Civil Code Section 1747.08.  

That code section regulates when a retailer is permitted to
obtain certain customer information in connection with credit
card transactions.  The case is alleged as a class action.

In May 2006, the company answered the complaint and denied all
liability.  In October 2006, the court gave preliminary approval
to a settlement agreement between the plaintiff (on behalf of
the purported class) and the company, which agreement we entered
into as opposed to incurring additional legal fees defending the
claims.  The settlement agreement sets forth the company's
position that complete defenses to the claims exist.  

Further, there was no admission of liability and no finding of
violation of law.  Under the settlement agreement, if final
approval is received:

     -- the company the company would pay an estimated aggregate
        of approximately $250,000 to cover certain attorneys'
        fees and claims administration costs; and

     -- the company would provide class members who opt in to
        the settlement class a coupon to receive 20% off on a
        single purchase of up to $100 in our Hot Topic or Torrid
        stores.

The company accrued amounts to account for the settlement during
our third quarter following agreement on the settlement terms.  
Final approval of the settlement is expected around the end of
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006, though there is some
likelihood the judge will not grant final approval.

On Aug. 7, 2006, Cheryl Axelson filed a purported shareholder
derivative action for the benefit of Hot Topic, Inc. in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

The lawsuit names certain of company's current and former
executive officers and directors as individual defendants and
the company as a nominal defendant.  

It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment in connection with the granting of certain stock
options by us and seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of the
relevant stock options and any proceeds thereof, and other
relief.

On Sept. 12, 2006, Jane Daily, who is represented by the same
law firms as Ms. Axelson, filed a substantially similar action,
though two of our directors named in the Axelson complaint were
not named in the Ms. Daily complaint, and the Ms. Daily
complaint included an additional cause of action relating to a
California insider trading statute.

In October 2006, the court ordered consolidation of the two
cases, and ordered plaintiffs' attorneys to file a revised,
consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs have until approximately
Dec. 11, 2006 to make such a filing, at which time the company
would have 45 days to respond.  

Hot Topic, Inc. on the Net: http://www.hottopic.com/.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Still Faces Stock Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interlink Electronics, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Filed on Nov. 15, 2005, the suit, "Roger Brooks, et al. v.
Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-
SH," was brought against the company and two of its current and
former officers.  

It alleges that between April 24, 2003 and Nov. 1, 2005, the
company and two of its current and former officers made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's results of operations and
financial condition.  

The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market which had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price.

To date, the court has not certified a class, and the litigation
remains in its early stages, according to the company's Nov. 16,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Percy Anderson with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy J. Burke of Stull Stull and Brody, 10940
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
         Phone: 310-209-2468, E-mail: service@ssbla.com;

     (2) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150; and

     (3) Roy L. Jacobs of Roy L. Jacobs and Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         212-867-1156.

Representing the defendants is Daniel S. Floyd of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, 333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-
3197, Phone: 213-229-7000, E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com.


IPASS INC: No Appeal Filed in Calif. Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against iPass, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California have failed to file a timely notice of
appeal on the dismissal of the suit.

Beginning on Jan. 14, 2005, three purported class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On March 2, 2005, these cases were consolidated as, "In re iPass
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00228-MHP."  On April
22, 2005, David Lutzke and Rhonda Lutzke were named lead
plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Named as defendants together with the company are
officers Kenneth D. Denman, Donald C. McCauley, Anurag Lal, and
Jon M. Russo.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during an alleged "class period" from April
22, 2004 to June 30, 2004 by failing to inform investors of
certain operational issues that allegedly led to declines in the
Company's revenue, earnings and growth prospects.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint,
and on Feb. 28, 2006, the court granted the motion with leave to
amend.  

On March 30, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which set forth, the same claims against the
same defendants relating to the same alleged class period.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on May 1, 2006, and that motion was granted
with prejudice on Sept. 6, 2006.  On Sept. 7, 2006, final
judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.

Plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal.  

The suit is "In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-
cv-00228-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,  
         LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA  
         90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-  
         mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;  

     (2) Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen Mistein Hausfeld & Toll,  
         PLLC, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98104,  
         Phone: 206 521-0080, Fax: 206 621-0166, E-mail:  
         afriedman@cmht.com; and  

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy of Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265  
         Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963, Phone: 772-231-4202,  
         Fax: 772-231-4042.  

Representing the company is Mary Beth O'Connor of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo  
Alto, CA 94306, Phone: (415) 843-5594, Fax: (650) 849-7400, E-
mail: mboconnor@cooley.com.


JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave has allowed the case, "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation
Securities Litigation, Master File No. C 02-1486 CW" to proceed
as a class action, but has yet to decide on its allegations.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of JDS Uniphase Corp. or JDS
Uniphase Canada Ltd. between Oct. 28, 1999 and July 26, 2001

The lawsuit claims that JDS and four of its senior officers,
Jozef Straus, Kevin Kalkhoven, Anthony R. Muller and Charles J.
Abbe, (Individual Defendants) misled investors about the value
of their business, and that the individual defendants sold their
shares at artificially inflated prices.

In this case the class representative is the Connecticut
Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (CRPTF), which asserts claims
on behalf of all people who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of JDS or JDS Canada between Oct. 28, 1999 and July
26, 2001, inclusive.  

CRPTF also asserts claims on behalf of the following three
subclasses, consisting of all persons and entities that
exchanged stock they owned in the following companies for stock
of JDS in connection with JDS's acquisition of those companies:

      -- the Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI) Subclass,

      -- the E-TEK Dynamics, Inc. (E-TEK) Subclass, and

      -- the SDL, Inc. (SDL) Subclass.  

There are subclass representatives for each Subclass:

      -- Houston Municipal Employees Pension System represents
         the SDL Subclass;  

      -- Dennis McCool represents the E-TEK Subclass; and
   
      -- Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
         represents the OCLI Subclass.

In essence, plaintiffs claim that between during the class
period:

      -- JDS was inflating its revenues by fraudulently shipping
         products to a warehouse at the end of a quarter only to
         be returned to JDS at the start of the next quarter,
         prematurely recognizing revenues on consignment sales
         and shipping cancelled orders;

      -- JDS's demand had declined dramatically, forcing the
         company to reduce its internal sales forecasts;

      -- JDS was carrying excess, obsolete inventory on its
         books, $270 million of which was eventually written
         off;

      -- JDS was carrying approximately $13 billion of goodwill
         on its books that the Defendants knew would have to be
         written off.

Plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants and JDS hid this
information, falsely reassured the investing public that demand
for JDS's products remained strong and denied that inventory was
growing faster than sales.  

According to plaintiffs, the individual defendants profited from
these misrepresentations and omissions, by selling more than
$500 million of their stock in JDS at artificially inflated
prices. JDS profited too, by trading its inflated stock for the
stock of OCLI, E-TEK and SDL.

Plaintiffs claim that when the true financial condition of JDS
was publicly disclosed, the stock fell dramatically, causing the
Class Members to lose billions of dollars.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New
         York, NY 10017, Phone: (866) 629-2828, Web site:
         http://www.labaton.com;and

     (2) Notice Administrator, JDS Uniphase Securities
         Litigation, 2710 Concord Road, Suite 5, Aston, PA
         19014, Phone: (610) 364-2693, Web site:
         http://www.jdsclassaction.com.


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Defibrillator Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. is facing five putative class actions in Canada
over its implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds).

On Feb. 11, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began advising
physicians about a potential battery shorting mechanism that may
occur in a subset of ICDs and CRT-Ds, including certain of the
Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain of the InSync
I/II/III Marquis and InSync III CRT-D devices.

The company provided physicians with a list of potentially
affected patients and recommended that physicians communicate
with those patients so they could manage the potential issue in
a manner they felt was appropriate for their individual
patients.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, later classified by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a Class II Recall, a
number of lawsuits were filed against Medtronic in various state
and federal jurisdictions.

The cases were brought either by individuals claiming personal
injury or by third party payors seeking reimbursement of costs
associated with the field action, including a claim by an
individual purporting to act on behalf of the Center for
Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The personal injury complaints generally alleged strict
liability, negligence, warranty and other common law and/or
statutory claims; and seek compensatory as well as punitive
damages.  Cases filed in federal court, either personal injury
or third party payor, have been consolidated before one federal
judge under a Multidistrict Litigation case (MDL).

There are approximately 417 federal personal injury cases, most
of which have been consolidated in the MDL.  The company expects
all federal cases will be transferred to the MDL.  There are
approximately 34 state court personal injury cases that are not
part of the MDL.

Separate master complaints were filed in the MDL for the
personal injury and third party payor claims.  The third party
payor master complaint contains class allegations and lawyers
for the plaintiffs have indicated that they will request the
court's permission to amend the personal injury master complaint
to add class allegations, which were omitted from it.

The company intends to challenge any attempt at class
certification because it believes individual issues far outweigh
any common issues in the various cases.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the federal judge managing the MDL denied
Medtronic's motion for summary judgment on the federal personal
injury cases.  The motion was based on federal preemption, and
the denial of the motion does not represent a ruling on the
merits.

Medtronic believes it has meritorious defenses to the litigation
and intends to seek court approval to immediately appeal this
decision.  

A status conference will be held in the MDL before the court on
Dec. 21, 2006; next steps in the MDL will be discussed at that
time.

Medtronic also filed a motion to dismiss the third party payor
cases in March 2006 and will ask the court for a hearing on that
motion as soon as possible.  

Additionally, five putative class actions have been filed in
Canada.  The company is unaware of any confirmed injury or death
resulting from a device failure due to the shorting mechanism
that was the subject matter of the field action though certain
of the lawsuits makes such allegations.

Medtronic, Inc. on the Net: http://www.medtronic.com/.


MEDTRONIC INC: N.Y. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Defibrillator Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Rosenbaum of the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis
Refused to dismiss hundreds of lawsuits against Medtronic Inc.
stemming from its February 2005 recall of potentially faulty
heart defibrillators, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

The judge's ruling means that more than 300 cases filed by
patients and their families can move forward and that new claims
may be filed against the Fridley medical technology giant.

Medtronic said it would seek the court's permission to appeal
the order.

Medtronic faced hundreds of lawsuits seeking class-action status
after it warned doctors about some faulty batteries installed in
a line of its implantable heart defibrillators.

In February 2005, Medtronic warned physicians about a potential
battery shorting mechanism in certain of its implantable
cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization
therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) models.  ICDs shock the heart
back into a regular rhythm if the patient suffers a life
threatening arrhythmia that could lead to cardiac arrest.  CRT-
Ds provide electrical impulses to improve heart function.

Medtronic heart devices were surgically implanted in persons
that were either prone to life-threatening heart rhythms,
congestive heart failure or a combination of both.  According to
the FDA, Medtronic heart devices with batteries manufactured
between April 2001 and December 2003 may exhibit this shorting
action.

The particular ICDs and CRT-Ds were manufactured between April  
2001 and December 2003 and include:

    * Model 7230 Marquis VR
    * Model 7274 Marquis DR
    * Model 7232 Maximo VR
    * Model 7278 Maximo DR
    * Model 7277 InSync Marquis
    * Model 7289 InSync II Marguis
    * Model 7279 InSync III Marquis
    * Model 7285 InSync IIIProtect  

Medtronic Inc. argued in court on July 10 to have lawsuits over
its recalled implantable cardiac defibrillator dismissed (Class
Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).

The point of contention in the July 10 hearing is whether
Medtronic adequately informed medical professionals and the FDA
when it learned of a potential shorting problem with one of its
implantable defibrillators in 2003, according to the report.

Medtronic told the court that the FDA has special authority over
lifesaving or life-sustaining medical devices, while attorneys
for the plaintiffs argued that Medtronic played down the problem
in an October 2003 filing with the FDA that sought approval of a
new defibrillator model.

The lawsuits have been consolidated as "In re: Medtronic, Inc.,
Implantable Defilbrillators Products Liability Litigation, Case
No. 0:05-md-01726-JMR-AJB" in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis
before Judge James Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Arthur J.
Boylan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles S. Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651  
         Nicollet Mall Ste 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123,  
         Phone: 612-341-0400, Fax: 612-341-0844, E-mail:  
         csz@zimmreed.com; and

     (2) Daniel E. Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 608 2nd  
         Ave S Ste 650 Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-333-
         8844, Fax: 612-339-6622, E-mail:  
         dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com.

Representing the defendants is Stephen J. Immelt of Hogan &
Hartson LLP, 111 S Calvert St., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410-
659-2757, Fax: 410-539-6981, E-mail: sjimmelt@hhlaw.com.


ONVIA INC: Securities Settlement Final Hearing Set for Late 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has rescheduled hearings for final approval of the proposed
settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Onvia, Inc. to late 2006, according to the company's Nov. 13,
2006 Form-10Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The company is defendant the suit, which was filed in 2001.  A
final settlement agreement in this suit was negotiated and was
preliminarily approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in February 2005, and the company
is awaiting final court approval.

If the final settlement is approved, the company will be
released from any future liability under this lawsuit.  The
company has $30 million directors' and officers' liability
policy that would cover any award up to $30 million, subject to
a $250,000 deductible.

The company incurred approximately $132,000 for attorneys' fees
in defense of this suit as of September 30, 2006.

According to the terms of the settlement agreement, defense fees
incurred after June 1, 2003 will be refunded if the final
settlement is approved.

Approximately $23,000 of the defense fees incurred to date was
incurred after June 1, 2003 and will be refunded to the Company
if the final settlement is approved.

In the event that the final settlement agreement is not approved
and the company is found liable for damages, which it believes
is a remote possibility, the $132,000 in attorneys' fees already
incurred would be applied to its deductible.  

The company would be liable for the balance of any additional
fees and awards in excess of those already paid up to our
$250,000 deductible, and any award in excess of our $30 million
liability policy.

The court has rescheduled hearings for final approval to late
2006.

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

The suit is "In Re: IPO Securities Lit., et al v. , et al., Case
No. 1:21-mc-00092-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale
         & Dorr L.L.P.( VA), 1600 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1000,
         Mclean, VA 22102, Phone: (212) 937-7262, Fax: (212)
         937-7300, E-mail: robin.alperstein@haledorr.com;

     (2) Stewart D. Aaron of Arnold & Porter LLP, 399 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000;

     (3) Rebecca Ruby Anzidei and Paul Bohr both of Kirland &
         Ellis LLP, 655 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 2005,
         Phone: (202) 879-5000;

     (4) Russell A. Archer and Kevin M. Askew both of Kirkland &
         Ellis LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA
         90017, Phone: 213-680-8400, Fax: 213-680-8500; and

     (5) Simon Block of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 30 Rockefeller
         Plaza, New York, NY 10112, Phone: (212) 698-3500.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (i) Moshe Balsam of Weiss & Lurie, The Fred French
         Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10176, Phone:
         (212) 682-3025, E-mail: mbalsam@weisslurie.com;

    (ii) Samuel L. Barkin of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe,
         L.L.P., 120 West 45th Street, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: (212) 832-8300, E-mail: sbarkin@hewm.com;

   (iii) Robert Jeffrey Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         berg@bernlieb.com;

    (iv) Randall K. Berger of Kirby, McInerney & Squire, L.L.P.,
         830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 371-6600;

     (v) David K. Bergman of Frydman & Bergman, 18 East 48th
         Street, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         355-9100; and

    (vi) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-907-0869, Fax: 212-883-7069, E-mail:
         jbernstein@labaton.com.


PDI INC: Calif. Superior Court Approves Labor Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco granted preliminary approval of a settlement of a
labor class action filed against PDI Inc.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company was served with a complaint in a
purported class action that was commenced against the company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco on behalf of certain of the company's current and
former employees, alleging violations of certain sections of the
California Labor Code.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2005, the company accrued
approximately $3.3 million for potential penalties and other
settlement costs relating to both asserted and unasserted claims
relating to this matter.

In October 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations set forth in the complaint.  In December 2005,
the company reached a tentative settlement of this action,
subject to court approval.

As a result, the company reduced its accrual relating to
asserted and unasserted claims relating to this matter to
$600,000 during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005.  The balance of
the accrual at September 30, 2006 is $87,000.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the tentative settlement and scheduled a fairness
hearing regarding the tentative settlement for January 2007.

PDI, Inc. on the Net: http://www.pdi-inc.com/.


PENNSYLVANIA: Park Operators Still Faces Landowners' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Operators of Two Mile Run County Park remains a defendant in a
purported class action that was filed by the original landowners
of the park's land, The Derrick.com reports.

Filed on December 2004 in Venango County Court of Common Pleas,
the suit was brought on behalf of about 40 landowners from whom
land was acquired for the park in the late 1960s.  It was filed
by:

     -- Donald M. Plumer, Jr. and Joyce S. Plumer of Oil City,
        and

     -- Richard A. and Annette K. Burgert of Myerstown.

Named as defendants in the case are:

     -- the Venango Park and Natural Resources Authority, and

     -- Parks Unlimited, the firm owned by Marty and Ann
        Rudegeair, which has managed the park since 1998.  

The suit claims that the Venango County failed to get the
approval of the General Assembly when it transferred ownership
of the park property in the late 1960s (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 9, 2006).

It also charges that some park operations - including timbering
and oil and gas activities and the gate and access fees -
violate Article I, Section 27, of the state constitution, which
"limits and binds the power of government in its use of public
lands," and/or the terms of the deeds granting the land for the
park.

The suit requests:

      -- a permanent injunction voiding the transfer of the park     
         property to the authority or a ruling invoking the
         penalties for improper transfer of Project 70 lands;

      -- that all "commercial activities" associated with oil,
         gas, and timbering operations be prohibited at the
         park;

      -- that the use of the gate and gate fees be prohibited;
         and

      -- attorney's fees and costs.

During a hearing on Aug. 31, 2006, Messrs. Plumer and Burgert,
two of the original landowners of the park, gave testimonies.
Recently, plaintiffs' attorneys asked the court to grant class-
action status for the case.  

Judge H. William White is presiding over the case.  Representing
plaintiffs is Michael Hadley of 420 Meadowlark Rd., Santa Ynez,
California, (Santa Barbara Co.).  Jim Greenfield represents the
operators of Two Mile Run County Park.


PIXAR ANIMATION: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has dismissed the securities fraud suit filed against Pixar
Animation Studios, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walt Disney Co.,
in relation to Pixar's disclosures of projected earnings in the
sales of The Incredibles.

On Oct. 21, 2005, a putative class action was filed against:

     -- Pixar,
     -- Steven P. Jobs,
     -- Edwin E. Catmull, and
     -- Simon T. Bax.

In this case, together with three subsequent cases which have
been consolidated, plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued
false and misleading statements in certain of Pixar's press
releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings
between Jan. 18, 2005 and June 30, 2005, concerning earnings
Pixar expected to receive for its second fiscal quarter of 2005,
ended July 2, 2005, from the home video sales of The
Incredibles.

Plaintiffs assert 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.  On June 29, 2006, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by order
dated Sept. 12, 2006.

While the order allowed plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended
complaint, plaintiffs agreed not to do so, and the lawsuit was
dismissed on Oct. 20, 2006, by stipulation of the parties.

Pixar Animation Studios on the Net: http://www.pixar.com.


RECKSON ASSOCIATES: Settles Suits Over SL Green Realty Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reckson Associates Realty Corp. and SL Green Realty Corp. agreed
to settle the pending class actions relating to SL Green's
takeover offer, the AP WorldStream reports.

The settlement, which is subject to documentation, provides:

      -- for certain contingent profit sharing participation for
         Reckson shareholders relating to specified assets,

      -- that if the merger closes on or before Dec. 31, 2006,
         the Reckson shareholders will receive the full fourth
         quarter dividend,

      -- for potential payments to Reckson shareholders of
         amounts relating to Reckson's interest in contingent
         profit sharing participations in connection with the
         sale of certain long island industrial properties in a
         prior transaction, and

      -- for the dismissal by the plaintiffs of all actions with
         prejudice and customary releases of all defendants and
         related parties.

The settlement provides for contingent profit-sharing
participation for Reckson shareholders relating to specified
assets, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2006 Form 8-K filing
with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission.

According to the filing, the plaintiffs also agreed to dismiss
all actions with prejudice -- which means they can't be refiled
-- and customary releases of all defendants and related parties.

Reckson Associates shares recently traded at $45.27 each, while
SL Green stock traded at $130.50 a share, down 2.34 percent.

Reckson Associates Realty Corp. on the Net:
http://www.reckson.com.


ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Wipes Over B. cepacia Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockline Industries has initiated a voluntary nationwide product
withdrawal to the retail level of certain lots of its store
brand wet wipes.  The voluntary withdrawal is a result of
routine product testing that detected the presence of a
microorganism known as Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia).

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), B. cepacia
is a bacteria that can be found in soil and water.  The CDC says
"B. cepacia poses little medical risk to healthy people.

However, people who have certain health problems like weakened
immune systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic
fibrosis (CF), may be more susceptible to infections with B.
cepacia.

B. cepacia is a known cause of infections in hospitalized
patients." Further information on B. cepacia can be found on the
CDC website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/id_BcepaciaFS.html.

"The well being of those who use our products is our top
priority," said Alan Perlman, Rockline spokesman.  "We are
voluntarily removing this product from stores to maintain the
highest possible standards of quality for our retail customers
and their consumers.  While the probability of a health risk is
remote, we want to take every precaution.  Consumers will
receive a full refund or replacement."

There have been no reports of illness related to this incident,
according to Perlman.  Only a small portion of the company's wet
wipes products are affected.  Those products that are affected
will likely have a bad odor described as sour milk.

The company encourages consumers who have purchased wet wipes
between Aug. 21 and Nov. 17, 2006 to check the lot code of the
product.  The lot code, which is not the same as a bar code, is
typically found on the back label or side panel of the package
and includes the word "Lot" followed by a series of numbers.
Affected products have lot codes with the first 5 digits
beginning at 06233 and ending at 06253.  These numbers will be
followed by either 0220197 or 0220693.  No other lot codes or
products are affected.  Perlman recommended discontinuing use of
the product and returning the package to the place of purchase
for a full refund or replacement.

Affected products were packed in multiple brands including the
following items sold at Wal-Mart stores and Sam's Club:

Product Description                        Product Lot Code

EQUATE Pop-Ups, Fragrance Free Baby        LOT 06239 0220197XXXX
Wipes, 80 Count Tub,                       LOT 06240 0220197XXXX
Bar Code 071287859759

EQUATE Pop-Ups, Fragrance Free Baby        LOT 06250 0220197XXXX
Wipes, 80 Count Refill,                    LOT 06251 0220197XXXX
Bar Code 071287859780                      LOT 06253 0220197XXXX

EQUATE Pop-Ups, Fragrance Free Baby        LOT 06233 0220693XXXX
Wipes, 160 Count Bag,                      LOT 06243 0220693XXXX
Bar Code 071287856413

MEMBER'S MARK Moist Wipes Pop-Ups,         LOT 06237 0220197XXXX
Fragrance Free, 720 Count Box,             Thru
Bar Code 681131900607 or                   LOT 06253 0220197XXXX
Bar Code 681131891264

For more information, contact Rockline Industries at 866-964-
3322.


SEARS HOLDINGS: $215M Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
set a fairness hearing on a $215 million settlement of a
securities fraud suit against Sears Holdings Corp. for Dec. 8,
2006.

On and after Oct. 18, 2002, several actions were filed against
Sears and certain former officers alleging that certain public
announcements by Sears concerning its credit card business
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The court has consolidated the actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  On May 17, 2006,
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
lead plaintiff, providing for settlement of the action.

Under the settlement, Sears is required to make a payment of
approximately $215 million shortly following final approval of
the settlement by the court.  

Sears received proceeds totaling $125 million from claims made
under relevant insurance policies and thus the cash payment for
settlement by Sears will be approximately $90 million on a pre-
tax basis.  The court has set a fairness hearing on Dec. 8,
2006.

In agreeing to the settlement, defendants did not admit any
wrongdoing and deny committing any violation of law.  Defendants
agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties,
burden and expense of further protracted litigation.

The suit is "Craig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-07527," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300; and

     (2) Lori Ann Fanning of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP,
         30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602,
         Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         lfanning@millerfaucher.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey C. Fourmaux of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
         51 West 52nd Street, New York, HY 10019, Phone: (212)
         403-1000; and

    (ii) Harold C. Hirshman of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
         LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Settles 401(k) Savings Plan Lawsuit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. reached a settlement in a suit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 that is pending against it in the Northern District of
Illinois.

On and after Nov. 15, 2002, several actions were filed in the
U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Sears, certain officers and directors, and alleged fiduciaries
of Sears' 401(k) Savings Plan, seeking damages and equitable
relief under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants in the Plan,
and allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in
connection with the Plan's investment in Sears' common shares
and alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding
Sears' financial condition.  

The court has consolidated these actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  

On Oct. 10, 2006, defendants entered into a settlement term
sheet with the lead plaintiff providing for settlement of the
action.  The parties continue to prepare final settlement
documents.  The settlement is subject to judicial approval.

Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing and deny any committing
any violation of law.  

The suit is "Kehr v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-08324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven E. Cauley of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100; and  

     (2) Christopher B. Sanchez of Miller Faucher and Cafferty,
         LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL
         60602, (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         csanchez@millerfaucher.com.    

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Harold C. Hirshman of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
         LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000; and

     (2) Elissa Eun Choo Rhee-Lee of Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears
         Law Department, 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, IL
         60179, Phone: (708) 286-9214.  


STOCK EXCHANGES: $53M Options Contracts Suit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard C. Casey of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved a $53 million settlement
of a class action antitrust complaint that accused five stock
exchanges and 28 trading specialists of improperly refusing to
list options contracts on more than one exchange at a time to
increase the costs of trading, the Courthouse News Service
reports.

The judge ordered the defendants to pay another 30 percent of
the judgment as attorneys' fees.

The order settles 21 class actions that first were filed in
1999.  Plaintiffs sought treble damages for violations of the
Sherman Act: "conspiring to restrict the listing and trading of
certain stock option contracts to a single Exchange."

The Department of Justice then brought civil charges against
four of the settling exchanges - AMEX, CBOE, PCX and PHLX - and
the SEC issued an order meant to prevent such conduct.

Deadline to file claims has been extended to February 28, 2007.

In March 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York announced pendency and proposed settlement of claims
asserted against certain defendants in the class action "In re
Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust Litigation, 99 CIV.
0962 (RCC) (And All Other Consolidated Actions), MDL No. 1283,
Master Docket No. M-21-79 (RCC)" (Class Action Reporter, March
17, 2006).

The summary notice that was mailed on Feb. 24, 2006 to potential
members of the settlement class relates to proposed settlements
that in the aggregate provide $43,899,798 plus interest to the
class (less administrative costs, and any expenses, attorneys'
fees and incentive awards approved by the court) in exchange for
a release of claims against the settling defendants in this
class action.  

For settlement purposes, the court has certified a settlement
class consisting of all persons, firms, corporations, and other
entities (excluding the defendants and their parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, partners,
members, and principals) that, during the period Jan. 22,
1990 through April 30, 2003:

      -- purchased and/or sold one or more class option
         contracts and/or

      -- paid transaction costs, including without limitation
         all fees and other charges, incurred in connection
         with the purchase and/or sale of one or more class
         option contracts.

For purposes of these settlements, the term "Class Option
Contract" means an Equity Option Contract (other than a
warrant), that is a security that bestows the right to purchase
or sell a set amount of publicly traded equity securities of,
equity interests in, shares of, or other interests in a
corporation, legal entity, fund, index, or basket of securities,
that was listed and traded at any time during the class period
exclusively on any National Securities Exchange, as that term is
defined in the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78a, et seq., that was owned and/or operated by:

      -- Pacific Exchange, Inc.,

      -- New York Stock Exchange Inc.,

      -- American Stock Exchange LLC,

      -- Chicago Board Options Exchange,

      -- Philadelphia Stock Exchange Inc.

A copy of the judge's order is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1675

The suit is "In Re: Stock Exchange Opt., et al v. American Stock
Exch., et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-00962-RCC, MDL No. 1283, Master
Docket No. M-21-79 (RCC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C. Casey.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) David C. Bohan of Sachnoff & Weaver, 30 South Wacker
         Drive, Chicago, IL 60606-7507, Phone: (312) 207-1000,
         Fax: (312) 207-6400;

     (2) Terrence Callan of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
         P.O. Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:
         (415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200;

     (3) John Edward Davis of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman,
         LLP (NY), 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         212-858-1000, Fax: 212-858-1500, E-mail:
         john.davis@pillsburylaw.com;

     (4) Mark Scott Gregory of Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP (CT),
         Two Stamford Plaza, 281 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT
         06901, Phone: 203-324-1400, Fax: 203-327-2669, E-mail:
         mgregory@kelleydrye.com;

     (5) Charles A. Loughlin of Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP,
         1299 Pennsylvania, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Phone:
         202-383-7101;

     (6) Saul P. Morgenstern of Kaye Scholer, LLP (NYC), 425
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-836-7210,
         Fax: 212-836-6333, E-mail:
         smorgenstern@kayescholer.com;


     (7) William H. Rooney of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY),
         787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)
         728-8000, Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail:
         maosdny@willkie.com;

     (8) Steven R. Waxman of Kleinbard, Bell & Breker, 1900
         Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215)
         568-0140; and

     (9) Walter Weir, Jr. of Weir & Partners, L.L.P., 1339
         Chestnut Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107,
         Phone: (215) 665-8181.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (i) Craig C. Corbitt of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason &
         Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400, San
         Francisco, CA 94104-2301, Phone: (415) 693-0700;

    (ii) Andrew David Friedman, Samuel Kenneth Rosen and Stuart
         D. Wechsler all of Wechsler, Harwood, L.L.P., 488
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-
         7400, Fax: (212) 753-3630, E-mail: srosen@whesq.com;

   (iii) Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., One South
         Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389,
         Phone: (215) 238-1700; and

    (iv) Thomas James McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth
         Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         983-1300.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Fla. Judge Refuses to Certify Hospital's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. said in a statement that a federal judge
in Miami had denied class-action certification to a case brought
against Tenet in March 2005 by Boca Raton Community Hospital
Inc.

The lawsuit alleged that Tenet's pricing policies before 2003
had violated federal racketeering laws, thus harming Boca
Community and other hospitals.

A previous Class Action Reporter story reports that Tenet is
facing allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and  
Corrupt Organizations Act in a civil action filed on March 2,
2005.  The complaint specifically says that the company's past
pricing policies and receipt of Medicare outlier payments
violated the federal RICO Act.   

In addition to RICO Act violations, it raises claims of fraud,
unjust enrichment and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.  It seeks unspecified amounts of damages,
including treble damages under RICO, restitution, disgorgement
and punitive damages.  

The company was served with this suit on Mar. 2, 2005.  It filed
a motion to dismiss on Apr. 8, 2005.

The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet  
Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under  
Judge Patricia A. Seitz.  Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Greenberg Traurig, P.A, 1221 Brickell Avenue, Miami,  
         Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-579-0500,  
         Fax: 305-579-0717, Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com;and   

     (2) Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,  
         LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600, Boca
         Raton, Florida 33486, (Palm Beach Co.), Phone: 561-361-
         5000, Telecopier: 561-367-8400, Web site:  
         http://www.milbergweiss.com.   

Representing the defendant are:  

     (i) Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector,  
         P.A., 1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard,  
         Miami, FL 33131, Phone: (305) 373-1000, Fax: (305) 372-
         1861; and

    (ii) Holland & Knight of Holland & Knight, LLP, 701 Brickell  
         Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade
         Co.), P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101, Phone: 305-374-
         8500, Fax: 305-789-7799, Web site:  
         http://www.hklaw.com.


THIESS JOHN: Residents Mull Suit Over Toll Way Construction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several Melbourne residents are planning to file a class action
against the construction firm Thiess John Holland over its work
on the EastLink toll way, which they say is damaging their
houses and making their children sick, The Age reports.

Some 30 Wantirna South residents living on streets adjacent to
the controversial road are claiming that vibrations from road
compacting and a rock crusher have caused cracks in their
houses.

Some families that are living within 100 meters of the rock
crusher even say that it is causing serious respiratory problems
in their children.

The EastLink Tollway Residents' Action Group has received legal
advice that could result in it launching a class action against
the construction giant over alleged property damage and airborne
dust particles.

According to the group, Thiess John Holland, already months
ahead of schedule building the $2 billion toll way, is ignoring
their concerns, since the ConnectEast consortium is keen to get
the 39-kilometre road completed early, which could potentially
deliver millions in windfall revenue to the operator.  Thus,
says Alan Mortimer, the group's president, the legal avenue was
the only option left to them.

Thiess John Holland though said that the residents' allegations
are baseless, pointing out that the cracks in houses had been
caused by the drought, not from rock crushing or earth
compacting.

Company spokesman Anthony Havers even pointed out that there was
no evidence that the construction works were adversely affecting
the health of nearby residents.

Mr. Havers adds that the road works met the building standards
relating to noise, dust and vibration.  He also added that many
houses had cracks before work started, and others had been
caused by the drought.

The construction firm has been taking precautions by spraying
water and chemical dust suppressants onto the road to reduce
airborne particles.


TVIA INC: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
TVIA, Inc. remains a defendant in securities fraud class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On Oct. 6, 2006, a securities complaint was filed against the
company and three of its officers, entitled, "Richardson v.
Tvia, Inc., et al."

The Richardson complaint is alleging that defendansts violated
the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to
disclose certain material information about the company's
business and forecasted revenues. Thus, it seeks unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages and disgorgement.

The suit is "Richardson v. TVIA, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
06304-RMW," filed before Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to
Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing plaintiff Donald Richardson is Lionel Z. Glancy at
Glancy & Binkow LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com.


TVIA INC: Whalehaven Capital Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TVIA, Inc. was named as a defendant in securities fraud class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On Oct. 17, 2006, a securities complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, entitled, "Whalehaven Capital Fund Limited v. Tvia,
Inc., et al."

The Whalehaven complaint names as defendants the company and
eight of its officers and directors, alleging that they violated
the federal securities laws and state law by misrepresenting and
failing to disclose certain material information regarding the
company's business and forecasted revenues in connection with
the purchase of securities from the company in a private
placement that closed in August 2006.

The Whalehaven complaint seeks compensatory damages in excess of
$925,000, rescission of a Securities Purchase Agreement dated as
of Aug. 15, 2006 between the company and certain investors, and
punitive damages.  

Certain other investors who, like Whalehaven, purchased the
company's securities pursuant to the Securities Purchase
Agreement have also made verbal claims against the company
seeking compensatory or other relief with respect to their
purchases.

The suit is "Whalehaven Capital Fund Limited v. Tvia, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-09440-SWK," filed before Judge Shirley
Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiff are Marc J. Ross and Richard Johnnie
Babnick, Jr. at Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference, LLP,
1065 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2100, New York, NY 10018,
Phone: (212) 930-9700, Fax: (212) 930-9725, E-mail:
rbabnick@srfllp.net.


VAN DER MOOLEN: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval to a proposed $8 million settlement of
the class action, "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," which was filed against
Van der Moolen Holding N.V.

The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Van der Moolen Holding N.V. American
depository receipts from Oct. 18, 2001 to Oct. 15, 2003,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

Deadline to file claims is Feb. 20, 2007.

                     Case Background  

The complaint in this case was filed on Sept. 14, 2004 on behalf
of a putative class of persons who held ADRs between Oct. 18,
2001 and Oct. 15, 2003.

It alleged that during that time period, the price of ADRs were
artificially inflated because the company failed to disclose
certain alleged illegal trading activity that was the subject of
a regulatory settlement between the company and the New York
Stock Exchange and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
in March 2004.

The co-lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Sept. 16, 2004.  On Nov. 16, 2004, Van der Moolen Holding N.V.,
VDM Specialists and the other New York Stock Exchange specialist
firms moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court heard oral arguments, but has not
ruled on the motion to modify the stay.  Plaintiffs' opposition
to the motion was filed on Jan. 26, 2005, and the defendants'
reply was filed on March 8, 2005.  The court heard oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss on April 13, 2005.

On July 2006, Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, a 75% owned
subsidiary of Van der Moolen Holding N.V., agreed to settle for
$8 million the securities class action (Class Action Reporter,
July 26, 2006).

Under VDM's insurance policies, its insurers will pay 60 percent
of the settlement.  The settlement will be recognized in the
company's second quarter financial statements.

Named defendants in the suit:  

     -- Van Der Moolen Specialists USA, L.L.C.,  
     -- Van Der MoolenHolding, N.V.,  
     -- Bank of Amereica Corp.,  
     -- Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.,  
     -- Bear Wagner Specialists, L.L.C.,  
     -- Fleet Specialist, Inc.,  
     -- Fleetboston Financial Corp.,  
     -- Golden Sachs,  
     -- George M.L. LaBranche IV,  
     -- LaBranche & Co., Inc.,  
     -- LaBranche & Co., L.L.C.,  
     -- Michael Labranche,  
     -- New York Stock Exchange, Inc.,  
     -- Performance Specialist Group, L.L.C.,  
     -- Quick & Reilly, Inc.,  
     -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, L.L.C.,  
     -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P.,  
     -- Susquehanna International Group,  
     -- Susquehanna Specialists, Inc., and  
     -- The Goldman Sachs Group Inc  

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (1) E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis   
         Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax:   
         (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com;

     (2) Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, L.L.P. (NYC),   
         1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:   
         (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222;  

     (3) Richard A. Cirillo of King & Spalding LLP (DC), 1730   
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4706,   
         Phone: 212-556-2337, Fax: 212-556-2222, E-mail:   
         RCirillo@KSLAW.com; and  

     (3) Andrew C. Curley of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-  
         Cohen, L.L.P., 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,   
         Philadelphia, PA 19103.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (i) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,   
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 655West Broadway, Suite   
         1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-7423, Fax:   
         631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com;

    (ii) Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500   
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-  
         1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: LSHLLP@LSHLLP.COM;

   (iii) Stephen D. Oestreich of Entwistle & Cappucci, L.L.P.,   
         299 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10171, Phone: (212) 894-  
         7200; and  

    (iv) Curtis V. Trinko of Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko,   
         L.L.P., 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY   
         10036, Phone: (212) 490-9550.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Sued in Del. Over Planned Innovation Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technology, Inc. is facing two class actions challenging
its merger with a wholly owned subsidiary of Innovation
Technology Group, Inc.

On Oct. 30 and 31, 2006, Vitria Technology and its directors
were named as defendants in the following stockholder complaints
that were filed in the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware,
County of New Castle:

     -- "Wilbanks v. Vitria, et al.," and
     -- "Schachter v. Skeen, et al.,"

Both complaints challenge the Merger the company announced on
Sept. 21, 2006, in which JoMei Chang, a member of the company's
Board of Directors, and Dale Skeen, chief executive officer and
board member, seek to acquire all the outstanding shares of
common stock of Vitria Technology, through the merger of ITG
Acquisition, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Innovation
Technology Group, Inc., with and into Vitria Technology.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, asking the court to stop
the merger from going forward, and compensatory damages in the
event the merger is consummated.  

They allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by selling Vitria Technology to insiders
for allegedly inadequate consideration.

Vitria Technology, Inc. on the Net: http://www.vitria.com/.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Trends Footstools for Collapse Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 165,000 units of Home Trends wood footstools.

The company said that due to improper construction, the stool
can break and collapse, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Wal-Mart has received nine reports of the footstools breaking.
There have been seven reports of injuries, including a broken
toe, neck and shoulder soreness, cuts, bruises, swelling, a
slight concussion, and whiplash.

The footstool is a natural-colored wood footstool. The standing
surface is 11 1/2-inches by 11 1/2-inches with a 4-inch-long
oval opening in the center. The stool is 11 1/2-inches tall. The
recalled footstool can be identified by a white sticker
underneath the step that contains the UPC number 87065900001.

Pictures of the recalled wood footstools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07016a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07016b.jpg

These wood footstools were manufactured in Malaysia and are
being sold at Wal-Mart stores exclusively nationwide from
December 2005 through September 2006 for about $10.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
return it to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

For more information, contact Wal-Mart toll free at (800) 925-
6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.walmartstores.comfor more information.


XL CAPITAL: Court Finds Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit Deficient
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
directed plaintiffs in a case that names XL Capital, Ltd., as
one of the defendants, to file a supplemental Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case statement
and a supplemental statement of particularity as to their
Sherman Act claims.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action multi-
district lawsuit, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed
a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new defendants,
in the pending action approximately 30 entities, including:

     -- Greenwich Insurance Co.,
     -- Indian Harbor Insurance Co., and
     -- XL Capital Ltd.

In the MDL, named plaintiffs have asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased
insurance.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements.  

The named plaintiffs have asserted statutory claims under the
Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and RICO, as well as
common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  
Discovery in the MDL continues.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
late November 2005.  On Feb. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking leave to further amend their amended complaint to, among
other things, add additional defendants, including:

      -- X.L. America, Inc., and
      -- XL Insurance America, Inc.

That motion was denied without prejudice.  By opinion and order
dated Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled on defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs' RICO and
antitrust claims were deficient as pled and directing plaintiffs
to file a supplemental RICO case statement and a supplemental
statement of particularity as to their Sherman Act claims.

Plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings on Oct. 25, 2006.  
In accordance with the court's Oct. 3, 2006 order, defendants
anticipate filing responses to plaintiffs' supplemental
pleadings.  

On or about Feb. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification.  Defendants filed an opposition to the
class certification motion, as well as a separate motion seeking
to exclude the testimony of the expert witness upon whom
plaintiffs have relied in seeking class certification.

It is anticipated that oral argument in connection with
plaintiffs' class certification motion will not be held before
sometime in 2007.  Discovery has been underway since the fall of
2005.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith
S. Hochberg.

  
                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. continues to defend itself against
personal injury claims, including those by third-party
contractors' employees, who alleged exposure to asbestos,
silica, and benzene while working at refineries in Texas,
California, and Oklahoma.

Union Pacific Resources Group Inc., acquired by the Company in
2000, and Howell Corp., acquired by the Company in 2002, sold
the refineries before being acquired by the Company.

The Company remains involved in various lawsuits and in
governmental proceedings from the ordinary course of business,
including, but not limited to, royalty claims, contract claims
and environmental claims.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company spent
US$6 million for litigation charges and adjustments, compared
with US$2 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company spent US$9
million for litigation charges, compared with US$29 million for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
explores for, develops, produces, and market oil, natural gas,
natural gas liquids, and related products worldwide. More than
half of the Company's reserves are found in Alaska, Louisiana,
Texas, the mid-continent and Rocky Mountain regions, and the
Gulf of Mexico.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Group Reserves $164.7M for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Inc., for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006,
recorded US$164.7 million gross, US$171 million net, loss
reserves for asbestos and environmental claims.

For the period ended June 30, 2006, the Company reserved US$158
million gross, US$148.3 million net, loss reserves for A&E
claims. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

For the period ending Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded
US$171 million gross, US$160.2 million net, loss reserves for
A&E claims.

For the period ended June 30, 2005, the Company reserved
US$173.1 million gross, US$158.8 million net, loss reserves for
A&E claims. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

The Company has discontinued underwriting certain lines of
business. The Company is still obligated to pay losses incurred
on these lines, which include general liability, A&E policies,
and medical malpractice policies written in past years.

Headquartered in San Antonio, Tex., Argonaut Group Inc. operates
as a holding company that underwrites specialty property &
casualty insurance products throughout the United States.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Has $453.5M Liability in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc. had US$453.5 million non-current asbestos-
related liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$572.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2005, and US$473 million as of Sept. 30,
2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$497.4 million, compared with US$517.9
million for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 1, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$149 million current
asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$158 million as of
Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's current portion of asbestos-
related liabilities was US$152 million, compared with US$162
million for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 1, 2006)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's
asbestos-related payments were US$127.6 million, compared with
US$135.2 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc.'s glass
containers, which account for 90 percent of sales, include
bottles used to hold beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, and other
beverages. The Company also makes plastic healthcare packaging,
including prescription bottles, tamper-proof closures, and
plastic medical devices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Inc. Resolves 339,600 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, has disposed of the
claims of about 339,600 plaintiffs and claimants, since
receiving its first asbestos claim.

The Company recorded an average indemnity payment of about
US$6,500 per claim.

Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts
payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled
about US$84 million at Sept. 30, 2006, US$91 million at Dec. 31,
2005, and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company has disposed of the claims of
about 338,000 plaintiffs and claimants, since receiving its
first asbestos claim, at an average indemnity payment of about
US$6,400 per claim. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)

The Company faces lawsuits in state and federal courts by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to dust
from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to 1958, a former Company
business unit produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material with asbestos.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has determined that faces
suits and claims with about 24,000 plaintiffs and claimants.
Based on an analysis of the claims and suits pending as of Dec.
31, 2005, about 89 percent of plaintiffs and claimants either do
not specify the monetary damages sought or claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.

About 10 percent of plaintiffs plead damages of US$15 million or
less, and one percent of plaintiffs plead damages greater than
US$15 million but less than US$100 million. Less than one
percent of plaintiffs plead damages of $100 million or greater
but less than $123 million.

The Company said it believes that as of Sept. 30, 2006, there
are about 21,000 claims against other defendants and which are
likely to be asserted in the future against the Company.

The Company also faces other asbestos-related suits or claims
involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-
defendants, and property damage claimants.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc.'s glass
containers, which account for 90 percent of sales, include
bottles used to hold beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, and other
beverages. The Company also makes plastic healthcare packaging,
including prescription bottles, tamper-proof closures, and
plastic medical devices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide's French Unit Has 64 Employee Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies said that, since 1982, the French
governmental agency responsible for worker illness claims
received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-related illnesses
from La Compagnie europeenne d'accumulateurs (CEAC), the
Company's subsidiary in France.

From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite
asbestos fibers in the form of battery cases, which, once
formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in
the plant over the period.

For some of the claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified
the agency in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in
calendar 2004.

Moreover, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency
for about US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents
of four claimants.

The Company was not required to indemnify or make any payments
in calendar year 2005 and through Sept. 30, 2006.

Headquartered in Alpharetta, Ga., Exide Technologies makes lead-
acid automotive and industrial batteries. The Company makes
batteries for farm equipment, golf carts, boats, and
wheelchairs, as well as back-up power supply batteries for
telecommunications, computer, and power plant systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Faces Mounting Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Inc., due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos
manufacturers and other defendants, has been named a defendant
in a rising number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in these suits alleged exposure to asbestos from
many sources, and the Company is one of about 25 or more named
defendants. In the Company's experience, most of the plaintiffs
are not impaired with a disease for which the Company bears any
responsibility.

Company predecessors sometimes made, distributed and sold
products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos litigation
suits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components used in the
products were enclosed within the subject products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance firms to get coverage for asbestos
suits.

The Company said that it believes some of the potential
liabilities regarding these suits are covered by indemnity
agreements with other parties. The Company's uninsured
settlement payments for past asbestos suits have been
immaterial.

Headquartered in Quincy, Ill., Gardner Denver Inc. sells Joy-
brand compressors, as well as reciprocating, rotary screw, and
sliding vane compressors and positive displacement and
centrifugal blowers.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Standard Motor Rise to 3,300 in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc., at Sept. 30, 2006, had about 3,300
outstanding asbestos-related cases, for which the Company was
responsible for any related liabilities.

At June 30, 2006, the Company had about 3,200 outstanding
asbestos-related cases, compared with 4,500 cases at Dec. 31,
2005. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it sold in
March 1998. When the Company acquired the business, it assumed
future liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos
products made by the seller of the acquired brake business. The
Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims
filed on or after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2006, the
amounts paid for settled claims were about US$4.9 million.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2006. Based on the information considered by the actuarial firm,
the actuarial study estimated an undiscounted liability for
settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from US$22.1
million to US$53.9 million for the period through 2050.

Accordingly, a US$3.4 million benefit was recorded to the
Company's discontinued operation, and the Company adjusted its
accrued asbestos liability to about US$22.1 million. Legal costs
were estimated to range from US$11.6 million to US$21.6 million
in the same period.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company accrued US$20,903,000 for
asbestos liabilities, compared with US$25,556,000 at Dec. 31,
2005.

Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products
Inc. makes engine management and air-conditioning replacement
parts for the automotive aftermarket. Among the Company's
customers are auto parts warehouse distributors like CARQUEST
and NAPA and major auto parts retailers like Advance Auto Parts
and AutoZone.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims v. Westinghouse Air Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., which does business
as Wabtec Corp., said that asbestos-related claims since 2000
have risen.

According to the Company's Quarterly Report filed on Form 10-Q
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the resolution
of these claims may take a significant period of time.

Persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products have filed claims against the
Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions
across the United States.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's
subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp., and are based on a
product sold by RFPC before the time that the Company acquired
any interest in RFPC.

On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former RFPC
stockholder contending that the Company assumed that entity's
liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to RFPC's
product was resolved in the Company's favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated firms that retained the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

To date, RFPC's insurers have provided RFPC with defense and
indemnity in these actions.

Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corp. makes braking equipment and other parts for
locomotives, freight cars, and passenger railcars.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Insurance Has $23.9M Reserves in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$23.9
million in ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves
related to asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort
liability, compared with US$24.3 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The reserves, net of reinsurance, were US$15.8 million at Sept.
30, 2006 and US$16.2 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$24.1 million ending
loss and loss adjustment expenses reserves related to asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability. The reserves, net
of reinsurance, were US$16 million at June 30, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)

The Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed
reinsurance and pool business with A&E and toxic tort liability
of US$57.1 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$57 million at Dec.
31, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$20.2 million as
actuarial point estimates for A&E claims, compared with US$20.5
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group
Inc. provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners,
workers' compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance
coverage through its Citizens and Hanover subsidiaries. In 2005,
the Company was renamed from Allmerica Financial Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Drop to 571 in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corp. is faced with about 571 asbestos-related
claims, in are 22 "malignant" claims and 549 are "non-malignant"
claims, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-
Q, for the period ended Oct. 1, 2006 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company was named defendant in about 578 asbestos-related
claims, in which about 23 are "malignant" claims and about 555
were "non-malignant" claims. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15,
2006)

Parties alleging damages from past exposure to asbestos at
former Company facilities have named the Company defendant in
civil actions.

Aside from the Company, the cases included as defendants other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.

As of Oct. 1, 2006, the Company had recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$6.8 million and a bodily injury
insurance receivable of US$5.2 million.

At April 2, 2006, the Company had recorded a bodily injury
reserve of US$7.3 million and a bodily insurance receivable of
US$5.5 million.

Headquartered in Seattle, Wash., Todd Shipyards Corp., through
subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains,
overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial vessels.
The U.S. Government, through the Navy and the Coast Guard,
accounts for more than 90 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corp. continue to face personal
injury actions from asbestos exposure.

While there are few cases that named the Company, there are in
excess of 60 cases against D/C pending on the mainland and are
allegedly based on D/C's prior business operations.  

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit styled,
"American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corp." The suit, with Case No. 04433669, was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center.  

The eight-count complaint sought declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for other relief as the court might grant. In the suit, the
plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance firm to whom D/C has
tendered for defense and indemnity personal injury suits
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos products.

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.

D/C has filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. The
litigation is in its early stages.  

In February 2006, D/C merged into a newly formed Illinois
limited liability company named D/C Distribution, LLC.

Kaanapali Land, LLC is the reorganized entity resulting from the
Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii, LLC (now known as
KLC Land Company, LLC), certain of its subsidiaries, and FHT
Corp. under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated
June 11, 2002. The Chicago, Ill.-based Company's continuing
operations are in three business segments - Agriculture,
Property and Golf.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chemicals Still Indemnifies Kraton
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemicals Ltd. continues to indemnify Kraton Polymers LLC
against certain asbestos liabilities and obligations, including
those involving third parties.

This agreement has been put in place since Kraton's separation
from Shell Chemicals in February 2001.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that Kraton has acquired.

Claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals alleging
workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio facility.

Moreover, Kraton and Shell Chemicals have entered into a consent
order relating to certain environmental remediation at the
Belpre facility.

Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Kraton Polymers LLC's styrenic
block copolymers are used in a variety of plastic, rubber, and
chemicals, as well as for improving the stability of asphalt.
The Kraton family of polymers is used in adhesives, toys, and
packaging, and to make shoe soles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 94 Hilco Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. faces asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, with 94 plaintiffs, from predecessor Hilco Inc., in
the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County. The
Company has never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs, seven sued in 2006, 15 sued in 2005,
43 sued in 2004, 27 sued in 2003, and two sued in 2002.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted that 105 other
plaintiffs have had their actions dismissed and eight other
plaintiffs have settled for US$3,313,000. There has been no
judgment against Hilco.

Twenty-four plaintiffs named the Company's subsidiary, Universal
Supply Group Inc. Of these, two sued in 1999, one sued in 2000,
five sued in 2001, 11 sued in 2005, and five sued in 2006.

Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed
and, of the total US$3,313,000 of settled actions, two
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500.
Universal did not pay in connection with any settlement. There
are currently 16 plaintiffs that name Universal.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of the
Company and Hilco in these cases.

The material litigation that was brought against Hilco was
Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April 26, 2004 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
Dcket Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a
US$10,000,000 jury verdict rendered on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company
was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

Headquartered in Hicksville, N.Y., Colonial Commercial Corp.,
through subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group,
and American/Universal Supply Inc., supplies HVAC products,
climate-control systems, and plumbing fixtures to more than
5,000 customers in New York and New Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. American Biltrite Drop to 1,314
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, had about 1,314
pending asbestos-related claims with about 1,661 plaintiffs
filed against it, compared with 1,703 claims for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2005. The claimants alleged personal injury or death
from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company was a co-defendant in about
1,794 pending asbestos-related claims involving about 2,141
individuals. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
444 new claims filed, 26 settled claims, and 807 dismissed
claims. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
621 new claims filed, 24 settled clams, and 732 dismissed
claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had
US$8,950,000 insurance for asbestos-related liabilities.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$9,860,000 in asbestos-
related liabilities, compared with US$9,500,000 as of Dec. 31,
2005.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006 were US$2.5 million, compared
with US$1.3 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The average indemnity cost per resolved claim was about US$3,000
for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006 and US$1,700 for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.
produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl
floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M
Associates supplier. The Company makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect
materials during handling and for varied applications. The
Company owns 55 percent of Congoleum Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $16.6M Liabilities in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, had asbestos-related
liabilities of US$16,635,000, compared with US$28,369,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company spent
US$17,752,000 for asbestos-related matters, compared with
US$20,819,000 for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted
US$3,684,000 as asbestos-related reimbursement from insurance
settlement, compared with US$6,091,000 for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2005.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$10,651,000 asbestos
reserves, US$20,043,000 current receivables, and US$9,392,000
current net asbestos liability.

To date, nearly all asbestos-related claims filed against the
Company alleged that various diseases were caused by exposure to
asbestos-containing products, including resilient sheet vinyl
and tile made by the Company.

The Company discontinued the making of asbestos-containing sheet
products in 1983 and asbestos-containing tile products in 1974.

The Company is involved in litigation with certain insurance
carriers related to disputed insurance coverage for asbestos
related liabilities, and certain insurance carriers filed
objections to the Company's previously proposed plans of
reorganization and related matters and are expected to file
objections to the 11th Plan of Reorganization.

Certain other parties have also filed various objections to the
Company's previously proposed plans of reorganization and may
file objections to the 11th POR.

Headquartered in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corp.'s products
include plank flooring, resilient sheet flooring, do-it-yourself
vinyl tile, and laminate and commercial flooring. Congoleum
markets through a network of about 15 distributors in roughly 86
locations in North America. The Company is 55 percent owned by
American Biltrite Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Files $2.5M Claim to Recover Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc. has filed a late claim amounting to US$2.5 million
in the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy proceedings to recover
attorney's fees paid for the defense of asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ended Oct. 1, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company is a co-defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's
ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-
containing products.

Regarding these claims, the Company is either contractually
indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or the
Company said it believes that it has no liability for those
claims.

The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also
tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the
previously acquired businesses and is awaiting their response.  

Income (loss) from discontinued operations included charges of
US$30,000 for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and US$412,000
for the first quarter of fiscal 2006.

This included legal fees and costs related to asbestos claims,
patent infringement claims, and environmental issues, all of
which related to businesses the Company no longer owns.

Headquartered in Menomonee, Wis., Magnetek Inc. makes embedded
power components like AC/DC switching power supplies, battery
chargers, rectifiers, and interconnect devices used in
communications, consumer products, industrial automation,
information technology, and transportation applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intricon Corp. Has 124 Pending Suits in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, is a co-defendant in about
124 asbestos-related lawsuits, compared with about 122 suits as
of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company faced as a co-defendant about
124 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15,
2006)

The suits alleged that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment with asbestos sold by one or more named
defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints stated valid claims
against the Company.

The lead insurance carrier has informed the Company that the
primary policy for the period July 1, 1972 - July 1, 1975 has
been exhausted and that the lead carrier will no longer provide
a defense under that policy.  

The Company has contacted representatives of the Company's
excess insurance carrier for coverage with respect to some or
all of this period.

Headquartered in Arden Mills, Minn., IntriCon Corp.'s Resistance
Technology unit develops digital signal processor chips for
medical applications. The Company's components are used in
professional audio equipment. The Company was formerly known as
Selas Corp. of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Shuts Down Plant Due to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV has been forced to shut down its
manufacturing plant, in Rosehill, Australia in Sydney's west,
after discovery of asbestos, The Australian reports.

Hardie spokesman Cameron Hamilton confirmed that the Company had
halted production of its fiber cement building products at the
plant.

Union sources told The Australian that David Henry, an
occupational health and safety officer from the Australian
Manufacturing Workers Union, had on an inspection of the plant
found what he believed to be asbestos in "friable" form.

It is understood Mr. Henry found material on the ground that was
broken up and that some buildings made out of asbestos appeared
to be in bad condition.

Hardie signed a deal worth an estimated AUD1.6 billion to
compensate future victims of its asbestos, after a five-year
battle with unions and governments.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is expected
to begin actions against some current or former Hardie officers
regarding allegations raised in the Jackson commission of
inquiry into the under-funding of its asbestos responsibilities.

Hardie made asbestos products until 1987, when it switched to
wood-based fiber to bind its cement.

Headquartered in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV
uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company
makes fiber-reinforced concrete pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business and roofing through Artisan Roofing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Convicts 5 Individuals in AAR Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court has sentenced five individuals in
connection to an asbestos-related removal lawsuit filed against
AAR Contractor Inc, an Albany, N.Y.-based asbestos abatement
company, The Record reports.

The AAR operation affected more than 1,500 locations throughout
the state, from schools, churches and hospitals to State Police
barracks and the state Legislative Office Building.

Prosecutors said the five defendants were granted leniency for
cooperating with federal authorities during the AAR probe.

The five defendants had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate
the Clean Air Act in addition to other offenses.

AAR, owned by Alex and Raul Salvagno, was ordered to pay more
than US$20 million in restitution to the victims.

Alex Salvagno secretly co-owned Analytical Laboratories of
Albany, which was fronted as an independent lab but in fact
created fraudulent lab results to make it appear that buildings
had significant asbestos problems.

Timothy Carroll, 44, of Albany, N.Y., was the public owner of
ALA and was sentenced to 26 months in federal prison, 200 hours
of community service and to pay more than US$20 million in
restitution. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the
Clean Air Act and to commit mail fraud.

Gary Alvord, 40, of Niskayuna, N.Y., was sentenced to 15 months
in prison for his role as the AAR director of operations.

Robert Obrey, 40, of Scotia, N.Y., worked as an AAR field
supervisor and was sentenced to 15 months.

Philippe Goyeau, 43, of West Sand Lake, N.Y., was sentenced to
eight months in prison. He was the executive director of ALA.

Alison Gardner, 42, of Medusa, N.Y., was sentenced to three
years probation. She was the laboratory director of ALA.

The Salvagnos were convicted of engaging in their scam from 1990
to 1999 and were sentenced in 2004. Alex Salvagno, 41, is
serving 25 years in federal prison. His father, Raul Salvagno,
73, is serving a 19-year sentence.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Seeks Reorganization Plan Extension
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC seeks a four-month extension of its exclusive
reorganization rights, as the Company struggles to resolve
problems with its asbestos and environmental issues, labor
force, and debt load, The Associated Press reports.

The Company said it wants until May 11, 2007, to submit a
proposal to pay creditors and until July 11, 2007, to lobby for
creditor support, according to papers submitted to the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.

At the time of its bankruptcy filing in 2005, the Company listed
more than US$1 billion in debt. Several states where the Company
operated sites have said in court papers that the Company's
environmental liabilities alone may exceed that amount.

The Company said there are some 94 sites in over 21 states for
which ASARCO, or one of its units, is alleged to be responsible
for environmental clean-up costs. Moreover, the Company and its
asbestos units face more than 75,000 asbestos-related personal
injury claims.

The Company has been working to resolve the asbestos claims and
has asked the Bankruptcy Court to determine which of its units
are liable.

The Company said a Sept. 4, 2007 trial date has been scheduled
to determine an estimate of liabilities.

If Judge Richard S. Schmidt, who is presiding over the Company's
reorganization, were to turn down the Company's request, the
Company's sole right to propose a plan would end on Jan. 5,
2007, and its exclusive solicitation rights would expire on
March 9, 2007.

Based in Tucson, Ariz., ASARCO LLC is an integrated copper
mining, smelting and refining company with nearly 2,000
employees, mostly in Arizona and Texas. The Company is a
subsidiary of Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Borough Council Pays GBP130,000 to Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartlepool Borough Council in the United Kingdom has paid
GBP130,000 to employees who have come into contact with
potentially deadly asbestos, Hartlepool Mail reports.

Two cases are still pending for the Council. The claims related
to asbestos found in the town's schools, council buildings and
offices. All the claims were submitted between 1948 and 2001.

Details of the claimants and the exact amounts paid out in each
claim have not been disclosed.

Councilor John Marshall said, "As an authority, we should be
making a very big effort to eradicate asbestos from every
building that we are in control of, so we don't put people at
risk. That would make sure people's health is not put in
jeopardy."

Councilor Marshall said the GBP130,000 is a substantial amount
of taxpayers' money, but he stressed it is not the council who
governs the amount paid in claims. He said that asbestos
problems need to be eradicated and then there would not be any
claims made.

A Council spokesman said there are extremely robust measures in
place to protect employees and other people from the risk of
asbestos and every authority building has been assessed to meet
safety procedures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Supervisor Charged for Removal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal officials have charged Everett Blatche, of Syracuse,
N.Y., for violating the Clean Air Act and Superfund laws for his
role in illegal asbestos removal, The Associated Press reports.

Mr. Blatch, 44 years old, was charged for his alleged role in
the illegal removal of asbestos from the former Agway building
in suburban DeWitt, N.Y.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Benedict said Mr. Blatche
supervised workers removing 220-thousand square feet of spray-
on, fireproofing asbestos.

Mr. Benedict said Mr. Blatche supervised illegal removal
activities at numerous locations throughout the building. As a
result, asbestos was discharged from the building onto
surrounding grounds and released into storm drains leading to
the Erie Canal.

Mr. Blatche is also accused of the disposal of asbestos as
construction debris.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Supreme Court Bars Out-of-State Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Supreme Court has said in two separate asbestos
appeals from Jefferson County that out-of-state plaintiffs will
be barred from pursuing damage claims unless the alleged injury
occurred in the State, The Associated Press reports.

The two cases in Jefferson County involved hundreds of
plaintiffs suing companies over alleged exposure to asbestos.

In 2004, the Supreme Court, in damage cases with multiple
plaintiffs and defendants, has ruled it was unfair to group the
plaintiffs together when their claims did not arise from the
same incident or involve the same defendants.

The rulings have come in dozens of liability cases involving
asbestos manufacturers, drug companies and others. The Court
also has told trial judges to dismiss claims from plaintiffs
living outside Mississippi when the alleged injury occurred
elsewhere.

Chief Justice Jim Smith wrote, "We have made expressly clear
that we will no longer tolerate the presence of cases which do
not belong in Mississippi. Every case filed involving out-of-
state litigants with no connection with Mississippi depletes
away the judicial resources of this state."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Head Teacher Cleared in Exposure Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Robinson, the former head teacher who was charged with
knowingly contaminating his school with asbestos, has been
cleared, Legal & Medical reports.

Mr. Robinson was in charge of Silverhill Primary, in Derby in
the U.K., when he allowed workmen to start replacing old windows
on the school's pre-fabricated walls.

Asbestos was found in the walls, but only after it had
contaminated hundreds of schoolchildren and staff.

The Health and Safety Executive stood by its decision to follow
up the case and said they hoped this case highlighted the need
to perform checks in pre-fabricated buildings.

Samantha Peace, principal inspector at the HSE, said, "I think
this case in particular highlights the need for governors and
head teachers to put it on the agenda of their next meeting to
see if they need help to get things in place."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Lawyer Files 12 Lawsuits in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Chervenick, of Pittsburgh, Pa. law firm Goldberg, Persky
and White, has filed 12 asbestos-related lawsuits in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Chervenick, with Charleston, W.Va. attorney Scott Segal, has
filed the suits from Nov. 17, 2006 to Nov. 22, 2006.

The first suit names 83 defendants on behalf of Harold Zohnd, of
Youngstown, Ohio.

Mr. Zohnd, 75 years old, said he worked at the Mobay Chemical
Plant in New Martinsville, W.Va. from 1962-89 and was exposed to
asbestos during his everyday activities, resulting in asbestosis
and mesothelioma.

On Nov. 21, 2006, 10 other plaintiffs groups jointly filed their
suits. Those are:

-- George Briggs;
-- Courtney Freda, executrix of the Estate of Jerry Courtney;
-- Daniel Demchak, executor of the Estate of Dorothy Demchak;
-- Helen Lewis, executrix of the Estate of David Lewis;
-- David and Willa Linn;
-- Emily McCoy, executrix of the Estate of Raymond McCoy;
-- Rose Marie Ramsay, executrix of the Estate of Richard Ramsay;
-- Sophie Scheehle, executrix of the Estate of Ray Scheehle;
-- Teressa Clark, executrix of the Estate of Basil Swann; and
-- Colleen Taglieri, executrix of the Estate of Dante Taglieri.

Those suits name two defendants: Owens-Illinois Inc. and Vimasco
Corp. of Nitro, W.Va.

Of the 10 defendants, four worked at Local Union ISU. Mr. Lewis
was of Local 5 of Bricklayers Union, and the other five all
belonged to parts of the United Steelworkers Association Union.

On Nov. 22, 2006, Ralph Clark and Alice Clark filed the final
suit, which names 84 defendants. Mr. Clark, 70 years old, said
he worked at Union Carbide Corp. in Institute, W.Va. from 1959-
73 and several other sites in the state during his life.

A visiting judge will be assigned the cases, which seek
compensatory and punitive damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves $24.9M for A&E Coverages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corp.'s subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC,
has asbestos and environmental reserves for unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses that included US$24.9 million of gross
reserves and US$24.9 million of net reserves at Sept. 30, 2006.

The reserves are for liability coverages related to A&E
impairment claims that arose from reinsurance assumed by an
affiliate, Capitol Indemnity Corp., between 1969 and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol
Transamerica Corp., exited this business in 1976. CATA, an
Alleghany subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's claims.

Alleghany Insurance had A&E reserves for unpaid losses and LAE
that included US$25 million of gross reserves and US$25 million
of net reserves at June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
8, 2006)

The reserves are for liability coverages related to asbestos and
environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance
assumed by an affiliate, Capitol Indemnity Corp., between 1969
and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol
Transamerica Corp., exited this business in 1976. CATA, an
Alleghany subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's claims.

Loss reserve estimates for environmental and asbestos exposures
included case reserves, which reflect reserves for legal and
other loss adjustment expenses and for claims incurred but not
reported reserves.

For asbestos and environmental reinsurance claims, CATA
established case reserves by receiving case reserve amounts from
its ceding companies, and verifies these amounts against
reinsurance contract terms, analyzing from the first dollar of
loss incurred by the primary insurer.

Headquartered in New York City, Alleghany Corp.'s main operating
subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica, which spearheads the
Company's insurance arm and provides property/casualty,
fidelity, and surety insurance. The Company has commercial and
residential real estate interests in California.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Sees Settlement With Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. anticipates that a settlement agreement between
the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. would become effective upon
Grace's emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the bankruptcy case of Grace, to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its
affiliates, the fraudulent transfer claims, successor liability
claims, and indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies in connection with a
Cryovac transaction.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
agreement. The parties to the agreement in principle signed a
definitive settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent
with the terms of the agreement in principle.

On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware, where the Grace bankruptcy case is pending, signed an
order approving the definitive settlement agreement.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization
and related documents with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Objections
were filed and the Company does not know whether the final plan
will be consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement or
if the other conditions to the Company's obligation to pay the
settlement amount will be met.

If these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by the
Company, the Company will not be obligated to pay the settlement
amount.

However, if the Company does not pay the settlement amount, the
Company and its affiliates will not be released from the various
asbestos-related, fraudulent transfer, successor liability and
indemnification claims made against them.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, N.J., Sealed Air Corp.'s main
product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films,
absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and
supermarkets to protect meat and poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $115.2M Interest in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$115.2 million
asbestos-related accrued interest charge, compared with US$90.3
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$106.9 million
asbestos-related accrued interest charge. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)

In the 2002-4th quarter, the Company recorded a charge of
US$850.1 million, of which US$512.5 million covered a cash
payment that the Company is required to make upon the
effectiveness of a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of
W. R. Grace & Co.

The Company currently expects to fund this payment by using a
combination of accumulated cash and future cash flows from
operations and funds available under its US$500 million senior
unsecured multi-currency credit facility or its accounts
receivable securitization program, or a combination of these
alternatives.

The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrues interest at a 5.5
percent annual rate, which is compounded annually, from Dec. 21,
2002 to the date of payment.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, N.J., Sealed Air Corp.'s main
product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films,
absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and
supermarkets to protect meat and poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Updates Grace Lawsuit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. updated a lawsuit, in which the Company is
involved, regarding W.R. Grace and Co. and its Canadian
subsidiaries.

In April 2001, Grace's subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained
an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada recognizing the Ch. 11 actions in the
U.S. involving Grace Canada Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and
other U.S. affiliates of Grace Canada Inc.

The order enjoined all new actions and stayed all current
proceedings against Grace Canada Inc. related to asbestos under
the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada Inc., the Court
ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against Sealed Air and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The stay has been extended
through April 1, 2006.

Grace's proposed plan of reorganization provided that these
claims will be paid by the trusts to be established under the
Bankruptcy Code as part of Grace's plan of reorganization. It is
expected that the defendants will ask the Canadian courts to
enforce the terms of the plan of reorganization.

If Grace's final plan does not include comparable provisions or
if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce Grace's final plan of
reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if Grace is unwilling
or unable to defend and indemnify Sealed Air and its units in
these cases, then Sealed Air could be required to pay damages.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.'s
Food Packaging segment produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent
pads, and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to
protect meat and poultry.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HANSEN NATURAL: Howard Smith Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Hansen Natural Corp. between Nov.
12, 2001 and Nov. 9, 2006.  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning, among other things, the company's improper
backdating of stock option grants to certain key executives,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Hansen securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

The deadline to seek for lead plaintiff status in the case is on
Feb. 5, 2007.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


PFIZER INC: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., filed a class action
on behalf of the Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association Local
831, IBT, against Pfizer, Inc., and certain key officers and/or
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  

The action has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Pfizer securities during the period
between July 20, 2006 and Dec. 2, 2006.  

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements to
artificially inflate the value of Pfizer stock.  

Specifically, it is alleged that beginning in July 2006, the
defendants repeatedly touted the safety and effectiveness of a
newly-developed drug, "torcetrapib," that, in combination with
Pfizer's cholesterol-reducing Lipitor, purportedly would
increase a patient's "good" cholesterol, or HDL.  

However, unbeknownst to Pfizer shareholders, the product
performed much worse than touted.  These statements were false
and misleading when made because the defendants failed to
disclose or indicate that they knew that the torcetrapib was
having adverse affects on patients' health, including knowledge
that in clinical testing of 15,000 patients, 82 patients died
taking torcetrapib/Lipitor combination as compared to only 51
patients taking Lipitor alone, and patients taking torcetrapib
showed an increase in angina, congestive heart failure and
procedures to clear clogged arteries.

Surprising the market, on Dec. 2, 2006, a mere two days after
the company expressed optimism about prospects for torcetrapib,
Pfizer suddenly announced that it was immediately suspending
development of torcetrapib following clinical testing of 15,000
patients found that 82 patients taking torcetrapib/Lipitor
combination died as compared to 51 patients taking Lipitor
alone.

These statements were false and misleading when made because the
defendants failed to disclose or indicate that they knew that
the option grant process was deficient and could cause the
company to restate its financial statements.

The market reacted quickly to these announcements.  Pfizer's
stock price plummeted to $24.90 per share from its prior trading
day close of $27.86 per share, a 10.62% drop in one day, on
massive volume of 289,209,504 shares, more than seven times more
than the prior day's volume of 40,177,600.

The deadline to seek for lead plaintiff status in the case is on
Feb. 5, 2007.

For more details, contact Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
Phone: 866-348-7700, E-mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com.  


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *