CAR_Public/061211.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 245

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Certification of "Hoffman" Classes
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: N.J. Court Refuses to Junk ERISA Claims
ANTIGENICS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New Mexico
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
BOOKHAM INC: Final Approval of N.Y. Securities Suit Deal Mulled

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Court Consolidates ERISA Breach Suits
COCA COLA: Ga. Racial Diversity Case Closes After Final Report
CONNECTICUT RESOURCES: Dec. 21 Mediation Set for Enron Lawsuit
COTT CORP: Continues to Face Suits Over Recycling Fees in Canada
CROWLEY MARITIME: Files Motion to Dismiss Investors Suit in Del.

DIGITAS INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Tex.
FOCUS HEALTHCARE: Faces Health Care Providers' Lawsuit in La.
GOLDEN GLEN: Recalls Improperly Pasteurized Eggnog Milk Products
GUIDANT CORP: Ind. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit

HOST AMERICA: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Conn.
KANA SOFTWARE: Awaits Court's Final OK to Stock Suit Settlement
MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Court Finds RICO Act Claims Deficient
MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.Y. Court Junks Some Claims in Stock Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face ERISA Violation Suit in N.Y.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.Y. Court Junks Stock Lawsuit Against AXIS
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Md. Court Junks Some "Market-Timing" Claims
MATTEL INC: Recalls Magnetic Play Sets After Injury Reports
MODEM MEDIA: Court Considers Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
NETRATINGS INC: Faces Del. Suits Over VNU Purchase Proposal

NEW JERSEY: Double-dipping Suit Against Representative Dismissed
NRT TEXAS: Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit in New Jersey
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: January Hearing Set in Tex. Poultry Owners Suit
RAVING BRANDS: Faces Alleged Racketeering Law Violations in Ga.
RHODE ISLAND: Expelled Narragansett Tribe Members Plan Lawsuit

SALESFORCE.COM: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Concluded
SCOTTISH RE: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
STONEPATH GROUP: Penn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Under Appeal
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Stock Fraud Lawsuit
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces Four Suits Over Acquisition Proposal

USI HOLDINGS: Seeks Nixing of Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
VONAGE AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Mobile Service Deceptive Claims
WAVE SYSTEMS: Awaits Court Approval of $1.75M Suit Settlement
XETHANOL CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Dec. 26


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BODISEN TECHNOLOGY: Murray, Frank Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
HANSEN NATURAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Calif. Stock Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Certification of "Hoffman" Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda
denied jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal filed by
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. against the
certification of a suit by charge card holders.

In January 2006, in a matter "Hoffman, et al. v. American
Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., No. 2001-02281," the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,
certified a class action against TRS.

Two classes were certified:

     -- all persons who held American Express charge cards with
        billing addresses in California who purchased American
        Express' fee-based travel-related insurance plans from
        Sept. 6, 1995, through a date to be determined; and

     -- all persons who held American Express charge cards with
        billing addresses in states other than California and
        who purchased American Express' fee-based travel-related
        insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995, through a date to be
        determined.

Plaintiffs allege that American Express violated California and
New York law by allegedly billing customers for flight and
baggage insurance that they did not receive.  American Express
denies the allegations and filed an interlocutory appeal
(petition for a writ of mandate) of the class certification
order.

In June 2006, the appellate court denied jurisdiction over that
interlocutory appeal.  American Express also appealed the denial
of its motion to compel individual arbitration of all non-
California class members.  The appellate court has jurisdiction
over that appeal and the appeal is pending, according to the
company's Nov. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30.

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
a case making related allegations as those raised in Hoffman is
pending.  That suit, "Environment Law Enforcement Systems v.
American Express et al.," had effectively been stayed pending
the proceedings in the Hoffman action.  

In October 2006, the Court in the Environment Law action entered
an order scheduling a pre-motion conference on American Express'
anticipated motion to compel arbitration for Jan. 31, 2007.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: N.J. Court Refuses to Junk ERISA Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied
motions to dismiss claims of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act violation against American International Group Inc. in a
multidistrict proceeding.

Since Oct. 19, 2004, American International or its subsidiaries
have been named as a defendant in 18 complaints that were filed
in federal court and two that were originally filed in state
court of Massachusetts and Florida and removed to federal court.

These cases generally allege that American International and its
subsidiaries violated federal and various state antitrust laws,
as well as federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations laws, various state deceptive and unfair practice
laws and certain state laws governing fiduciary duties.

The alleged basis of these claims is that there was a conspiracy
between insurance companies and insurance brokers with regard to
the use of contingent commission agreements, bidding practices,
and other broker-related conduct concerning coverage in certain
sectors of the insurance industry.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
on Feb. 17, 2005, consolidating most of these cases and
transferring them to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The remainder of these cases have been transferred
to the District of New Jersey.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
filed a Corrected First Consolidated Amended Commercial Class
Action Complaint, which, in addition to the previously named
American International defendants, names new American
International subsidiaries as defendants.

Also on Aug. 15, 2005, AIG and two subsidiaries were named as
defendants in a Corrected First Consolidated Amended Employee
Benefits Class Action Complaint filed in the District of New
Jersey, which asserts similar claims with respect to employee
benefits insurance and a claim under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act on behalf of putative classes of employers and
employees.

On Nov. 29, 2005, the American International defendants, along
with other insurer defendants and the broker defendants filed
motions to dismiss both the Commercial and Employee Benefits
Complaints.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the Court reserved in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to dismiss
the ERISA claims, but ordered an expedited discovery schedule,
and the Court reserved on the state law claims.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification in the
consolidated action, in response to which defendants have filed
an opposition.  In addition, complaints were filed against
American International and several of its subsidiaries in
Massachusetts and Florida state courts, which have both been
stayed.

In the Florida action, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari with the District Court of Appeals of the State of
Florida, Fourth District with respect to the stay order which
was granted on Aug. 16, 2006.

The Fourth District Court remanded to the trial court to
reconsider whether a stay should be granted.  On Feb. 9, 2006, a
complaint against American International and several of its
subsidiaries was filed in Texas state court, making claims
similar to those in the federal cases above.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court stayed the case until Jan. 31, 2007.


ANTIGENICS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antigenics, Inc. was served a purported securities fraud class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico by Steven J. Tuckfelt on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.  

The complaint was filed on June 16, 2006 against the company and
its chief executive officer Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.  It alleges
that certain of the company's disclosures in connection with the
conduct of the Oncophage Phase 3 renal cell carcinoma trial
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as includes purported claims for
breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaint was served on the company on Sept. 7, 2006,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

Antigenics, Inc. on the Net: http://www.antigenics.com/.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in California Superior Court for the County
of San Francisco, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit contains blanket claims of liability under various
California employee protection statutes and regulations relating
to:

     -- payment of regular and overtime wages;  

     -- the timeliness of such payments;

     -- the maintenance and provision of access to required  
        payroll records; and  

     -- the provision of meal and rest periods.  

The suit is "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-06-449669," filed on Feb. 21, 2006.  No class has been
certified at this time, but on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all of the company's hourly employees in the State
of California, the complaint seeks compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount as well as other relief.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying all
material allegations and asserting a number of affirmative
defenses.


BOOKHAM INC: Final Approval of N.Y. Securities Suit Deal Mulled
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to finally approve the proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities class action against two subsidiaries of
Bookham, Inc., according to the company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

On June 26, 2001, a putative securities class action, "Lanter v.
New Focus, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5822," was filed
against, and several of the company's officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Also named, as defendants were:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
     -- Chase Securities, Inc.,
     -- U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and
     -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,

the underwriters in New Focus' initial public offering
(Underwriter Defendants).  

Three subsequent lawsuits were filed containing substantially
similar allegations.  These complaints have been consolidated.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, naming as defendants the individual defendants and
the underwriter defendants.

On Nov. 7, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Bookham Technology plc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bookham,
Inc., and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint names as defendants:

     -- Bookham Technology plc;

     -- Goldman, Sachs & Co., and
     -- FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., two of the
        underwriters of Bookham Technology plc's initial public
        offering in April 2000; and

     -- Andrew G. Rickman,
     -- Stephen J. Cockrell, and David Simpson,
        each of whom was an officer and/or director at the time
        of the initial public offering.

The amended complaint asserts claims under certain provisions of
the securities laws of the U.S.  It alleges, among other things,
that the prospectuses for Bookham Technology plc's and New
Focus's initial public offerings were materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters in connection with the offerings, and in not
disclosing certain alleged arrangements among the underwriters
and initial purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of
Bookham Technology plc, or common stock, in the case of New
Focus, from the underwriters.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees, interest and other expenses.  In
the alternative, it asks rescission for those class members who
no longer hold ordinary shares, in the case of Bookham
Technology plc or common stock, in the case of New Focus.

In July 2002, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion was denied as to Bookham
Technology plc and New Focus in February 2003.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action.  

Special committees of the board of directors authorized the
companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company.  

Under the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the related
cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of
certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion and order
preliminarily approving the settlement provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.

The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the scope of
the bar order, and on Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and setting an April 24,
2006 public fairness hearing.  The judge has yet to enter a
decision on the hearing.

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Court Consolidates ERISA Breach Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
consolidated several securities fraud complaints against Boston
Scientific Corp. and appointed interim lead plaintiffs in the
case.

On April 3, 2006, the court issued an order consolidating the
actions and appointing Jeffrey Klunke, and Michael Lowe as
interim lead plaintiffs.

                        Case Background

On Jan. 19, 2006, George Larson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
company's:

     * 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (401(k) Plan), and
     * Global Employee Stock Ownership Plan (GESOP)

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
officers and employees violated certain provisions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended and
Department of Labor Regulations.

On Jan. 26, 2006, Feb. 8, 2006, Feb. 14, 2006, Feb. 23, 2006 and
March 3, 2006, Robert Hochstadt, Jeff Klunke, Kirk Harvey,
Michael Lowe and Douglas Fletcher, respectively, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, filed purported class
action complaints in the same Court on behalf of the
participants and beneficiaries in the company's Plans alleging
similar misconduct and seeking similar relief as in the Larson
lawsuit.

On April 3, 2006, the Court issued an order consolidating the
actions and appointing interim lead plaintiffs.

On Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint that
purports to bring a class action on behalf of all participants
and beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Plan during the period
May 7, 2004 through Jan. 26, 2006.  The complaint alleges that
the company, its 401(k) Administrative and Investment Committee,
members of the Committee, and certain directors violated certain
provisions of ERISA.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's
participants.  The complaint seeks equitable and monetary
relief.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 10, 2006.

The suit is "In re: Boston Scientific Corp. ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-10105-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Representing the defendants is Stuart J. Baskin at Shearman &
Sterling LLP, 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, U.S.,
Phone: 212-848-4000, Fax: 212-848-7179.

Representing plaintiff Jeff Klunke is Lori G. Feldman at
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-
mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing plaintiff Michael Lowe is Nancy F. Gans at Moulton
& Gans, P.C., 55 Cleveland Road, Wellesley, MA 02481, U.S.,
Phone: 781-235-2246, Fax: 781-239-0353, E-mail:
nfgans@gmail.com.


COCA COLA: Ga. Racial Diversity Case Closes After Final Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
With the issuance of a final report by an independent task force
monitoring Coca Cola Co.'s racial diversity efforts, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has declared
as "case closed," the settled class action, "Abdallah, et al. v.
Coca Cola Co., Case No. 1:98-cv-03679-RWS," The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reports.

The creation of the task force, headed by former U.S. Labor
Secretary Alexis Herman, was one of the most contentious parts
of the company's estimated $192.5 million settlement with
current and former African-American employees in 2000 (Class
Action Reporter Dec. 20, 2004).  

Four plaintiffs sued the company in 1998.  Specifically, Coca
Cola was accused of denying the plaintiffs equal opportunity to
excel due to their race.  Plaintiffs also allege that the
company discriminated against them in pay, promotions and
performance evaluations.

Coca Colas agreed to settle the class action a few months later,
following more than a year of public criticism and negative
media attention, and long before trial.

The company paid nearly 2,200 African-American class members an
average of about $40,000 each.  The settlement included an
estimated $36 million to create diversity programs intended to
ensure fair treatment of workers.  Attorneys in the case got
$20.6 million.

                           Final Report

The final report stated that the company has fulfilled its legal
promise to level the playing field at Coke for minorities and
women.

Ms. Herman, the chairwoman of the seven member task force,
praised the company for tying its diversity programs to its
business plan and making them an integral part of the training
of middle managers.

Since 1999, Coca Cola has increased the representation of
minority salaried employees from 26 percent to nearly 35
percent, the task force reported.  It also has made headway in
promoting and hiring minorities within the senior leadership
ranks, the report stated.

Among the task force's findings that were contained in the
report are:

      -- diversity among Coke's elected and appointed officers
         increased from 8 percent minority in 2000 to 21 percent
         in 2006.

      -- from 2002 to 2005, minority representation among middle
         managers went from about 21 percent to 27 percent.

Overseeing the case is Judge Richard Story.


CONNECTICUT RESOURCES: Dec. 21 Mediation Set for Enron Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) and a consortium
of 70 cities and towns are set to begin non-binding mediation on
Dec. 21 to settle a purported class action over CRRA's attempts
to pass to consumers the cost of a $220 million failed deal with
now-defunct Enron Corp., The Hartford Courant reports.

Previous attempts at settling the case, for which trial has been
underway since mid-November, have failed.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed in Waterbury Superior Court.  It was
originally brought by the cities of New Hartford and
Barkhamsted.  Trial in the suit started Nov. 13.

CRRA entered into an agreement to loan Enron $220 million in
exchange for some $28.5 million a year payment from Enron
between 2001 to 2012 for operating a Hartford trash-to-energy
plant, the power produced from which will be sold by Enron.  But
Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001.  The authority only
recovered $111 million after the collapse.

The consortium of Connecticut cities and towns is pushing ahead
with the case, which seeks to recover at least $53 million that
it claims was lost by the authority in the disastrous deal with
Enron six years ago.  The cities had agreements to dispose trash
at the CRRA's Mid-Connecticut Project.  

In a ruling on March 22, which allowed the case to proceed,
Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh said, "The court finds that several of
the statements made by CRRA have been misleading, and that the
existence of these statements has made it difficult, if not
impossible" for the towns to join for the purposes of the suit.  
The judge cited letters written in 2004 and 2005 by CRRA
President Thomas Kirk to the 70 municipalities in central
Connecticut (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2006).  

The judge said that CRRA misled the public by:

      -- saying the towns would have to shoulder costs of the
         lawsuit through increased disposal fees;

      -- it has substantial legal fees in defending itself in
         the lawsuit, without disclosing that insurance carriers
         had paid for most of those costs; and

      -- not telling them that costs incurred in making the
         failed $220 million loan to Enron potentially could be
         recouped through various indemnification agreements
         made with law firms advising the authority on the
         transaction.

Overhauled by the state legislature in 2002, after Enron
collapsed, CRRA argues that state law protects it from paying
financial damages to its municipal members.

Nearly all towns in Greater Waterbury and Northwestern
Connecticut are parties to the suit, which was initiated two
years ago by the town of New Hartford, according to plaintiffs'
attorney David S. Golub.

Despite the protracted legal dispute, CRRA continues to work
with the 70 towns in the Mid-Connecticut Project and 48 others
throughout the state on a daily basis, collecting and processing
solid waste and recyclables (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1,
2006).

For more details, contact David S. Golub of Silver Golub &
Teitell, LLP, 184 Atlantic Street, P.O. Box 389, Stamford,
Connecticut 06904, (Fairfield Co.), Phone: 203-325-4491; Fax:
203-325-3769.


COTT CORP: Continues to Face Suits Over Recycling Fees in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cott Corp. is facing lawsuits in Canada over allegations of
unauthorized use by the company and other defendants of
container deposits and the imposition of recycling fees on
customers.

The suit was filed in January 2005.  On June 2, 2006, the
British Columbia Supreme Court granted the summary trial
application, which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
action against the company and the other defendants.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and the company and the
other defendants are defending the appeal, which the defendants
expect to be heard in the next eight to twelve months.  

In February 2005 similar class action claims were filed in a
number of other Canadian provinces.  The litigation is at a very
preliminary stage and the merits of these cases have not been
determined.  However, the company recently received notice that
the plaintiffs in the class action in Quebec have moved for the
litigation to be discontinued.


CROWLEY MARITIME: Files Motion to Dismiss Investors Suit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corp. moved to dismiss an amended complaint in
a purported class action and derivative complaint filed against
it in Delaware, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Filed on Nov. 30, 2004, the complaint was brought against the
company and its board of directors, alleging breaches of the
fiduciary duties owed by the director defendants to the company
and its stockholders.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
improperly spent corporate funds on certain split-dollar life
insurance policies to advance a corporate policy of entrenching
the company's controlling stockholder, Thomas B. Crowley, Jr.,
and certain members of his family.  Thus, plaintiffs seek
damages and other relief.  

On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion was briefed and heard on Sept. 30, 2005.

Before ruling on the company's motion to dismiss, the court, on
Jan. 19, 2006, ordered that motion stayed pending resolution of
two motions filed on Dec. 27, 2005: one motion to amend filed by
the plaintiff, and a second motion to intervene filed by a
purported stockholder.  

These motions were briefed and a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motion to amend was held on June 9, 2006.  The Court granted
these motions and ordered the plaintiffs to promptly file their
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on Oct. 24, 2006.  On
Nov. 7, 2006, the company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.

The company believes that no ruling on the motion will be made
before the end of the second quarter of 2007.  The company
believes that there are legal and factual defenses to these
claims and intends to defend this action vigorously.


DIGITAS INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue a final order regarding the settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Digitas, Inc.

Between June 26, 2001 and Aug. 16, 2001, several stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Digitas Inc.,
several of its officers and directors, and five underwriters of
its initial public offering.  

The purported class actions are all brought on behalf of
purchasers of Digitas Inc.'s common stock between March 13,
2000, the date of the offering, and Dec. 6, 2000.  

Plaintiffs allege that Digitas Inc.'s prospectus, incorporated
in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose that the underwriters
had engaged in conduct designed to result in undisclosed and
excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased
brokerage commissions and also that this alleged conduct of the
underwriters artificially inflated Digitas Inc.'s stock price in
the period after the offering.

They claimed violations of Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and seek, among other things, damages,
statutory compensation and costs of litigation.  

Effective Oct. 9, 2002, the claims against Digitas Inc.'s
officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.
Effective Feb. 19, 2003, the Section 10(b) claims against
Digitas Inc. were dismissed.  

The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached between
the plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants,
including Digitas Inc., with respect to the remaining claims.  

A court hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement to
the plaintiff class was held on April 24, 2006.  To date the
court has not issued its opinion on the proposed settlement,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

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


ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. is facing four securities fraud
complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas in relation to statements it made regarding its drug
sitaxsentan sodium.

On Sept. 26, 2006, a purported class action complaint
(Massachusetts Laborers Complaint) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, on behalf of itself and
all other similarly situated investors against:

     -- the company;

     -- Bruce D. Given, M.D., president and chief executive  
        officer;

     -- Richard A.F. Dixon, senior vice president, research and
        chief scientific officer; and

     -- Stephen L. Mueller, former vice president, finance and
        administration, secretary and treasurer

The complaint alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focuses on statements that
are claimed to be false and misleading regarding the company's
drug sitaxsentan sodium.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during the
period from Feb. 19, 2004 through March 24, 2006.

In addition, on Oct. 10, 2006, a second purported class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas by Gustav R. Bastian, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated investors against the company, Dr.
Given, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Mueller.

The complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations
and legal claims as the Massachusetts Laborers complaint on
behalf of the same putative class.

A third substantially similar purported class action complaint
was filed on Oct. 20, 2006 by Steven O. Scott, and a fourth
substantially similar purported class action complaint was filed
on Nov. 1, 2006 by Cami Janzen-Guare.

These complaints assert substantially the same factual
allegations and legal claims as the Massachusetts Laborers'
complaint and were filed in the same court on behalf of the same
putative class.


FOCUS HEALTHCARE: Faces Health Care Providers' Lawsuit in La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FOCUS Healthcare Management Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Concentra Operating Corp., is facing a purported class action in
Louisiana state court filed by four Louisiana health care
providers, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Aside from the company other defendants include two Preferred
Provider Organizations and three third-party administrators
(TPAs).

The company maintains a preferred provider network of
occupational healthcare providers.  Plaintiffs assert that it is
illegal for a PPO to contract with a provider to pay that
provider below the Louisiana Worker's Compensation fee schedule,
and that applying PPO discounts, without providing 30 days prior
notice, violates the Any Willing Provider Act in Louisiana.

The suit claims that the company did not provide legally
sufficient notice.


GOLDEN GLEN: Recalls Improperly Pasteurized Eggnog Milk Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is working
with Golden Glen Creamery of Bow, Washington, in Skagit County,
on a voluntary recall of its eggnog milk products that may
contain illness-causing pathogens due to improper
pasteurization.

Although no illnesses have been reported, Golden Glen Creamery
is voluntarily recalling 160 glass quart bottles of its eggnog
product.

The eggnog was bottled in quart-glass containers labeled Golden
Glen Creamery with a pull date of "Nov. 28" on the cap.  The
product was distributed to:

     -- Community Food Co-Op in Bellingham
     -- Front Street Market Red Apple in Issaquah
     -- Hop-In Grocery in Seattle
     -- Petosa's Family Grocery in Edmonds
     -- Madison Market Central Co-Op in Seattle
     -- Star Stores in Langley/Bayview Corner, Island County
     -- Matthew's Thriftway in Bellevue
     -- Ralph's Red Apple in Bremerton
     -- Garguile's Red Apple in Bremerton
     -- Red Apple in Silverdale
     -- Sno-Isle Natural Foods Co-Op in Everett
     -- Sunshine Corner in Kent
     -- Whole Foods in Westlake, Seattle
     -- Whole Foods in Redmond

Consumers who have purchased the eggnog product with a pull date
of "Nov 28" are advised to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund or replacement with new product.  No other
Golden Glen Creamery products are involved in this recall.

The creamery's owner is working with WSDA's Food Safety program
to notify consumers and has voluntarily removed all remaining
eggnog from retail outlets.  The owner is also cooperating with
WSDA's investigation to determine the cause of the under-
pasteurized milk products.

WSDA conducted routine sampling of the packaged eggnog product
on Nov. 14.  Analysis found the sample with high levels of
phosphatase, which indicates the eggnog was under-pasteurized.

Adequate pasteurization requires eggnog milk products to be
heated to 155 degrees Fahrenheit for a continuous 30 minutes in
approved pasteurization equipment that is properly operated to
assure that every particle of milk is pasteurized.

According to Golden Glen, the affected eggnog product had been
heated to a temperature of about 149 degrees Fahrenheit for 34
minutes.  Because the eggnog product was under-pasteurized, it
could carry illness-causing pathogens.

Persons with concerns may contact the toll-free WSDA food safety
complaint line at 1 (800) 843-7890.


GUIDANT CORP: Ind. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit alleging Employee Retirement
Income Security Act violations by Guidant Corp. is appealing to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit the dismissal
of the complaint by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.

In July 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed on
behalf of participants in Guidant's employee pension benefit
plans.

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana against Guidant and its directors.  
The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under the ERISA
Act 29 U.S.C. Section 1132.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Guidant fiduciaries
concealed adverse information about Guidant's defibrillators and
imprudently made contributions to Guidant's 401(k) plan and
employee stock ownership plan in the form of Guidant stock.

The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, monetary damages, the imposition of a
constructive trust, and costs and attorneys' fees.  A second,
similar complaint was filed and consolidated with the initial
complaint.  A consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Feb.
8, 2006.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complain, and
on Sept. 15, 2006, the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.  

In October 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


HOST AMERICA: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Host America Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, according to the company's Nov
20 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In August 2005 and September 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 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 the company's 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.

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 Mr. Sarmanian and Mr. Lockhart.

A time for answering or otherwise responding to the Consolidated
Complaint has not been established.  Pursuant to court order,
the parties filed a status report on Nov. 13, 2006.

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)."  

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.


KANA SOFTWARE: Awaits Court's Final OK to Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action "In Re Kana Software, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ.
6822 (Sas)," according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is filed against KANA Software, Inc., certain of its
current and former officers and the underwriters for its initial
public offering:

     -- Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     -- Lehman Bros,

     -- Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     -- Wit Soundview Capital Corp.

The cases allege violations of various securities laws by more
than 300 issuers of stock, including the company, and the
underwriters for such issuers, on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs who, in the case of the company, purchased the
company's common stock between Sept. 21, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000
in connection with the company's initial public offering.

Specifically, the complaints allege that the underwriter
defendants engaged in a scheme concerning sales of the company's
and other issuers' securities in the initial public offering and
in the aftermarket.

In July 2003, the company decided to join in a settlement
negotiated by representatives of a coalition of issuers named as
defendants in this action and their insurers.

Although the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims have
no merit, they have decided to accept the settlement proposal to
avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation.

The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval
by the court.  

The suit is "In Re Kana Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6822 (Sas)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

    (iv) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

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

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


MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Court Finds RICO Act Claims Deficient
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of New Jersey ruled that plaintiffs in a
lawsuit related to the New York State Attorney General's civil
complaint against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. failed to
state specific claims of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations against the company.

                        Case Background

In October 2004, the Office of the New York State Attorney
General (NYAG) filed a civil complaint in New York State court
against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary
Marsh Inc., asserting claims under New York law for fraudulent
business practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud,
unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.

The complaint alleged that market service agreements between
Marsh and various insurance companies created an improper
incentive for Marsh to steer business to such insurance
companies and to shield them from competition.

The complaint further alleged that the agreements were not
adequately disclosed to Marsh's clients or MMC's investors, and
that Marsh engaged in bid-rigging and solicited fraudulent bids
to create the appearance of competitive bidding.

Numerous lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more
of its subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and
officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit,
including:

                    New Jersey Class Actions

Various putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
policyholders were filed in or removed to several federal courts
across the country.  All of these federal putative class actions
were transferred to the District of New Jersey for coordination
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In August 2005, two consolidated amended complaints were filed
in the MDL Cases:

     -- one on behalf of a purported class of "commercial"
        policyholders, and

     -- the second on behalf of a purported class of "employee
        benefit" policyholders

which as against MMC and certain affiliates allege statutory
claims for violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal and state antitrust laws, together
with common law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.

The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified
monetary damages, treble damages, disgorgement, restitution,
punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The class periods alleged in the MDL Cases begin on Aug. 26,
1994 and purport to continue to the date of any class
certification.

In November 2005, MMC and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the two consolidated amended complaints.  On Feb. 16, 2006, the
plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled that plaintiffs had failed to
state, with the requisite specificity, claims for violations of
RICO and the federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs have made
supplemental filings to address these deficiencies.

                      Other Class Actions

Four class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders
are pending in state courts.  There are also 22 actions brought
by individual policyholders and others in federal and state
courts relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit.  

MMC expects that all policyholder actions filed in the U.S.
federal courts will be transferred to the District of New
Jersey.  In addition, two putative class actions and one
individual policyholder action are pending in Canada.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.Y. Court Junks Some Claims in Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action filed
against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York in relation to the
New York State Attorney General's civil complaint against the
company filed a second amended complaint after the dismissal of
certain claims in the original suit.

In October 2004, the Office of the New York State Attorney
General (NYAG) filed a civil complaint in New York State court
against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary
Marsh Inc., asserting claims under New York law for fraudulent
business practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud,
unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.

The complaint alleged that market service agreements between
Marsh and various insurance companies created an improper
incentive for Marsh to steer business to such insurance
companies and to shield them from competition.

The complaint further alleged that the agreements were not
adequately disclosed to Marsh's clients or MMC's investors, and
that Marsh engaged in bid-rigging and solicited fraudulent bids
to create the appearance of competitive bidding.

Numerous lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more
of its subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and
officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit,
including:

Four purported class actions on behalf of individuals and
entities who purchased or acquired MMC's publicly-traded
securities during the purported class periods are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2005, the court issued an order consolidating these
complaints into a single proceeding (the MMC SDNY Securities
Case) and appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel to
represent the purported class.

In April 2005, the co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint naming MMC, Marsh, MMC's independent registered public
accounting firm and twenty present and former directors and
officers of MMC and certain affiliates as defendants.  The
purported class period in the consolidated complaint extended
from Oct. 14, 1999 to Oct. 13, 2004.

The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that MMC
inflated its earnings during the class period by engaging in
unsustainable business practices based on contingent
commissions, and caused the plaintiffs and other members of the
purported class to purchase MMC's securities at artificially
inflated prices.

The consolidated complaint further alleged that MMC failed to
disclose that the revenue derived from market service agreements
with insurers was part of an unlawful scheme, which could not be
sustained and which exposed MMC to significant regulatory
sanctions, and that MMC failed to disclose certain alleged anti-
competitive and illegal practices, such as "bid rigging" and
soliciting fictitious quotes, at MMC's subsidiaries.

The consolidated complaint further alleged that MMC's revenues
and earnings would have been significantly lower had MMC's
subsidiaries not engaged in these allegedly unlawful business
practices, and that MMC's earnings were overstated because MMC
failed to establish a reserve for contingent losses associated
with its allegedly improper activities.

The consolidated complaint included factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NYAG Lawsuit, as well as factual
allegations concerning alleged misconduct at MMC's subsidiaries
Mercer and Putnam, and alleged conflicts of interest associated
with MMC's former private equity subsidiary, MMC Capital.

The consolidated complaint included claims for violations of
Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, based on MMC's allegedly false or incomplete disclosures.

In addition, the consolidated complaint included claims for
common law fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and
violations of state securities laws, which were asserted on
behalf of a subclass of municipal and state pension funds.  The
consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On July 19, 2006, the court granted in part and
denied in part those motions.  The court dismissed the Section
18 and Section 15 claims against Marsh and MMC, as well as all
common law and state statutory securities law claims.  The
claims against MMC's independent registered public accounting
firm and all but two of the individual defendants were dismissed
in their entirety.

                    Second Amended Complaint

On Oct. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which purports to conform the plaintiffs' allegations to the
court's July ruling.  MMC has not yet responded to the second
amended complaint.

   Actions Transferred for Inclusion in SDNY Securities Case

Four individual shareholder actions have been filed against MMC
and others in various state courts.  Two of these actions have
been transferred for inclusion in the MMC SDNY Securities Case.
On July 19, 2006, MMC's motion to dismiss one of the state court
actions was denied; an amended complaint has been filed, to
which MMC has not yet responded.

In the other pending state lawsuit, the court granted MMC's
motion to dismiss without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed an
amended complaint, to which MMC has not yet responded.  MMC has
not yet responded to the complaints in the two actions that have
been transferred for inclusion in the MMC SDNY Securities Case.

A separate individual shareholder action asserting federal
securities laws violations was transferred for inclusion in the
MMC SDNY Securities Case.  The court granted this plaintiff
leave to file a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Aug. 18, 2006.  No such complaint was
filed, and MMC has requested that the Section 14(a) claim be
dismissed with prejudice.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face ERISA Violation Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York over alleged Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations in relation to the New York State
Attorney General's civil complaint against the company.

In October 2004, the Office of the New York State Attorney
General (NYAG) filed a civil complaint in New York State court
against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary
Marsh Inc., asserting claims under New York law for fraudulent
business practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud,
unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.

The complaint alleged that market service agreements between
Marsh and various insurance companies created an improper
incentive for Marsh to steer business to such insurance
companies and to shield them from competition.

The complaint further alleged that the agreements were not
adequately disclosed to Marsh's clients or MMC's investors, and
that Marsh engaged in bid-rigging and solicited fraudulent bids
to create the appearance of competitive bidding.

Numerous lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more
of its subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and
officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit,
including 20 purported class actions alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

The suits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Marsh & McLennan Companies Stock Investment
Plan.

In February 2005, the court issued an order consolidating these
complaints into a single proceeding.  Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint in June 2005, naming MMC and
various current and former employees, officers and directors as
defendants.

The Consolidated ERISA Complaint alleges, among other things,
that in view of the purportedly fraudulent bids and the receipt
of contingent commissions pursuant to the market service
agreements referred to above, the defendants knew or should have
known that the investment of the Plan's assets in MMC stock was
imprudent.

The Consolidated ERISA Complaint also asserts that certain
defendants failed to provide the Plan's participants with
complete and accurate information about MMC stock, that certain
defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring
other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA, and that MMC
knowingly participated in other defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The Consolidated ERISA Complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The amount of Plan assets invested
in MMC stock at Oct. 13, 2004 (immediately prior to the
announcement of the NYAG Lawsuit) was approximately $1.2
billion.

The Consolidated ERISA Complaint alleges that during the
purported class period, which extends from July 1, 2000 until
Jan. 31, 2005, MMC's stock price fell from $52.22 to $32.50.  
MMC and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated ERISA Complaint.

The suit is "In Re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Case No.  
1:04-cv-08144-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Balestriere of Ballestriere, P.L.L.C., 225  
         Broadway, Suite 2700, New York, NY 10007, Phone: 212  
         374-5400, Fax: 212-661-8665, E-mail:  
         jb@balestriere.net;

     (2) Jay W. Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201  
         North Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801,  
         Phone: (302) 622-7000; and

     (3) Keith Martin Fleischman and Jeffrey Michael Haber both  
         of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th  
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax:  
         (212) 779-3218, E-mail: fleischman@bernlieb.com or  
         haber@bernlieb.com.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.Y. Court Junks Stock Lawsuit Against AXIS
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the suit, "In re AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation," which also names Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. as
defendant.

In October 2004, the Office of the New York State Attorney
General (NYAG) filed a civil complaint in New York State court
against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary
Marsh Inc., asserting claims under New York law for fraudulent
business practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud,
unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.

The complaint alleged that market service agreements between
Marsh and various insurance companies created an improper
incentive for Marsh to steer business to such insurance
companies and to shield them from competition.

The complaint further alleged that the agreements were not
adequately disclosed to Marsh's clients or MMC's investors, and
that Marsh engaged in bid-rigging and solicited fraudulent bids
to create the appearance of competitive bidding.

Numerous lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more
of its subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and
officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Axis Capital Holdings Limited and
certain of its officers filed a consolidated complaint that
named MMC, among others, as an additional defendant.  

This purported class action is on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or acquired Axis's publicly traded
common stock during a purported class period from Aug. 6, 2003
to Oct. 14, 2004.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with defendants' purported failure to disclose
alleged improper business practices concerning incentive
commission payments by Axis to, among others, Marsh Inc.  

With regard to MMC, the complaint also alleges that various
entities and partnerships managed by or associated with MMC
Capital sold Axis common stock to members of the purported class
knowing of the alleged inflated valuation of such stock, and
seeks damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted all defendants' motions to
dismiss without prejudice.

The suit is "In re AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge  
Richard J. Holwell.
  
Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,   
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow  
Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:  
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Benjamin E. Rosenberg of Swidler  
Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY  
10174, Phone: (212) 891-9231, Fax: (212) 891-9519, E-mail:  
benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Md. Court Junks Some "Market-Timing" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has
dismissed certain complaints of "market-timing" and "late
trading" activities against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and
Putnam Investments Equity Partnership Plan.

MMC and Putnam faces more than 70 civil complaints, filed in
various state and federal courts, based on allegations of
"market-timing" and, in some cases, "late trading" activities.

All of the actions filed in federal court have been transferred,
along with actions against other mutual fund complexes, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The lead plaintiffs in those cases filed consolidated amended
complaints in September 2004.  MMC and Putnam moved to dismiss
these various complaints pending in federal court in Maryland:

     (1) a consolidated amended class action complaint against
         MMC and Putnam, along with certain of their former
         officers and directors purportedly brought on behalf of
         all purchasers of the publicly-traded securities of MMC
         between January 3, 2000 and November 3, 2003 (MMC Class
         Action);

In general, the MMC Class Action alleges that the defendants,
including MMC, allowed certain mutual fund investors and fund
managers to engage in market-timing in the Putnam Funds.  

The complaint further alleges that this conduct was not
disclosed until late 2003, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that, as a result
of defendants' purportedly misleading statements or omissions,
MMC's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief.  In an
order entered Oct. 13, 2006, the district court dismissed all
claims against all defendants in the MMC Class Action.

     (2) a consolidated amended complaint filed against MMC and
         Putnam on behalf of a putative class of investors in
         certain Putnam Funds (Putnam Class Action) and in a
         consolidated amended complaint in which certain fund
         investors purport to assert derivative claims on behalf
         of all Putnam Funds (Putnam Derivative Action);

These suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly
suffered by the funds and their shareholders as a result of
purported market-timing and late trading activity that allegedly
occurred in certain Putnam Funds.

The Putnam Derivative Action seeks additional relief, including
termination of the investment advisory contracts between Putnam
and the Funds, cancellation of the Funds' 12b-1 plans and the
return of all advisory and 12b-1 fees paid by the Funds over a
certain period of time.

In addition to MMC and Putnam, the Putnam Derivative Action
names as defendants various Putnam affiliates, certain trustees
of the Putnam Funds, certain present and former Putnam officers
and employees, and persons and entities that allegedly engaged
in or facilitated market-timing or late trading activities in
the Putnam Funds.

MMC and Putnam moved to dismiss all claims in the Putnam Class
Action and the Putnam Derivative Action.  The court dismissed
all claims against MMC in both actions.  With regard to Putnam,
the court dismissed all claims against Putnam in the Putnam
Class Action except for claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of
1940, and all claims against Putnam in the Putnam Derivative
Action except the claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in the Putnam Class Action in response to the court's
dismissal order.  Putnam has answered the second amended
complaint.

     (3) a class action against Putnam in its capacity as a sub-
         adviser to a non-Putnam fund in a federal class action
         suit pending in the District of Maryland against
         another mutual fund complex;

     (4) a consolidated amended complaint asserting shareholder
         derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of MMC,
         against current and former members of MMC's Board of
         Directors, two of Putnam's former officers, and MMC as
         a nominal defendant (the MMC Derivative Action);

The MMC Derivative Action generally alleges that the members of
MMC's Board of Directors violated the fiduciary duties they owed
to MMC and its shareholders by failing to provide oversight
regarding market-timing in the Putnam Funds, as a result of
which MMC suffered damages.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief.

Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the MMC Derivative
Action was stayed in May 2005.  In October 2003 and February
2004, respectively, MMC received two demand letters from
stockholders asking the MMC Board of Directors to take action to
remedy alleged breaches of duty by certain officers, directors,
trustees or employees of MMC or Putnam, based on allegations of
market-timing in the Putnam Funds.

     (5) two consolidated amended complaints that purportedly
         assert class action claims against MMC, Putnam, and
         various of their current and former officers, directors
         and employees under Employee Retirement Income Security
         Act;

The ERISA Actions, which have been brought by participants in
MMC's Stock Investment Plan and Putnam's Profit Sharing
Retirement Plan, allege, among other things, that, in view of
the market-timing trading activity that was allegedly allowed to
occur at Putnam, the defendants knew or should have known that
the investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam
Funds was imprudent and that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plan participants in making these
investments.

The ERISA Actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief,
including the restoration to the plans of all profits the
defendants allegedly made through the use of the plans' assets,
an order compelling the defendants to make good to the plans all
losses to the plans allegedly resulting from defendants' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties, and the imposition of a
constructive trust on any amounts by which any defendant
allegedly was unjustly enriched at the expense of the plans.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the ERISA Action regarding the Putnam Profit
Sharing Retirement Plan was dismissed against all defendants;
the plaintiff has appealed that decision.

On Oct. 19, 2006, the plaintiff in the ERISA Action regarding
the MMC Stock Investment Plan filed a third amended complaint.

      (6) a purported class action brought against a number of
          the Putnam Funds on behalf of certain holders of the
          funds' Class B shares who either:

          (i) held such shares and were subject to certain
              contingent deferred sales charges (CDSCs) as of
              October 28, 2003, or

         (ii) were assessed a CDSC for redeeming such shares on
              or after Oct. 28, 2003;

Plaintiff alleges that Putnam engaged in misconduct constituting
a breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing with purported class members by allowing
market-timing.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, actual damages or statutory
damages of $25 for each class member, whichever is greater, and
relief from paying a CDSC for redeeming Class B shares.

In August 2005, this action was transferred to the consolidated
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

Putnam has agreed to indemnify the Putnam Funds for any
liabilities arising from market-timing activities, including
those that could arise in the above securities litigations, and
MMC has agreed to guarantee Putnam's obligations in that regard.


MATTEL INC: Recalls Magnetic Play Sets After Injury Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2.4
million play sets with an additional 2 million play sets sold
worldwide.

The company said tiny magnets inside the dolls and accessories
can fall out undetected by parents and caregivers.  The magnets
can be swallowed, aspirated by young children or placed by a
child in their nose or ears.  When more than one magnet is
swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause
intestinal perforation, infection or blockage, which can be
fatal.  Aspiration to the lungs requires immediate surgery.
Magnets placed in the nose or ears can cause swelling and be
difficult to remove.

CPSC is aware of 170 reports of the small magnets coming out of
these recalled toys.  There were three reports of serious
injuries to children who swallowed more than one magnet.  All
three suffered intestinal perforations that required surgery.  A
2-year-old child was hospitalized for seven days and a 7-year-
old child was hospitalized for 12 days.  An 8-year-old child was
also hospitalized.

The recalled Polly Pocket play sets contain plastic dolls and
accessories that have small magnets.  The magnets measure 1/8
inch in diameter and are imbedded in the hands and feet of some
dolls, and in the plastic clothing, hair pieces and other
accessories to help the pieces attach to the doll or to the
doll's house.  

The model number is printed on the bottom of the largest pieces
on some of the play sets. Contact Mattel if you cannot find a
model number on your product to determine if it is part of the
recall.  Polly Pocket magnetic play sets currently on store
shelves are not included in this recall.

Polly Pocket Magnetic Play Sets                     Item Number

Polly Pocket! Polly Place Hangin' Out House         B2632
Polly Pocket! Polly Place Treetop Clubhouse         B3158
Polly Pocket! Spa Day                               B3201
Polly Totally! Polly Place Totally Tiki Diner       B7118
Polly Pocket! Quik-Clik Boutique                    G8605
Polly Pocket! Quik-Clik City Pretty Playset         H1537
Polly Pocket! Quik-Clik Sporty Style Playset        H1538
Polly Pocket! Totally Zen Playset                   H3211

These Polly Pocket magnetic play sets were manufactured in China
and are being sold at discount department stores and toy stores
from May 2003 through September 2006 for between $15 and $30.

Pictures of the recalled Polly Pocket magnetic play sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07039a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07039b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07039c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07039d.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these recalled toys
away from children and contact Mattel to arrange for the return
of the sets and to receive a voucher for a replacement toy of
the customer's choice, up to the value of the returned product.

For additional information contact Mattel at (888) 597-6597
anytime, or visit: http://www.service.mattel.com.


MODEM MEDIA: Court Considers Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue a final order regarding the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Modem Media,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Digitas, Inc.

Beginning in August 2001, several stockholder class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Modem Media, several of
its officers and directors, and five underwriters of its initial
public offering.  

The purported class actions are all brought on behalf of
purchasers of Modem Media's common stock between Feb. 5, 1999,
the date of the Modem Media Offering, and Dec. 6, 2000.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Modem Media's
prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form
S-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result
in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the
form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this
alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated Modem
Media's stock price in the period after the Modem Media
Offering.  

They claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
seek, among other things, damages, statutory compensation and
costs of litigation.  

The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached between
the plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants,
including Modem Media.  

A court hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement to
the plaintiff class was held on April 24, 2006.  The court has
not issued its opinion on the proposed settlement, according to
the Digitas, Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

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


NETRATINGS INC: Faces Del. Suits Over VNU Purchase Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------
NETRATINGS, Inc. is named defendant in several purported class
actions filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County over a proposal by VNU Group B.V.
to purchase for $16.00 in cash each share of the company's
common stock that VNU or its affiliates does not currently own.

On or about Oct. 9, 2006 and 10, 2006, three substantially
similar putative class actions were filed against the company,
its directors and VNU, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all of the
company's stockholders excluding the defendants and their
affiliates.

Generally, they allege that:

      -- VNU and the directors of the company breached their
         fiduciary duties to the class;

      -- the consideration offered by VNU is inadequate and
         constitutes unfair dealing; and

      -- VNU, as controlling stockholder, breached its duty to
         the class by acting to further its own interests at the
         expense of the class.

The complaints seek to enjoin the proposal or, in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and recission in
the event a merger occurs pursuant to the proposal.


NEW JERSEY: Double-dipping Suit Against Representative Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Castle County Superior Court Judge Richard Cooch dismissed a
lawsuit filed by a Newark resident accusing state representative
Nancy Wagner of double-dipping, Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed by Robert Reeder, who represented himself and
taxpayers in a complaint accusing the representative of billing
the Capital School District, where she is employed, for time
spent on legislative duties.

Judge Cooch ruled Mr. Reeder has no standing to sue because only
a lawyer can bring that type of action.  


NRT TEXAS: Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRT Texas, Inc., trading as Coldwell Banker Residential
Brokerage Co., is named defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey over insurance
charges it made to agents, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The class includes all persons who, at any time from Dec. 1,
2002, to the present, was or is a salesperson in Texas with
Coldwell Banker and paid money to Coldwell Banker for E&O
Insurance.

Former agent Cynthia Beaird claims Coldwell charged its 1,500
agents in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex $45 a month for errors
and omissions insurance, but never obtained coverage for them.

She claims Coldwell Banker and its corporate parent, NRT Texas,
took the money from her and from other agents, but when she
faced a lawsuit, it claimed she was not covered.  Then, she
says, the defendants said she was covered, but with a $1 million
deductible.  That's unreasonable and deceptive, she says.

There are numerous questions of law and fact common to all class
members which control this litigation and which predominate over
any individual issues. Included within the common questions of
law and fact are the following:

     -- whether by billing Ms. Beaird and the other class
        members for alleged E&O Insurance and accepting payment
        of money in satisfaction of such billings from Ms.
        Beaird and the other class members, Coldwell Banker
        entered into a contract with Ms. Beaird and the other
        class members under which Coldwell Banker agreed to
        obtain and continuously carry E&O Insurance with an
        industry standard deductible to defend and indemnify Ms.
        Beaird and all similarly situated salespersons against
        claims made by third parties against Coldwell Banker's
        salespersons in connection with their activities on
        behalf of Coldwell Banker;

     -- whether Coldwell Banker breached its contract with Ms.
        Beaird and the other class members by not maintaining
        E&O Insurance or by maintaining alleged E&O Insurance
        with a $1 million deductible;

     -- whether Ms. Beaird and the other class members are
        entitled to an award of restitution or damages in
        connection with Coldwell Banker's breach of the
        contract;

     -- whether Coldwell Banker committed a uniform written
        false, misleading or deceptive act or practice within
        the meaning of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
        Texas Business & Commerce Code Section 1741 et. seq.
        misrepresenting to Ms. Beaird and other class members
        that it was providing E&O Insurance when it was not;

     -- whether Coldwell Banker materially concealed the actual
        facts concerning the lack of any E&O Insurance;

     -- whether Ms. Beaird and other class members are entitled
        to an award of actual damages and treble damages in
        connection with the DTPA; and

     -- whether Ms. Beaird and the other class members are
        entitled to recover attorneys' fees for breach of
        contract or violations of the DTPA.

Plaintiffs demand that the court:

     -- certify the purported class;

     -- approve Ms. Beaird as the class representative and her
        attorneys as the attorneys for the class;

     -- award to plaintiff and the other class members damages
        from defendant, Coldwell Banker, including restitution,
        actual damages, treble damages, and pre-judgment
        interest to the extent allowed by law;

     -- award to plaintiff and other class members their
        reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
        reimbursement of expenses; and

     -- award to plaintiff and other class members any
        prejudgment and post judgment interest, and such other
        relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?16a3

The suit is "Beaird v. NRT Texas Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05794-
FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg, with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.

Representing plaintiffs is Allyn Zissel Lite of Lite, De Palma,
Greenberg & Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark,
NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: January Hearing Set in Tex. Poultry Owners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 24, 2007 certification hearing is set for the suit,
"Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas.

The complaint, filed on behalf of a class of chicken growers,
initially alleged that the company violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers.

Plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers and
Stockyards Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach of
fiduciary duties and breach of contract.  

On March 14, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of fraud prior to the
entering of the order by the court.  

On Sept. 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join
Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant.  Two additional former
chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit.

The amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's
filing, also results in a virtual re-writing of the allegations.  
Now plaintiffs contend that the company and Tyson are involved
in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs'
initial allegations, although still contained in the amended
lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the court entered an order severing plaintiffs'
Packers and Stockyards Act and antitrust claims.  The court
ordered that plaintiffs:

     * Cody Wheeler,
     * Don Davis, and
     * Davey Williams

might proceed with their Packers and Stockyards Act claims as
set forth in plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.

The court also ordered that plaintiffs, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Davis,
Mr. Williams, Richard Grounds and Jerry Ward might proceed with
their respective antitrust claims asserted against the company
and Tyson in a separate cause of action.

On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in the original lawsuit.  On June 2, 2006 the
court entered an order withdrawing plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and prohibiting the plaintiffs from filing any
additional class-action claims against the company in the
Packers and Stockyard Act lawsuit.

Additionally, the two former growers that joined the lawsuit on
Sept. 30, 2005 withdrew from the case.  The Packers and
Stockyard Act lawsuit is currently proceeding against the
company with individual claims by the three original individual
plaintiffs.

An action "Cody Wheeler, et al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et
al." relating to the severed antitrust claims was filed against
the company and Tyson on Jan. 3, 2006 by the three original
plaintiffs and a former grower, both in their individual
capacities and on behalf of a putative class of chicken growers.

The court has entered a Docket Control Order and a class
certification hearing is currently scheduled for Jan. 24, 2007.

The proceedings are currently in the early stages of discovery.

The suit is "Wheeler et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv-00004-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, under Judge David
Folsom.

Representing the plaintiffs is C. Paul Rogers, III of Locke
Liddell & Sapp, 2200 Ross Ave, Suite 2200, Dallas, TX 75201-
6776, Phone: 214/740-8477, Fax: 214-740-8800, E-mail:
cprogers@lockeliddell.com.

Representing the company is Jennifer Parker Ainsworth, Wilson
Sheehy Knowles Robertson & Cornelius PC, 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite
400, P.O. Box 7339, Tyler, TX 75711-7339, Phone: 903/509-5000,
Fax: 9035095091, E-mail: jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com.


RAVING BRANDS: Faces Alleged Racketeering Law Violations in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of franchisees operating Mama Fu's units filed a class
action in Georgia Superior Court of Fulton County over alleged
fraudulent financial documentation, theft by falsification and
theft by taking and concealments by:

     -- Raving Brands, the Asian fast-casual chain's parent
        company;
     -- Martin Sprock, the company's founder; and
     -- Daryl Dollinger, a principal shareholder.

All these claims are considered racketeering under Georgia's
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute.

Plaintiffs include:

     -- Sugarloaf Noodle House,
     -- Wong Fu's Noodle House,
     -- WE 3 Inc.,
     -- Triad Restaurant Management,
     -- Central Florida Land Investments Inc. and
     -- H&J Goldt Corp.

According to a report by Fast Casual, the suit alleges that
Raving Brands received undisclosed kickbacks from suppliers,
keeping plaintiffs from seeking more competitive pricing.

Plaintiffs allege Mama Fu's misrepresented itself in its Uniform
Franchise Offering Circular by claiming to have developed and
perfected a system of opening and operating its noodle house
restaurants, when in 2003, when Raving Brands was initially
seeking franchisees, one company-owned store and no franchised
Mama Fu's were yet open.

"In the UFOC, Raving Brands said the system was perfected.  
Well, there never really was a Mama Fu's," said Bob Casey, the
plaintiff's attorney.  "My clients were looking at Raving Brands
and seeing how successful Moe's was.  And Raving Brands was
saying Mama Fu's was going to be the next big thing."

The franchisees are seeking undetermined damages.

Raving Brands has until Jan. 8 to respond to the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Bob Casey of Casey Gilson Leibel P.C.,
Atlanta, GA 30328, Phone: 770-512-0300, Fax: 770-512-0070, E-
mail: cgl@caseygilson.com


RHODE ISLAND: Expelled Narragansett Tribe Members Plan Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
People removed from the Narragansett Tribal membership rolls are
planning to file a class action against tribe chief Sachem
Matthew Thomas, according to Chariho Times.

Former tribe member Lawrence Ollivierre, who lives in South
Kingstown, said the premise of the suit will be the deprivation
of rights and benefits due to people listed on the 1983 base
rolls of the Narragansetts.

Membership in the tribe entitles members to healthcare and
education benefits.

In January 2005, the tribal council decided to have the
screening committee investigate the 1880/1881 list of all tribal
members and that committee found discrepancies in birth, death,
and marriage certificates, hence the dropping of some names,
according to Tribe councilor John Brown.  Mr. Brown estimated
that perhaps 150 to 190 people were taken out from the tribal
rolls.

Mr. Ollivierre disagrees with the use of the 1880 rolls,
according to the report.  He said that the base rolls for the
tribe are from 1983, when the tribe received federal
recognition.

Due to the controversy, a group of disenfranchised Indians are
working to form a new tribe of Northern Narragansetts.  A legal
defense fund is also being built up to hire an attorney for a
class action against the tribe chief.


SALESFORCE.COM: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an order
of dismissal, dated Aug. 21, 2006, for the consolidated
securities class action against salesforce.com, Inc., according
to the company's Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

On July 26, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Morrison
v. Salesforce.Com, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, against the
company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the 1934 Act), purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased salesforce.com common stock between June 21, 2004 and
July 21, 2004, inclusive.

The claims were based upon allegations that defendants failed to
disclose an allegedly declining trend in its revenues and
earnings.

Subsequently, four other substantially similar class action
complaints were filed in the same district based upon the same
facts and allegations, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Section 11 and Section 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The actions were later consolidated under the caption, "In re
salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009
JSW (N.D. Cal.)."

On Dec. 22, 2004, the court appointed Chuo Zhu as lead
plaintiff.  On Feb. 22, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated and amended class action complaint.

The consolidated and amended complaint alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased salesforce.com common stock
between June 23, 2004 and July 21, 2004, inclusive.

As in the original complaints, the claims in the consolidated
and amended complaint were based upon allegations that
defendants failed to disclose an allegedly declining trend in
its revenues and earnings.  On April 14, 2005, defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the CAC.  On April 15, 2005, the court
granted lead plaintiff leave to file an amended/superseding
complaint.  

On April 22, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a Corrected and
Superceding [sic] first amended class action complaint.  As in
the consolidated and amended complaint, the first amended
complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the 1934 Act, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased salesforce.com common stock between June 23, 2004 and
July 21, 2004, inclusive.

The claims in the first amended complaint were based upon
allegations that defendants failed to disclose an internal
forecast that earnings for fiscal year 2005 would decline from
the prior fiscal year.

On April 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
first and amended complaint.  On Dec. 22, 2005, the court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, with
prejudice, and directing the clerk to close the file.

On Jan. 23, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration, as well as a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit entered a time schedule
order for the appeal, requiring, inter alia, lead plaintiff to
file his opening brief on May 11, 2006, and defendants to file
their responsive brief on June 12, 2006.

On Jan. 27, 2006, defendants filed a motion to strike as
untimely lead plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration.

On or about Feb. 2, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion with the
Ninth Circuit requesting a stay of appellate proceedings pending
the district court's determination of lead plaintiff's motion
for leave and defendants' motion to strike.  Defendants opposed
that motion.

On Feb. 9, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied the lead plaintiff's
motion for a stay of appellate proceedings, without prejudice to
making a motion for limited remand.

On March 1, 2006, the district court denied the lead plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and
defendants' motion to strike on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Also on March 1, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a motion with
the district court seeking certification for limited remand from
the Ninth Circuit.  Defendants opposed this motion, which was
denied by the district court on April 3, 2006.

The lead plaintiff filed his opening brief with the Ninth
Circuit on May 25, 2006 and the company filed its answering
brief on July 17, 2006.

The lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his appeal and the
Ninth Circuit entered an order of dismissal on Aug. 21, 2006.
This matter is now concluded.

The suit is "In re salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. C-04-3009 JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S.
White.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Trevor Borum of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of  
          Prussia, LLP, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706;

      (2) Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
          Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600,  
          San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:  
          415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com; and

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

Representing the defendants is Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini  
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,  
650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com.


SCOTTISH RE: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has consolidated securities fraud suits filed against Scottish
Re Group Ltd.

On Aug. 2, putative class actions were filed against:

     -- the company,
     -- Glenn Schafer, the chairman of its board of directors;
     -- Dean E. Miller, chief financial officer;
     -- Scott E. Willkomm, former chief executive officer; and
     -- Seth Vance, former chief executive officer - North
        America.

Between Aug. 7, 2006 and Oct. 2, 2006, seven additional related
class actions were filed against the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and certain third
parties.  

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning the company's business and operations, thereby
causing investors to purchase the company's securities at
artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

Two of the complaints also allege violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, related to a 2005 preferred
stock offering.  Each of the class actions filed seek an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

On Oct. 12, 2006, all of the class actions were consolidated.

The company contests the allegations that have been asserted and
plan to vigorously defend their interests in the actions.


STONEPATH GROUP: Penn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Stonepath Group, Inc. in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

The company was named as a defendant in eight purported class
action complaints filed between Sept. 24, 2004 and Nov. 19,
2004.  Also named as defendants in these lawsuits were officers
Dennis L. Pelino and former officers Bohn H. Crain and Thomas L.
Scully.  

These cases were consolidated for all purposes in that Court
under the caption, "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-4515."

Lead plaintiff, Globis Capital Partners, LP, filed an amended
complaint in February 2005, which was dismissed on April 3,
2006.  

Globis sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's shares between March 29, 2002, and Sept. 20, 2004, and
alleged claims for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These claims were based upon allegations that certain public
statements made during the period from March 29, 2002 through
Sept. 20, 2004 were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the company's Domestic Services
operations had improperly accounted for accrued purchased
transportation costs.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and further relief and filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 1, 2006.

Briefs for the appellants and appellees were filed on September
and October 2006, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04515-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart
Dalzell.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige, U. Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein  
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York,  
         NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414;  

     (2) Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross, Law Offices Bernard  
         M. Gross, PC 100 Penn Square West, Juniper & Market St.  
         John Wanamaker Bldg Suite 450, Philadelphia PA 19107  
         Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail:  
         debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com;  
         and

     (3) Timothy J. Macfall, Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko 310  
         Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017.  

Representing the company are Kendra Lee Baisinger, Steven E.  
Bizar, Thomas P. Manning and, Howard D. Scher of Buchanan  
Ingersoll, PC, 1835 Market St., 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA  
19103, Phone: 215-665-3878, E-mail: baisingerkl@bipc.com,  
bizarse@bipc.com, manningtp@bipc.com and scherhd@bipc.com.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Stock Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action filed against Universal American Financial Corp. in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York will be
presented on Dec. 13.

Several actions containing related factual allegations were
filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors between Nov. 22, 2005 and Feb. 2, 2006.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily withdrew one of these actions, while some of the
remaining ones were later consolidated.

In the first action, Robert Kemp filed a purported class action
complaint on Nov. 22, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  "Kemp" is a purported class
action asserted on behalf of those shareholders of the company
who acquired the company's common stock between Feb. 16, 2005
and  Oct. 28, 2005.  

Plaintiffs in the "Kemp" seek unspecified damages under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based upon allegedly false statements by the company and Richard
A. Barasch, Robert A. Waegelein and Gary W. Bryant in press
releases, financial statements and analyst conferences during
the class period.

Another purported class action was filed by Western Trust
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust, a putative class member in the  
Kemp Action who had filed a motion to be named as lead plaintiff
in that action, on Feb. 2, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  

The factual and legal allegations in the Western Trust Action,
which also purports to be a class action, are similar to those
in the Kemp Action.  

By order dated May 1, 2006, the Kemp Action and the Western  
Trust Action were consolidated, and Western Washington Laborers-
Employers Pension Trust was named lead plaintiff.

On June 26, 2006, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the Kemp Action), which will now subsume the
Western Trust Action.

The Amended Complaint asserts the same legal claims as in the
original Kemp and Western Trust Actions, but also names an
additional defendant and includes additional allegations.  The
additional defendant is William E. Wehner, a former director and
former president of Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of the company.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Wehner is liable for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on grounds similar to those asserted
against the Officer Defendants.

The additional assertions are supposedly based in part upon
information from six former employees and agents of the company
and its subsidiaries concerning, among other things, the
company's medical loss ratio.  Like the original complaints in
the Kemp and Western Trust Actions, the Amended Complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 14, 2006, defendants served a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in the Kemp Action.  The lead plaintiff served
opposition papers to the motion on Oct. 17, 2006.  Defendants
motion to dismiss the complaint will be argued before the Court
on Dec. 13, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Kemp v. Universal American  
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-09883-JFK," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge John F. Keenan.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steven G. Schulman, Peter Edward  
Seidman and David Avi Rosenfeld of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
10119, Phone: 212-946-9356, (212) 613-5625 and 631-367-7100 Fax:  
212-273-4406, (212) 868-1229 and 631-367-1173, E-mail:  
sschulman@milbergweiss.com, pseidman@milberg.com and  
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are Joseph Francis Donley and Andrew  
J. Levander of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405  
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10174, Phone: (212) 891-9524 and  
(212) 698-3500, Fax: (212) 891-9598 and (212) 698-3500, E-mail:
joseph.donley@dechert.com and andrew.levander@dechert.com.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces Four Suits Over Acquisition Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal American Financial Corp. is facing four lawsuits in
New York state courts in relation to the acquisition proposal
received by the company on Oct. 24, 2006, from members of
management led by:

     -- Richard A. Barasch, chairman and chief executive
        officer; and

     -- private equity firms:

        * Capital Z Partners, Ltd.,
        * Lee Equity Partners, LLC,
        * Perry Capital, LLC, and
        * Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe X, L.P.

to acquire all of the company's publicly held common stock for
$18.15 per share in cash.

Two of these actions are pending in the Supreme Court for New
York County:

     -- "Stellato v. Universal American Financial Corp., et al.
        (06-116006);" and

     -- "Green Meadows Partners LLP v. Barasch, et al. (603724-
        06)."

The Stellato action names as defendants the company, Mr. Barasch
and the other sponsors of the offer, including Capital Z, as
well as eight other members of the company's board of directors.

Stellato alleges that the offer was made at an "unfair price,
under unfair terms and through improper means."  The action
seeks an injunction preventing the offer from being consummated,
or in the alternative, monetary damages.

The Green Meadows II action names the company, Mr. Barasch and
directors Bradley Cooper, Eric Leathers and Robert Spass as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that these defendants
dominate the board of directors of the company, and have
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, making a
buyout proposal that "fails to take into account the value of
UHCO, its improving financial results and its value in
comparison to other similar companies."

The action seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
defendants from carrying out an unfair transaction, and monetary
damages.

A third and a fourth action pertaining to the Offer are pending
in the Supreme Court for Westchester County and are known as:

     * "Conolly v. Universal American Financial Corp., et al.,"
       and

     * "McCormack v. Averill et al.(06-21365)."

The Conolly action names as defendants Mr. Barasch and other
sponsors of the Offer, including Capital Z, as well as the
company and all of its directors.

The complaint alleges that the shareholder agreement to which
Mr. Barasch and Capital Z are parties "deter[s] potential bids
for the company at a premium to the presently offered price,"
and that the sponsors of the offer (excluding Mr. Barasch) are
members of a "club" of elite private equity funds under
investigation for violations of the anti-trust laws that have
resulted in "driv[ing] down the prices of potential acquisition
targets."

The Conolly action further asserts that the director defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder
value by, among other things, failing immediately to reject the
Offer.  The complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Offer, or in the alternative, monetary
damages.

The complaint in McCormack names as defendants the company and
all of its directors, and alleges, among other things, that the
Offer is unfair and grossly inadequate.  The complaint also
asserts that the buyout offer is "the product of unfair dealing"
by the management of the company and its largest shareholder,
Capital Z.

The action seeks an injunction ordering the directors to fulfill
their fiduciary duties, and/or enjoining any transaction based
upon the Offer, as well as monetary damages.


USI HOLDINGS: Seeks Nixing of Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, "In Re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against USI
Holdings Corp. and several other defendants, have yet to set the
amounts being sought in the case.

The company was named as one of more than 30 insurance firms and
insurance brokerage defendants in an amended complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York in a
putative class action, "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV 06954
(DC)."

The amended complaint focuses on the payment of contingent
commissions by insurers to insurance brokers who sell their
insurance and alleged bid rigging in the setting of insurance
premium levels.  

They purport to allege violations of numerous laws including the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and
federal restraint of trade statutes, state restraint of trade,
unfair and deceptive practices statutes and state breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment laws.  

Plaintiffs, thus seek class certification, treble damages for
the alleged injury suffered by the putative plaintiff class and
other damages.

The company was also named as a defendant in "copycat" or tag-
along lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois:

      -- "Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04
         C 7847," and

      -- "Preuss v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04
         C 7853."  

In April 2005, the company was served in another copycat class
action, captioned Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et al. v.
Ace, USA et al., and filed in the Circuit Court for the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida,
Civil Division, Class Representation, No. 05-CA-373-16-W and
later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Case No. 6:05-CV-422-2ZKRS.  

A similar copycat class action complaint captioned, "Bensley
Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,
No. ESCV2005-0277 (Essex Superior Court, Massachusetts) was
served upon the company in May 2005.  This action was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  

Like the Opticare complaint, these complaints contain no
particularized allegations of wrongdoing on the company's part.
In February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the actions then pending to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.  

Subsequently, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
also transferred the Palm Tree and Bensley lawsuits to the same
court for the same purposes.   Recently, the plaintiff in
Bensley withdrew its claims.

On Aug. 1, 2005, in the multidistrict litigation pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended commercial class
action complaint and a first consolidated amended employee
benefits class action complaint (Consolidated MDL Complaints)
that purport to allege claims against the company based upon
RICO, federal and state antitrust laws, breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  

The Consolidated MDL Complaints, like the predecessor
complaints, focus the allegations of fact upon defendants other
than the company.  

The company has moved to dismiss the Consolidated MDL Complaints
and has also opposed plaintiffs' motions for class
certification.   

Recently, in response to the court's directive that the
plaintiffs further substantiate their claims in writing, they
submitted more particularized allegations against the various
defendants.  

None of the plaintiffs in any of the actions has set forth the
amounts being sought in the particular actions, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the U.S. District Court in
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC) One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and

     (2) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


VONAGE AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Mobile Service Deceptive Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage America is facing a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey over claims that
the company deceives its customers and continues to charge them
after they cancel their cell phone service, the CourtHouse News
reports.

The plaintiffs, one from Washington and one from Colorado, claim
Vonage makes deceptive claims for services it knows it does not
deliver.  They claim the company egregiously refuses to honor
customers' requests to cancel service.

Further, they claim Vonage admits it has more than 2 percent
monthly churn of its 1.9 million subscribers, so it subjects
more than 38,000 people a month to its unjust billings.  They
complain of dropped calls, calls that fail to connect, poor
quality, and inability to send faxes as promised.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the
classes, demand judgment as follows:

     (1) directing that Vonage cease billing consumers for
         Vonage services after they have contacted Vonage to
         cancel the service;

     (2) declaring that Vonage is in breach of its own "Terms of
         Service" by failing to allow consumers to timely cancel
         their Vonage service;

     (3) declaring that Vonage's advertising of its services and
         the terms of its services are deceptive and misleading,
         and directing that Vonage establish a fund to allow
         reimbursement of fees paid by deceived Vonage
         customers;

     (4) declaring that all consumers who cancelled their Vonage
         service within 30 days after the actual date their
         service was operational are eligible for a refund of
         their money;

     (5) directing that Vonage provide, upon request, disgorment
         to Vonage customers for charges incurred after the
         customers requested cancellation of their service;

     (6) directing that Vonage provide upon request,
         disgorgement of all charges (including any
         "disconnection fees") incurred by the customer if the
         customer requested cancellation within 30 days after
         the date their service became operational;

     (7) directing that Vonage permit customers to cancel their
         service via a one-step process on Vonage's website;

     (8) declaring that the arbitration agreement and other
         terms found in Vongae's Terms and Conditions is
         unconscionable and unenforceable; and

     (9) directing Vonage to give notice to members of the
         class.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?16a0

The suit is Nahay et. al v. Vonage America, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-05801-FLW-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson, with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing plaintiffs is David R. Buchanan of Seeger Weiss
LLP, 550 Broad Street, Suite 920, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973)
639-9100, E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Awaits Court Approval of $1.75M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to grant final approval to the $1.75 million settlement of
all claims asserted by plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action filed against Wave Systems Corp., its chief
executive officer and its chief financial officer, according to
the company's Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

A consolidated amended class action complaint is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming
Wave, its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer as defendants.  The suit is "Brumbaugh et al. v. Wave
Systems Corp. et al., Civ. No. 04-30022 (D. Mass.)(MAP)."

The purported class action has been filed by alleged purchasers
of Wave's Class A Common Stock during the purported class period
July 31, 2003 through Feb. 2, 2004.  

The complaint claims that Wave and the named individuals
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "1934 Act"), Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act by publicly disseminating
materially false and misleading statements, relating to Wave's
agreements with Intel and IBM.  

The complaint did not specify the amount of alleged damages
plaintiffs seek to recover.

In January 2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court dismissed two but let
stand seven alleged misrepresentations or omissions.  This is
not a finding of fault or liability, it is a decision not
entirely to dismiss plaintiffs' pleading.

Without admitting liability, the defendants recently reached a
mediated settlement in principle of all claims asserted by the
plaintiffs.  

Wave's insurer has agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of
$1,750,000 in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice and
release of the claims against all defendants.

The suit is "Brumbaugh v. Wave Systems Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-30022-MAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Michael A. Ponsor.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Stuart L. Berman and Darren Check of Schiffrin &   
         Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala   
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706;  

     (2) David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,   
         37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:   
         617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com;
  
     (3) John C. Martland, Martland & Brooks LLP, Stonehill   
         Corporate Center, Suite 500, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA   
         01906, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:   
         jcmartland@gilmanpastor.com; and  

     (4) Karen Reilly and Marc I. Willner, Schiffrin & Barroway,   
         LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:   
         610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056.  

Representing the company are:   

     (i) Michael D. Blanchard and Robert A. Buhlman of Bingham   
         McCutchen LLP - Hartford, One State Street, Hartford,   
         CT 06103, Phone: 860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2818, E-  
         mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com or   
         robert.buhlman@bingham.com; and   

    (ii) Eunice E. Lee and Raquel J. Webster, Bingham McCutchen   
         LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-  
         951-8000, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:   
         eunice.lee@bingham.com or raquel.webster@bingham.com.


XETHANOL CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Dec. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announced that shareholders have until
Dec. 26, 2006 to move the court to be appointed lead plaintiff
in a class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Xethanol
Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2006.

KGS filed a class action the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Xethanol and certain of
its officers and directors over alleged issuance of a series of
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).

Throughout the class period, Xethanol repeatedly assured
investors that it could sustain itself on revenue from corn
ethanol production while successfully commercializing biomass
ethanol production.  

In fact, however, as investors have now learned, Xethanol was
suffering from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that
negatively impacted its business and it appears that they do not
have the ability to commercialize biomass ethanol in the
foreseeable near term.

As investors learned the truth about Xethanol, shares of the
company declined precipitously -- falling from a Class Period
high of over $15 per share in April 2006, to less than $4.00 per
share by the end of the Class Period.

While shares of Xethanol were artificially inflated during the
Class Period, certain insiders were able to liquidate millions
of dollars of their personally held Xethanol shares.
  
Particularly, the complaint alleges that Xethanol:  

      -- misrepresented management's experience and standard of        
         ethics;  

      -- omitted disclosing a series of related party  
         transactions and association with investors who had  
         alarming records of stock fraud and related shareholder  
         abuses;  

      -- materially overstated the company's profitability by  
         under-reporting the true costs associated with  
         completing a biomass to ethanol production facility,  
         and by failing to make proper adjustments to the  
         company's financial reports;  

      -- lacked any reasonable basis to assert that the company  
         was operating according to plan or could achieve the  
         near-term commercialization of biomass ethanol  
         production, or achieve the guidance sponsored and/or  
         endorsed by the company; and  

      -- caused plaintiffs and other Class members to purchase  
         Xethanol common stock at artificially inflated prices.
  
For more details, contact Partner Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-
866-467-1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:  
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BODISEN TECHNOLOGY: Murray, Frank Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. between Aug. 26, 2005 and Nov. 14,
2006.

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

Bodisen describes itself as primarily engaged in the
development, manufacture and sales of organic fertilizers and
pesticides in the People's Republic of China.  

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
failed to disclose material information concerning the company's
relationships with Benjamin Wey, NYGG and related companies.

On Nov. 12, 2006, Bodisen issued a press release stating, among
other things, that it had received a Deficiency Letter from the
American Stock Exchange (AMEX), concerning Bodisen's
relationship with NYGG, stating that "AMEX believes that the
company made insufficient or inaccurate disclosure in its public
filings with regard to its relationship with, and payments to, a
consultancy firm and its affiliates both prior to and subsequent
to its listing on the AMEX.  

Additionally, in the context of the company's relationship with
the consultancy firm, AMEX expressed concern that the company
has internal control issues related to its accounting and
financial reporting obligations."

The Nov. 12, 2006, press release followed news reports, which
had raised concerns about the company's relationships with
Benjamin Wey and NYGG and certain of its affiliated entities.

Interested parties may no later than Jan. 15, 2007, move the
court for appointed as a lead plaintiff.

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


HANSEN NATURAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Calif. Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Hansen
Natural Corp. from March 9, 2006 through Nov. 9, 2006.

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

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

      -- that the company purposely concealed the true dates of
         stock option grants;

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- that the company lacked the necessary personnel and
         internal controls to issue accurate financial reports
         and projections; and

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On Oct. 31, 2006, Hansen shocked investors when the company
filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in which the company announced that it had received a
letter of informal inquiry from the Staff of the Pacific
Regional Office of the SEC requesting certain documents relating
to the company's past stock option grants and practices.  

On this news, shares of Hansen dropped $1.70, or 5.4 percent, to
close, on Nov. 1, 2006, at $30.05 per share.   On Nov. 6, 2006,
before the market opened, Hansen announced that the company had
appointed a special committee to undertake a special
investigation of certain option grants and reported that the
company would possibly be unable to timely announce its
financial results for the third quarter of 2006.

On this news, shares of the company's stock sank an additional
$2.42, or 8.0 percent, to close, on Nov. 6, 2006, at $27.86 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

On Nov. 9, 2006, before the market opened, Hansen announced
preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2006,
ended Oct. 31, 2006, and reported that, due to its ongoing
investigation into past stock option grants, the company would
be unable to timely file its quarterly report with the SEC.  

On this news, shares of Hansen shed an additional $4.14, or 14.3
percent, to close, on Nov. 9, 2006, at $24.88 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 29,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *