---

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

            Tuesday, December 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 246

                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Arbitration in Ga. Payday Loan Suit Continues
ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Court Mulls N.C. Lawsuits Consolidation
ADVANCE AMERICA: Discovery Ongoing in Fla. Consumer Fraud Suit
ALLIANCE IMAGING: Awaits Final Approval of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
CIGNA CORP: Settles Penna. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $93M

CYBERONICS INC: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Vagus Nerve Device
DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in S.C.
DUKE ENERGY: Parties Settle 12 Energy-Related Suits in Calif.
DUKE ENERGY: Settles Lawsuits Over NYMEX-Related Litigation
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Okays $1.5M Stock Suit Settlement

FANNIE MAE: No Class Yet in D.C. Court Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FIDELITY FEDERAL: Judge Approves Fla. DPPA Lawsuits Settlement
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Kickback Payments
G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces $5.6M Lawsuit Over Tuna Product Content
HARMONIC INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Calif. Stock Suit

HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Court Refuses to Junk FCA Lawsuit
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Court Keeps Pioneer Valley Lawsuit
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Stock Suit Dismissal Motion Ruling
INTERMIX MEDIA: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrers in Stock Suit
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Motions in Stock Suit on Dec. 18

JACKSON HEWITT: Settles Calif. Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Consumer Law Breach Suits in Ohio, W.Va.
MACATAWA BANK: Continues to Face Investor Lawsuit in Michigan
MICRISOFT CORP: N.Mex. Nonprofits, Schools Share $1.7M Windfall
NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Labor Violations Suit

NEW CENTURY: Responds to Loan Fee Fraud Lawsuits in N.D., Ind.
NEW CENTURY: Parties Reach Settlement in La. FLSA Litigation
NEW CENTURY: Seeks Transfer of FCRA Cases to Ind. Federal Court
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in La. Continues
PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.

PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Suit
REXNORD CORP: Settles Suit Related to Illinois Plant Pollution
RYLAND GROUP: Tex. Court Revives Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit
SUPER STEEL: Settles Minority Workers' Bias Lawsuit in N.Y.
TRI-S SECURITY: Faces Securities Litigation in Ga. Over IPO

WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Sauces that May Contain Glass Pieces
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Tip Sharing Policy
ZIX CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BODISEN BIOTECH: Ademi & O'Reilly Announces Stock Suit Filing
IKANOS COMMS: Yourman Alexander Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Arbitration in Ga. Payday Loan Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action "King and Strong v. Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al." that is pending
in the state Court of Cobb County, Georgia remains in
arbitration.

On Aug. 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were
customers of BankWest, the lending bank for whom the company,
marketed, processed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action against the company,
William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer, and other
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."

The suit alleges various causes of action including that the
company's Georgia subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the
state in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia
Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on
the advances that were marketed, processed and serviced for
BankWest in Georgia and the company, was the "de facto" lender.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.  

The company removed the state court action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under the caption,
"Strong v. Georgia Cash America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02611-WSD."  However, the action was remanded back to the State
Court of Cobb County in December 2005.  Thus, the action is
proceeding in state court.

The company and the other defendants denied the plaintiffs'
claims and asserted that all of the claims are subject to
mandatory and binding individual arbitration pursuant to
arbitration agreements signed by each plaintiff.

In April 2006, the State Court of Cobb County entered a consent
order, which was jointly submitted by the parties, whereby the
parties agreed and consented to arbitration of all claims raised
by plaintiffs in this action and to stay all proceedings pending
the outcome of arbitration on plaintiffs' claims.  

Plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration seeking to arbitrate
their claims in a class action or representative status.  An
arbitrator was appointed, initial briefs were filed, and oral
arguments were held regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration provision and the class action waiver contained in
the bank's consumer loan agreement.  


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Court Mulls N.C. Lawsuits Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion
to consolidate the purported class action, "Kucan et al. v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. et
al.," with two other similar cases filed in the state.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Co., the
lending bank for whom the company marketed, processed and
serviced payday cash advances in North Carolina, filed a
putative class action in the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the company and William M. Webster, IV, its chief
executive officer.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the relationship
between the company's North Carolina subsidiary and Republic was
a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore Republic was not
the "true lender" on the payday cash advances it offered.  

The lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances were made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.

It seeks an injunction barring the subsidiary from continuing to
do business in North Carolina, the return of the principal
amount of the payday cash advances made to the plaintiff class
since August 2001, the return of any interest or fees associated
with those advances, treble damages, attorneys' fees and other
unspecified costs.

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for arbitration, staying the proceedings and denying
class certification.  Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.  

The plaintiffs in this case and two other North Carolina cases
currently before the Court of Appeals filed a petition, which
the company has opposed, for discretionary review and
consolidation of the cases.  

The petition is pending, 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.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Discovery Ongoing in Fla. Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., its subsidiary
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, and certain officers,
directors and employees remain defendants in a putative class
action commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna
Reuter in Florida.

The suit was filed in February 2001 in the Circuit Court of Palm
Beach County and alleges that McKenzie, by and through the
actions of certain officers, directors and employees, engaged in
unfair and deceptive trade practices and violated Florida's
criminal usury statute, the Florida Consumer Finance Act and the
Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit, "Betts and Reuter v. McKenzie Check Advance of
Florida, LLC et al.," seeks unspecified damages, and McKenzie or
the other defendants could be required to refund fees and/or
interest collected, refund the principal amount of payday cash
advances, pay multiple damages and pay other monetary penalties.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was originally granted
as to Ms. Betts' claims but later reversed by a Florida
appellate court.  

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in April
2006, holding that the deferred presentment transactions between
Ms. Betts and the company were governed by Florida's usury laws
and not governed by the Florida Money Transmitters' Code as the
company asserted.

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court by the 4th District
Court of Appeals where discovery is now ongoing, 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.

Although this ruling by the Florida Supreme Court was adverse to
the company, it is too early in this proceeding to identify the
amount of potential losses to the company, if any, since the
case is still in its early stages and several material issues
have yet to be addressed by the courts.

Ms. Reuters' claims were subject to an arbitration agreement
contained in the contract; defendants' motion to compel
arbitration was granted by the state trial court, upheld by the
state appeals court and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court
declining to accept certiorari.

Thus, the order to compel arbitration is final as to Ms. Reuter.
The arbitration and litigation will likely proceed in parallel,
according to the company.


ALLIANCE IMAGING: Awaits Final Approval of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court has yet to grant final
approval to the settlement of a purported class action filed
against Alliance Imaging, Inc. over allegations the company
violated labor laws in its dealings with approximately 400
former and current California employees.

On May 5, 2005, the company was served with a class action
complaint.  On Aug. 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which the company answered on Sept. 23, 2005.

In this suit, "Linda S. Jones, et al. v. Alliance Imaging, Inc.,
et al.," the plaintiffs allege violations of California's wage,
meal period, and break time laws and regulations.

Plaintiffs sought recovery of unspecified economic damages,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.  On or
about March 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding a cause of action for conversion and a plea for
punitive damages.

The company filed a demurrer and motion to strike seeking to
dismiss the new claim and plea.  On July 19, 2006, the company
and the plaintiffs entered into a tentative settlement of the
class action complaint pursuant to which the company has agreed
to pay $2.5 million, which is included in other accrued
liabilities at Sept. 30, 2006, in exchange for a dismissal with
prejudice of all claims brought on behalf of the putative class
under the class action complaint.

On Sept. 8, 2006, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and a conditional class was certified for purposes of
seeking class approval of the settlement.

On Oct. 2, 2006, notice was mailed to the conditional class
members outlining the terms of the settlement and providing all
class members with an opportunity to opt out of the settlement
prior to the Nov. 27, 2006 final approval hearing.

Alliance Imaging on the Net: http://www.allianceimaging.com.


CIGNA CORP: Settles Penna. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $93M
------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (SERS),
Attorney General Tom Corbett, and governor's general counsel,
Barbara Adams, announce a $93 million settlement on behalf of a
class of all purchasers of the common stock of CIGNA Corp. from
Nov. 2, 2001 through Oct. 24, 2002.

SERS served as lead plaintiff in the suit and vigorously
prosecuted this case for the benefit of the Class during the
past four years.  The case is scheduled to go to trial in March
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

SERS' board chairman, Nicholas Maiale, and SERS' chief counsel,
Michael A. Budin, said: "we are extremely pleased with this
excellent result which will fairly compensate purchasers of
CIGNA common stock for losses suffered as a result of their
purchases during the class period."

In 2002, CIGNA and some of its officers and directors faced
numerous securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaints charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market.

According to the complaint, the company issued numerous press
releases, and filed financial reports with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, regarding its performance during the class
period which represented that the company was experiencing
strong growth, that its operating income for 2002 is expected to
be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its discontinued
reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to its
liquidity.  

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
CIGNA had been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations,
particularly for its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death
benefits (GMDB), by (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars.  

In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were
materially false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing
declining demand for its offerings, particularly in its Employee
Health Care, Life and Disability segment, and its income
guidance for 2002 was lacking in any reasonable basis when made.  

The complaint also alleges the defendants failed to disclose
computer integration problems and customer service problems
within the company's Health Care, Life and Disability segments
that forced CIGNA to grant substantial margin concessions in
order to retain aggrieved customers causing the company to
revise third quarter and full year 2002 earnings estimates.  

The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct
alleged therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on Oct. 16,
2002 did issue $250 million of 6-3/8% notes and that the
offering would have been negatively affected if the truth
regarding CIGNA's business and financial condition was known.  

On Sept. 3, 2002, after the market closed, CIGNA issued a press
release announcing that it will take a $720 million after-tax
($1.1 billion pre-tax) charge in order to manage its GMDB
liabilities, but reaffirmed its previously issued guidance for
2002.  

In response, credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor's and Fitch
reduced CIGNA's credit rating and CIGNA's stock price dropped by
6%.  Then, on Oct. 24, 2002, after the close of trading, CIGNA
shocked the market by announcing that, contrary to its recent
reaffirmations, it would not meet its 2002 earnings guidance due
to weakness in its Employee Health Care, Life and Disability
segment.  

Following the downward earnings revisions of Oct. 24, 2002,
almost 37,000,000 shares of CIGNA common stock were traded on
Oct. 25, 2002 with the price of the company's shares falling as
much as 45% from the Oct. 24, 2002 closing price of $63.60 per
share to as low as $34.70.  

The suit is "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:02-cv-08088-MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M. Baylson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick and Barbara A.
         Podell all of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000 or
         215-875-4690, Fax: 215-875-5715 or 215-875-5804 or 215-
         875-4673, E-mail: ssavett@bm.net or bpodell@bm.net;

     (2) Stephanie M. Beige, Michael S. Bigin, Brian S. Cohen,
         Jeffrey M. Haber and Timothy J. Macfall all of
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, E-
         mail: beige@bernlieb.com or bigin@bernlieb.com or
         haber@bernlieb.com; and

     (3) Keith M. Fleischman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
         Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York,
         NY 10119.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) John G. Harkins, Jr. and Eleanor Morris Illoway both of
         Harkins Cunningham, 2800 One Commerce Square, 2005
         Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042, Phone: 215-
         851-6700, Fax: 215-851-6710, E-mail:
         jharkins@harkinscunningham.com or
         emi@harkinscunningham.com; and

     (2) David M. Morris and Alexander R. Sussman both of Fried
         Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, One New York Plaza,
         New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-859-8204 or 212-859-
         8005, Fax: 212-859-4000, E-mail: sussmal@ffhsj.com.


CYBERONICS INC: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Vagus Nerve Device
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberonics Inc. faces a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accusing it of fraud in
selling an experimental, surgically implanted Vagus Nerve
Stimulation System for managing depression, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The purported class includes all individuals in the U.S. who
have undergone surgical implantation and implementation of VNS
Therapy after being promised that the devise will alleviate and
manage their clinical depression, but were allegedly misled.

Named plaintiffs Diane and Keith Williams allege "this costly,
risky and virtually irreversibly implanted product has nothing
more than a placebo effect at best, and is totally inoperative
at worst."

They claim Houston-based Cyberonics "misled, misrepresented and
fraudulently induced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
approve VNS Therapy without sufficient reliable scientific or
medical data," and that about 2,000 people have had the device
implanted.

The device delivers electric pulses to the vagus nerve in the
neck and is supposed to help people whose deep depression has
resisted chemical and talk therapies.

The Williamses claim "the two clinical studies or trials (whose
results Cyberonics submitted to the FDA for approval) were
conducted either with no control group or, in the case of 235
patients, in which the device had been implanted, where only
half were turned on, the results did not produce statistically
significant results between the two groups."

There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the
class, which are substantially similar and predominate over the
questions affecting the individual class members.  Among these
common questions of law and fact are:

     -- whether there is definable and reliable medical research
        to permit VNS Therapy to be marketed and sold as a long-
        term solution for treatment-resistant depression;

     -- whether the intended use of defendant's product and its
        effect on patients suffering from treatment-resistant
        depression was fraudulently misrepresented to class
        members inducing them to expend substantial monies,
        consent to surgical procedures and rely on the efficacy
        of VNS Therapy;

     -- whether the risks, side effects and adverse reactions
        were downplayed by defendant either intentionally or in
        reckless disregard of class members' health and
        financial circumstances;

     -- whether VNS Therapy was entirely ineffective for its
        marketed intended use and in may cases, inoperative
        altogether;

     -- whether defendant owed a duty to plaintiff and class
        members to provide a safe, reliable and effective
        product that subjected them to surgical intervention and
        irreversible consequences;

     -- whether defendant misled, misrepresented and
        fraudulently induced the FDA to approve VNS Therapy,
        without sufficient reliable scientific or medical data;

     -- whether defendant misrepresented the likelihood of
        success in obtaining insurance coverage for VNS Therapy
        to patients who could not afford the substantial costs
        of undergoing and maintaining themselves on VNS Therapy;
        and

     -- whether defendant misrepresented material facts about
        its product.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in her favor
and against defendant as:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action
        maintainable under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure; certifying the class; certifying the
        plaintiff as class representative; and appointing
        plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- that defendants be required to make restitution to each
        plaintiff and class member of any and all money or
        property paid or owing by that plaintiff and class
        member;

     -- awarding compensatory damages for any non-economic
        damages suffered by each plaintiff and class member;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class punitive damages in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- for determination by the court of the most suitable mode
        by which class members are to come forward, identify
        themselves, and prove their entitlement to share in the
        total sum awarded by the court for actual, statutory and
        punitive damages;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment and post
        judgment interest as provided by law;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their costs of suit
        herein incurred; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class such other and further
        relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Williams et al. v. Cyberonics, Inc., Case No. 2:06-
cv-05361-AB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Anita B. Brody.

Representing plaintiffs are Elliot Hillel Lewis and Norman
Perlberger both of Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis, LLP, 700
Stephen Girard Building, 21 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA
19107, Phone: 215-569-8866, Fax: 215-568-6511, E-mail:
ehl@pomerantzperlberger.com or perlberglaw@aol.com.


DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. remains a defendant in a lawsuit alleging
discrimination and violation of pension laws in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court in South Carolina,
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.

Allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Age
Discrimination in Employment Act violations against Duke Energy
and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan arose out of
the conversion of the Duke Energy Co. Employees' Retirement Plan
into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  

The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging
errors in the application of Plan provisions (e.g., the
calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the
calculation of lump-sum distributions).

Plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants in
the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.  They also
seek to divide the putative class into sub-classes based on age.

Six causes of action are alleged, ranging from age
discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.  

Plaintiffs seek a broad array of remedies, including a
retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries'
benefits under the revised and reformed plan.

Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006.

The suit is "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed in the
U.S. District Court of South Carolina under Judge Henry F.
Floyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James Robinson Gilreath of Gilreath Law Firm, P.O. Box
         2147, Greenville, SC 29602, Phone: 864-242-4727, Fax:
         864-232-4395, E-mail: jim@gilreathlaw.com;

     (2) Cheryl F. Perkins of Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young,
         LLC, P.O. Box 8086, Columbia, SC 29202, Phone: 803-799-
         9400, Fax: 803-799-2017, E-mail:
         cperkins@attorneyssc.com; and

     (3) Mona Lisa Wallace of Wallace and Graham, 525 North Main
         Street, Salisbury, NC 28144, Phone: 704-633-5244, Fax:
         704-633-9434, E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com.


DUKE ENERGY: Parties Settle 12 Energy-Related Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. and several of its affiliates, as well as
other energy companies, settled 12 class actions pending in
California, 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.

Defendants were named as parties to 34 lawsuits filed by or on
behalf of electricity and/or natural gas purchasers in several
Western states.

Many of the suits seek class-action certification.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to manipulate
the electricity and/or natural gas markets in violation of state
and/or federal antitrust, unfair business practices and other
laws. Plaintiffs in some of the cases further allege that such
activities, including engaging in "round trip" trades, providing
false information to natural gas trade publications and
unlawfully exchanging information, resulted in artificially
high-energy prices.

Plaintiffs seek aggregate damages or restitution of billions of
dollars from the defendants.  Six of these cases were dismissed
on filed rate and/or federal preemption grounds, and the
plaintiffs in each of these dismissed cases have appealed their
respective rulings to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

In September 2006, Duke Energy reached an agreement in principle
to settle the 12 class actions pending in California.  Such
agreement is subject to execution of mutually acceptable
agreements and approval by the class members and the court.


DUKE ENERGY: Settles Lawsuits Over NYMEX-Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, along with other
entities, settled three class actions filed in the beginning
August 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of entities who bought and sold natural
gas futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX) during the years 2000 through 2002.  

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the Commodity
Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading
information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses
to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek class action certification, unspecified damages
and other relief.

On Sept. 24, 2004, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims filed on behalf of Duke Energy and other
defendants, and on Sept. 30, 2005, the court certified the
class.

The company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in
these consolidated cases to resolve all issues and on Feb. 8,
2006, the court granted preliminary approval of this settlement.  
The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal were entered in May
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.

The suit is "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero and
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
         (415)-398-8700;

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com;

     (3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
         Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900; and

     (4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,     
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280.

Representing the defendants is Robert A. Jaffe of Kutak, Rock,
L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 922-
9155; and Gregory Copeland, Holly Roberts, J. Michael Baldwin,
Baker Botts, L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX
07002, Phone: (713) 229-1234.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Okays $1.5M Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
given preliminary approval to a $1.5 million settlement of a
securities fraud lawsuit filed against Dynacq Healthcare Inc.

In the second quarter of 2004, eight class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
alleging federal securities law causes of action against the
company and various current and former officers and directors.

The plaintiffs were persons who purchased shares of the
company's common stock on the open market generally during the
period of Jan. 14, 2003 through Dec. 18, 2003.  Under the
procedures of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs
in the matter.

An amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2004, asserting a
class period of Nov. 27, 2002, through Dec. 19, 2003 and naming
additional defendants, including Ernst & Young, LLP, the
company's prior auditors.

The amended complaint sought certification as a class action and
alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a),
20(A), and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act by publishing
materially misleading financial statements that did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results, and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of Dynacq's stock.

After the company filed its Form 10-K for fiscal 2003 on July
30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on Sept. 30, 2004.  All defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed two of the former officers from the case.  The Court
dismissed the claims against one former officer and Ernst &
Young, LLP, but denied the motions to dismiss the company and
two current officers who are defendants.

                      Settlement Agreement

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in
August 2006 for $1.5 million, and on Oct. 10, 2006 the parties
signed a Stipulation of Settlement setting forth the terms of
their proposed settlement of the action.  The settlement
provides for Dynacq to pay $100,000 within 30 days of final
approval of the settlement by the court and to issue a note for
$1.4 million to be paid in 36 equal monthly installments
beginning 30 days thereafter.

The note shall bear interest at 6% per annum and be secured by a
deed of trust on the Garland Facility.  As a result of this
settlement, the Co. recorded a $1.5 million charge to operations
during 2006.  

The settlement contains provisions releasing the company, its
two executive officers named as defendants and its subsidiaries
from liability and prohibiting the filing of any future claims
by the members of the class relating to this matter.  Dynacq and
its current and former officers and directors did not admit
liability or fault for the matters alleged in the lawsuit.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court signed an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, preliminarily certifying the class,
and approving the form and substance of the notice to class
members.

              January 10 Final Settlement Hearing

A settlement hearing will be held on Jan. 10, 2007 to determine
(a) whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and
should be approved by the court; (b) whether an Order of Final
Judgment and Dismissal should be entered; and (c) whether the
Fee and Expense Application of plaintiffs' counsel should be
approved.

The suit is "Simons v. Dynacq Healthcare, et al., Case No. 4:03-
cv-05825," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Theodore C. Anderson of Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC, 3109   
         Carlisle, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214-969-9099,   
         Fax: 214-953-0133;  

     (2) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000   
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-  
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:   
         tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (3) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter, LLP, 830 Apollo   
         Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-  
         907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com;

     (4) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main  
         Street, 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-  
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:   
         jirvine@porterhedges.com;

     (5) Andrew J. Mytelka of Greer Herz & Adams, One Moody   
         Plz., 18th Fl., Galveston, TX 77550, Phone: 409-797-  
         3200, Fax: 409-766-6424;  

     (6) Andrew M. Schatz of Schatz & Noble, PC, 20 Church St.,  
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292;   

     (7) David R. Scott of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave., P.O.  
         Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,   
         Fax: 860-537-4432; and  

     (8) Andy Wade Tindel of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 112  
         E. Line St., Ste. 304, Tyler, TX 75702, Phone: 903-596-  
         0900, Fax: 903-596-0909, E-mail:   
         atindel@andytindel.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Mark K. Glasser of King & Spalding, 1100 Louisiana,   
         Ste. 4000, Houston, TX 77002-5213, Phone: 713-751-3200,   
         Fax: 713-751-3290; and    

    (ii) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main   
         St., 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-  
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:  
         jirvine@porterhedges.com.


FANNIE MAE: No Class Yet in D.C. Court Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in the consolidated securities
fraud suit filed against Federal National Mortgage Association
remains pending in federal court in the District of Columbia,
according to the company's recent regulatory filing.

Beginning on Sept. 23, 2004, 13 separate complaints were filed
by holders of the company's securities against us, as well as
certain of the company's former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and other courts.

The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of
Fannie Mae securities between April 17, 2001 and Sept. 21, 2004.  

The complaints alleged that the company and certain of the
company's officers, including Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material facts in violation of the federal
securities laws.

Plaintiffs' claims were based on findings contained in Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's September 2004 interim
report regarding its findings to that date in its special
examination of the company's accounting policies, practices and
controls.

All of the cases were consolidated and/or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2005 against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer.  The court entered an order naming as
lead plaintiffs:

     * the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, and
     * State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio

The consolidated complaint generally made the same allegations
as the individually-filed complaints, which is that the company
and certain of the company's former officers made false and
misleading statements in violation of the federal securities
laws in connection with certain accounting policies and
practices.

More specifically, the consolidated complaint alleged that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
largely with respect to accounting statements that were
inconsistent with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principle
requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization
of premiums and discounts.

Plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock.  
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other
fees and costs.  Discovery commenced in this action following
the denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss on Feb. 10,
2006.

              Motion to Extend Class Period Filed

On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed an amended consolidated complaint against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, that added purchasers of publicly
traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put options
to the putative class and sought to extend the end of the
putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005.

We and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss
addressing the extended class period and the deficiency of the
additional accounting allegations.  On Aug. 14, 2006, while
those motions were still pending, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint adding:

     * KPMG LLP, and
     * Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc.

as additional defendants and adding allegations based on the May
2006 report issued by OFHEO and the February 2006 report issued
by Paul Weiss.  the company's answer to the second amended
complaint is due to be filed on Jan. 8, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification on May 17, 2006 that is still
pending, according to the company's recent regulatory filing.

                  Individual Securities Cases

In addition, two individual securities cases have been filed by
institutional investor shareholders in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The first case was filed on Jan.
17, 2006 by:

     -- Evergreen Equity Trust,
     -- Evergreen Select Equity Trust,
     -- Evergreen Variable Annuity Trust, and
     -- Evergreen International Trust

against the company and current and former officers and
directors: Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy Howard, Leanne
Spencer, Thomas P. Gerrity, Anne M. Mulcahy, Frederick V. Malek,
Taylor Segue, III, William Harvey, Joe K. Pickett, Victor Ashe,
Stephen B. Ashley, Molly Bordonaro, Kenneth M. Duberstein, Jamie
Gorelick, Manuel Justiz, Ann McLaughlin Korologos, Donald B.
Marron, Daniel H. Mudd, H. Patrick Swygert and Leslie Rahl.

The second individual securities case was filed on Jan. 25, 2006
by:

     * 25 affiliates of Franklin Templeton Investments

against us, KPMG LLP, and current and former officers and
directors: Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy Howard, Leanne
Spencer, Thomas P. Gerrity, Anne M. Mulcahy, Frederick V. Malek,
Taylor Segue, III, William Harvey, Joe K. Pickett, Victor Ashe,
Stephen B. Ashley, Molly Bordonaro, Kenneth M. Duberstein, Jamie
Gorelick, Manuel Justiz, Ann McLaughlin Korologos, Donald B.
Marron, Daniel H. Mudd, H. Patrick Swygert and Leslie Rahl.

The two related individual securities actions assert various
federal and state securities law and common law claims against
the company and certain of the company's current and former
officers and directors based upon essentially the same alleged
conduct as that at issue in the consolidated shareholder class
action, and also assert insider trading claims against certain
former officers.  Both cases seek compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs.  In
addition, the Evergreen plaintiffs seek an award of treble
damages under state law.

On June 29, 2006 and then again on Aug. 14 and 15, 2006, the
individual securities plaintiffs filed first amended complaints
and then second amended complaints seeking to address certain of
the arguments made by the defendants in their original motions
to dismiss and adding additional allegations regarding improper
accounting practices.  

On Aug. 17, 2006, the company filed motions to dismiss certain
claims and allegations of the individual securities plaintiffs'
second amended complaints.  The individual plaintiffs seek to
proceed independently of the potential class of shareholders in
the consolidated shareholder class action, but the court has
consolidated these cases as part of the consolidated shareholder
class action for pretrial purposes and possibly through final
judgment.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.  
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District  
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.
  
Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:  

      (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,  
          (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
          617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
          info@bermanesq.com;
  
      (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite  
          500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:  
          202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
          lawinfo@cmht.com; and
  
      (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513  
          Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,  
          Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax:
          513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com.


FIDELITY FEDERAL: Judge Approves Fla. DPPA Lawsuits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Hurley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida accepted a settlement for two purported
class actions filed against Fidelity Federal Bank over
allegations of Driver's Privacy Protection Act violations, the
South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

On July 26, 2006, Fidelity Federal entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs in the class actions:  

      -- "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust," and  
       
      -- "Timothy Neilsen and Timothy G. Martin vs. Fidelity
          Federal Bank & Trust."  

On July 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida entered an order preliminarily approving the
class action settlement.  The court set Dec. 7, 2006 as the
final hearing date to approve the settlement agreement (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2006).

The suits allege that the company violated DPPA by obtaining
driver registration information from the State of Florida for
use in its marketing efforts (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2,
2006).   

Under the settlement, the company did not admit any liability or
fault, but agreed to the certification of a conditional
settlement class, solely for settlement purposes.  The agreement
is subject to preliminary and final court approval.

Payout to each eligible claimant is not to exceed $160.  
Fidelity Federal has agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
not more than $10,000,000 plus reasonable expenses of not more
than $120,000.

Fidelity Federal will pay class representative James Kehoe not
more than $10,000, and class representatives Timothy Neilsen and
Timothy G. Martin not more than $3,000 each for their
participation.  

Additionally, Fidelity Federal has agreed to certain injunctive
relief, including certifying that Fidelity Federal did not keep
or maintain any data obtained from the State of Florida,
providing that Fidelity Federal shall not disclose or sell any
such data, and agreeing to a privacy audit, the cost of which
shall not exceed $25,000.

Fidelity Federal's total costs and expense, including the
payments to class members, cannot exceed $50 million.

The suit is "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Paul Geller of The Law Offices of
Paul S. Geller, 225 S. Lake Ave., 10th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 792-2280, Fax (626) 792-2282; or The Watt Plaza,
1875 Century Park East, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA  90067,
Phone: (310) 491-7885.

Representing the defendants is L. Louis Mrachek of Page,
Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose, P.A., Suite 600, 505 S.Flagler Dr.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, Phone: (561) 355-6970, Fax:
(561) 655-5537, E-mail: lmrachek@pm-law.com, Web site:
http://www.pm-law.com.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Kickback Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gutride Safier LLP initiated a class action in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Franklin/Templeton Mutual Funds between Jan. 1,
2000 and Nov. 14, 2004.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Franklin Resources, Inc.,
     -- Franklin Advisers, Inc. and
     -- Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc.

The complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by paying kickbacks to broker/dealers who sold
Franklin/Templeton Mutual Funds.

The complaint asserts that defendants made false and misleading
statements in mutual fund prospectuses and other documents by
concealing the existence of the kickback arrangement.

According to the suit, the defendants illegally used investor
assets to pay the kickbacks.  The complaint asserts violations
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and other laws.

Some of the defendants were previously sued by the California
attorney general who stated that "the payments are little more
than kickbacks to buy preferential treatment.  Investors deserve
to know that."


G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces $5.6M Lawsuit Over Tuna Product Content
------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. announced that a purported
class action had been filed against it over allegations that it
misled customers by reducing the content in its tuna containers,
and then charging its customers the same price as before.

The complaint, if recognized as a class action, alleges damages
of approximately $5.6 million, including $2.8 million for return
of the overcharge and $2.8 million for additional compensation.

The company believes that the complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the litigation.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. -- http://www.willi-food.co.il
-- is one of Israel's largest food importers and a single-source
supplier of one of the world's most extensive ranges of quality
kosher food products.  It currently imports, markets and
distributes more than 400 food products manufactured by some 100
top-tier suppliers throughout the world to more than 1,000
customers.  The company excels in identifying changing tastes in
its markets and sourcing high-quality kosher products to address
them.


HARMONIC INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated securities class action against
Harmonic, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint on
the issues remanded for further proceedings by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Between June 28 and Aug. 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities were filed in or removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions subsequently were consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on Dec. 7, 2000, was brought on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Harmonic's
publicly traded securities between Jan. 19 and
June 26, 2000.  It alleged claims on behalf of a purported
subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities between
Jan. 19 and May 3, 2000.

In addition to the company and certain of its officers and
directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and
several of its officers and directors as defendants.  The
complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its acquisition
of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).

The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated
section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or
misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy
in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint with leave to amend.  An amended complaint alleging
the same claims against the same defendants was filed on Aug.
13, 2001.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 24,
2001.  On Nov. 13, 2002, the District Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend.  Judgment for defendants was entered on
Dec. 2, 2002.

On Dec. 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to
Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 6, 2003, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.  A panel of
three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit heard the appeal on Feb. 17, 2005.  On Nov. 8,
2005, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded for further proceedings the decision of the
District Court.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead their allegations of fraud.  The
Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did not
allege fraud and therefore were subject to only minimal pleading
standards.

Regarding the secondary liability claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of that
claim against Anthony J. Ley, the company's chairman and chief
executive officer, and affirmed the dismissal of that claim
against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend.  The Ninth
Circuit remanded the surviving claims to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On Nov. 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the
plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing of the
appeal.  On Feb. 16, 2006 the Ninth Circuit denied both
petitions.

On May 17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on the
issues remanded for further proceedings by the Ninth Circuit, to
which the Harmonic defendants responded on with a Motion to
Dismiss.  Briefing on the motion was completed in August 2006.  
There will be no hearing unless the Court requests one.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Court Refuses to Junk FCA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas refused to dismiss an amended complaint filed by Funeral
Consumers Alliance Inc. against three national funeral home
businesses, including Hillenbrand Industries Inc.

On May 2, 2005, non-profit entity FCA Inc. and several
individual consumers filed a purported class action antitrust
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against:

     -- Service Corp. International (SCI),

     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc., and

     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc. together with Hillenbrand
        Industries and its Batesville Casket Co., Inc.
        Subsidiary.

This lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to suppress competition in an
alleged market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
of so-called "independent casket discounters," that is, third
party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed funeral homes; a
campaign of disparagement against these independent casket
discounters; and concerted efforts to restrict casket price
competition and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
violation of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

It claimed, among other things, that Batesville's maintenance
and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to, its long-
standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral
homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville, the
other defendants and others to exclude "independent casket
discounters" and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors,
York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Co., are co-conspirators but
did not name them as defendants.  The FCA Action also alleged
that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators
conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the sale of
caskets in the U.S.
  
After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
actions on behalf of consumers were filed based on essentially
the same factual allegations and alleging violations of federal
antitrust law and/or related state law claims.  
  
Batesville, the company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court permitted the
plaintiffs to re-plead the complaint and later granted
defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
  
On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the same basic
allegations as the original FCA complaint.  The only other then
remaining purported consumer class action, "Fancher v. SCI et
al.," was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff
after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

                   New Purported Class Action

On Oct. 26, 2006, however, a new purported class action was
filed by the estates of:

     * Dale Van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley, Candace D.
       Robinson, Personal Representative, consumer plaintiffs,

against Batesville and Hillenbrand Industries in the Western
District of Oklahoma alleging violation of the antitrust laws in
14 states based on allegations that Batesville engaged in
conduct designed to foreclose competition and gain a monopoly
position in the market. This lawsuit is largely based on similar
factual allegations to the FCA Action.

The company intends to move to transfer this case to the
Southern District of Texas in order to coordinate this action
with the FCA Action.

                       Purported Classes

The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all U.S. consumers who purchased Batesville caskets
from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time during
the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations.

The Fancher plaintiffs sought certification of a broader class:
all U.S. consumers and entities who purchased Batesville caskets
from any source at any time during the fullest period permitted
by the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs generally seek actual unspecified monetary damages,
trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of
attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the district court denied Batesville's,
Hillenbrand's, and other defendants' November 2005 motions to
dismiss the amended FCA complaint.

A scheduling hearing occurred on Dec. 6, 2005.  As a result, the
Class Certification hearing was scheduled to occur from Dec. 4-
7, 2006.  No update regarding the matter is available at this
point.  The trial in the FCA matter is scheduled to begin on or
about Feb. 4, 2008.

The suit is "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc et al. v. Service
Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Jonathan S. Abady of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff, 545
          Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-763-5000,
          Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com; and

      (2) Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste.
          750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028, Fax:
          865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com;

Representing the defendants are:

      (i) John F. Cove, Jr. and Richard Bruce Drubel, Jr. of
          Boies Schiller Flexner, Phone: 510-874-1000 and 603-
          643-9090, Fax: 510-874-1460 and 603-643-9010, E-mail:
          jcove@bsfllp.com; and

     (ii) Kenneth S. Marks of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 1000
          Louisiana, Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone:
          713-946-9567, Fax: 713-654-6666.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Court Keeps Pioneer Valley Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern District of Texas denied motions by Hillenbrand
Industries Inc. and Batesville Casket Co., Inc. to dismiss an
amended antitrust complaint filed against them on behalf of a
purported class of independent casket distributors.

On July 8, 2005 Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, filed a purported class action
against Batesville, Hillenbrand, Service Corp. International,
Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. in the
Northern District of California on behalf of the class of
"independent casket distributors."

The complaint alleges violations of state and federal antitrust
law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws based on
essentially the same factual allegations as in the consumer
cases.  Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent
casket distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged
conspiracy to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged
market for caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI,
Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to
monopolize the alleged market for caskets.

Plaintiff Pioneer Valley seeks certification of a class of all
independent casket distributors who are now in business or have
been in business since July 8, 2001.  Pioneer Valley generally
seeks actual unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class, trebling of any such damages that may be
awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive
relief.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was transferred to the Southern
District of Texas but was not consolidated with the action,
""Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service Corp.
International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,," although the scheduling
orders for both cases are identical.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied Hillenbrand's and
Batesville's December 2005 motions to dismiss the amended
Pioneer Valley complaint.  The class certification hearing in
the Pioneer Valley case was scheduled on or about Dec. 7-8,
2006.  No update on this matter is available.

The company said that if a class is certified in any of the
antitrust cases filed against Hillenbrand and Batesville and if
plaintiffs in any such case prevail at trial, potential trebled
damages awarded to the plaintiffs could have a significant
material adverse effect on the company's results of operations,
financial condition, and/or liquidity.

The suit is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com;

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

     (3) Christine G. Pedigo of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran,
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-398-8700, Fax: 415-398-8704.

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


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Stock Suit Dismissal Motion Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, who heard
arguments on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud
class action against Hutchinson Technology, Inc. in October, has
yet to issue a ruling on the matter.

The company and six of its present executive officers, two of
which are directors, were named as defendants in a Consolidated  
Complaint filed by several investors on May 1, 2006.  

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons, except the defendants, who purchased
company stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004 and Aug.
29, 2005.   

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company, and the business
and prospects, in press releases and the U.S. Securities and  
Exchange Commission filings during the class period, and that
the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated as a result.  

Additionally, the consolidated complaint also alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange  
Act of 1934, as amended.   

It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in
an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation, and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.  

On June 30, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the  
Consolidated Complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was heard by the Court on Oct. 27, 2006.  
As of Dec. 1, 2006, the Court had not yet ruled on the motion.

The suit is "In re Hutchinson Technologies Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-02095-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick  
J. Schiltz with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: 631-454-7722, E-mail:
         malba@lerachlaw.com;  

     (2) Gregg M. Fishbein of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP, 100  
         Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-
         2179, Phone: (612) 339-6900, Fax: (612) 339-0981, E-
         mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com; and  

     (3) Sharon M. Lee of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP,
         1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10019,  
         US, Phone: 212-631-8605, E-mail:  
         smlee@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants is Ahna M. Thoresen of Faegre &  
Benson, LLP, 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
3901, Phone: 612-766-7000, Fax: 612-766-1600, E-mail:
athoresen@faegre.com.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrers in Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles has
sustained without leave to amend, the demurrers filed by
defendants in the consolidated class action that named Intermix
Media, Inc. as one of the defendants.

Shareholders who filed two class actions against officers who
oppose the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of
News Corp., recently filed a consolidated amended complaint.    

                        Case Background

On Aug. 26, 2005 and Aug. 30, 2005, these purported class
actions were filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Los Angeles:

      -- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and

      -- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."

Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent
members of the Intermix Media Board, including Mr. Rosenblatt,
Intermix' former chief executive officer, and certain entities
affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former major
Intermix stockholder.

The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive and
approving the related merger agreement, the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix stockholders by,
among other things, engaging in self-dealing and failing to
obtain the highest price reasonably available for Intermix and
its stockholders.

The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own interests.  The Fox
Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated and, on Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, known as "Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation."  

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various forms
of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs.

The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all
claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were
heard by the court on July 6, 2006.  

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave
to amend, according to News Corp.'s Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Motions in Stock Suit on Dec. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
is set to hear all motions in a purported securities class
action against several former officers and directors of Intermix
Media, Inc. on Dec. 18, 2006.

The suit, "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed on
June 14, 2006.  In it, plaintiff asserts claims for alleged
violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as
control person liability under Section 20a.  

Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants disseminated false and
misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions:

     -- on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder
        vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and
        ratification of financing transactions with certain
        entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former
        large stockholder of Intermix; and

     -- on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote
        on the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of
        News Corp.

The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related
entities and the members of the Intermix Board who were
incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements.

Intermix is not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity
obligations to the former officer and director defendants in
connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity
obligations to the investment banks as well.  

After conferring with defendants concerning deficiencies in the
amended complaint pursuant to local rule and entering a
stipulation with defendants regarding a briefing schedule,
plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006.

On Oct. 19, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims
in the second amended complaint.  These motions will be heard on
Dec. 18, 2006, according to News Corp.'s Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-03731-JFW-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter with
referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christy W. Goodman of Goodman
Sheridan and Roff, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350, San Diego, CA
92101, US, Phone: 619-241-4860, E-mail: cgoodman@gsrllp.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Moriarty of Hogan and Hartson, 1999 Avenue
         of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310-785-4600, E-mail: eamoriarty@hhlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.hhlaw.com;ands

     (2) Stephen M. Knaster of Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe,
         Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759, Web
         site: http://www.orrick.com.


JACKSON HEWITT: Settles Calif. Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. reached settlement of a
purported class action filed against it in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California over Refund Anticipation
Loans.

On Dec. 23, 2005, Pierre Brailsford and Kevin Gilmore brought a
purported class action against the company in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County in connection with disclosures
made in connection with the provision of RALs.  

Plaintiffs are alleging that the disclosures and related
practices are fraudulent and otherwise unlawful, and seeking
equitable and monetary relief.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Pursuant to court rules, on Nov. 15, 2006, the parties proceeded
to mediation.  At mediation, the parties agreed on preliminary
settlement terms, subject to, among other things, agreement upon
final terms, the execution of definitive documentation and court
approval.

The suit is "Brailsford, et al. v. Hewitt, et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-00700-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kathryn Chris Palamountain of
Chavez & Gertler, LLP, 42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941,
Phone: 415-381-5599, Fax: 415-381-5572, E-mail:
chris@chavezgertler.com.

Representing the defendants is Joren Surya Bass of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, 4 Embarcadero Center, Ste.
3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-984-6400, Fax: 415-
984-2698, E-mail: jbass@skadden.com.


JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Consumer Law Breach Suits in Ohio, W.Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is facing two purported class
actions over alleged violations of Ohio and West Virginia's
Credit Service Organization Act.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, in connection with an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division.  

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of West Virginia, for an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, for breach of West Virginia's Credit Service
Organization Act, for breach of contract, and for unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, and seeking damages.


MACATAWA BANK: Continues to Face Investor Lawsuit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Macatawa Bank Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan.

As amended, the suit alleges that former Grand Bank, which the
company acquired effective April 1, 2002, breached escrow
agreements and fiduciary duties and violated the Michigan
Uniform Securities Act with respect to the investments secured
by the purported class in viaticals and in interests in limited
partnerships which made loans to Trade Partners secured by
viaticals, and with respect to loans made by purported class
members directly to Trade Partners.

The company has answered the complaint denying the material
allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses.

Management believes the company has strong defenses and will
vigorously defend the case.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


MICRISOFT CORP: N.Mex. Nonprofits, Schools Share $1.7M Windfall
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 33 New Mexico non-profit organizations and charter schools
will receive a total of $1.7 million from the settlement of an
antitrust class action against Microsoft Corp., The New Mexico
Business Weekly reports.

The settlement money is earmarked for the purchase of computer
hardware and software.  Many organizations are expected to
receive the funds soon.

The settlement stems from a 1998 antitrust suit, filed by the
U.S. Department of Justice and 20 states, including New Mexico,
alleging that Microsoft Corp. unlawfully used anti-competitive
measures to obtain a monopoly on software.  

The class action claimed that the Redmond, Washington-based firm
overcharged New Mexico consumers who licensed its MS-DOS,
Windows, Word, Excel, and Office software.

In December 2004, the suit was settled with New Mexico receiving
a total of $2.7 million.  Roughly $1 million was awarded to
education and the rest went to the non-profit organizations and
charter schools.

Among the entities receiving funds are 18 domestic violence
shelters around the state.  Other organizations receiving funds
include the Storehouse in Albuquerque, which is receiving
$15,000 in vouchers to automate their inventory of food and
goods to streamline its distribution process.  

The Walatowa High Charter School in the Jemez Pueblo is also a
recipient of the money being distributed.  The school is
planning on using its $40,000 vouchers to establish a lab where
students will learn the art of film production.  It hopes to get
more students interested in working in the film industry.


NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Labor Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action alleging state
labor law violations filed against New Century Financial Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former employee of the company
filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, alleging failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and that the company engaged in
unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor
Code.  The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company was served on March 22, 2005.  The company filed a
motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint in May 2005.  On
July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted the
motion to strike.   

The amended complaint was filed in July 2005 and the company
filed its answer in August 2005.  In December 2005, the company
filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint, which was
granted in its favor.

In July 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that
alleges failure to pay overtime wages (under state and federal
law), failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting time
penalties and improper deductions and record keeping.

The second amended complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages,
interest, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs and
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.  There are 1,349
putative class members.  

In August 2006, New Century Mortgage successfully removed the
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, 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.

Discovery is ongoing, 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 is "Daniel J Rubio v. New Century Mortgage Corp. et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00811-CJC-AJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac
J. Carney with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670
         Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
         Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com; and

     (2) James M. Trush of Trush Law Offices, 1920 Main Street,
         Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-581-9090, E-
         mail: jtrush@earthlink.net.

Representing the defendants is Greg S. Labate of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor, Costa Mesa,
CA 92626-1993, Phone: 714-513-5100, Fax: 714-513-5130.


NEW CENTURY: Responds to Loan Fee Fraud Lawsuits in N.D., Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action pending against
New Century Mortgage Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana over mortgage loans.

The suit alleges that the company violated the Indiana High Cost
Loan Act by allegedly making loans with fees greater than
permitted by law unless certain disclosures are made.  

Patricia and Stephen Jeppesen filed the suit in October 2005 on
behalf of all persons who obtained a mortgage loan from the
company after Jan. 1, 2005 on their principal residence in
Indiana.  

A second claim in the complaint alleges that the company
improperly charged a document preparation fee.  The class also
consists of all persons in Indiana who paid a document
preparation fee to the company in the six years prior to the
filing of the complaint.  The complaint seeks statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, restitution and other relief.

In December 2005, the company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike
certain affirmative defenses.

In July 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
and the company waits a ruling on the motion.  Discovery is
ongoing, 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 is "Jeppesen et al v. New Century Mortgage Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00372-RL-PRC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, under Judge Rudy
Lozano.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman and Heather A.
Piccirilli, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, 120 S LaSalle
Street Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, phone: 312-739-4200, Fax:
312-419-0379, E-mail: CourtECL@aol.com or
hpiccirilli@edcombs.com.  

Representing the company are Richard E Gottlieb and Arthur F.
Radke, Dykema Gossett Rooks Pitts PLLC, 10 South Wacker Drive
Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-627-2196, Fax: 312-
627-2302, E-mail: rgottlieb@dykema.com or aradke@dykema.com.


NEW CENTURY: Parties Reach Settlement in La. FLSA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached and has now been finalized in the
collective action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana against New Century Financial Corp.
and New Century Mortgage over allegations of Fair Labor
Standards Act violations.

In April 2003, two former, short-term employees, Kimberly A.
England and Gregory M. Foshee, filed a complaint seeking class-
action status against the New Century Entities, Worth Funding,
Inc., now known as New Century Credit Corp., and The Anyloan Co.
now known as Home123 Corp.

The action was removed on May 12, 2003 from the 19th Judicial
District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
in response to the New Century Entities', Worth's and Anyloan's
Petition for Removal.  

The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime wages in violation
of FLSA.  Plaintiffs filed an additional action in 19th Judicial
District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana on Sept.
18, 2003, adding James Gray as a plaintiff and seeking unpaid
wages under state law, with no class claims.

This second action was removed on Oct. 3, 2003 to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, and was
ordered consolidated with the first action.  In April 2004, the
U.S. District Court unilaterally de-consolidated the James Gray
individual action.  

In September 2003, plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss
their claims in Louisiana to enable them to join in a
subsequently filed case in Minnesota entitled, "Klas vs. New
Century Financial Corp., et al."

The New Century Entities, Worth and Anyloan opposed the motion
and the court agreed with their position and refused to dismiss
the plaintiffs' case, as it was filed first.  

The Klas case was consolidated with this case and discovery is
proceeding.  The New Century Entities, Worth and Anyloan filed a
motion to dismiss Worth and Anyloan as defendants.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss in April 2004.

On June 28, 2004, the New Century Entities filed a motion to
reject conditional certification of a collective action.  The
New Century Entities' motion to reject the class was granted on
June 30, 2005.  

Plaintiffs had 30 days to file individual actions against the
New Century Entities, and approximately 450 actions were filed.

A settlement has now been agreed upon, finalized and approved by
the court.  The case was dismissed with prejudice on Aug. 23,
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.   

The suit is "England v. New Century Financial Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-00490-FJP-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Stanley P. Baudin, Christopher
L. Coffin and Patrick Wayne Pendley of Pendley Law Firm, P.O.
Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St., Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071, Phone:
225-687-6396, Fax: 225-687-6398, E-mail:
sbaudin@pendleylawfirm.com, ccoffin@pendleylawfirm.com or
pwpendley@pendleylawfirm.com.


NEW CENTURY: Seeks Transfer of FCRA Cases to Ind. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a Multi-District Litigation petition to
transfer a class action against New Century Mortgage Corp.,
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

In April 2005, Perrie Bonner and Darrell Bruce filed the suit
against the company and Home123 Corp.  It claimed that the
defendants accessed consumer credit reports without
authorization because the prescreened offers of credit did not
qualify as firm offers of credit.  

The proposed class consists of all persons in Indiana, Illinois
and Wisconsin who received the prescreened offers from April 20,
2003 to May 10, 2005.

The company and Home 123 filed their answer to the complaint on
June 30, 2005.  In September 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and on Nov. 1, 2005, the company and Home123
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In April 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to modify the
proposed class definitions by reducing the size of the class to
just the Northern District of Indiana who received one of the
three letters attached to the complaint.  

New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed a motion to bifurcate the
ultimate liability issue of willfulness from the alleged
underlying FCRA violations, which the court granted in April
2006.  

In May 2006, the court ruled on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings, ruling that no private right of action exists for
alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681m for mailings sent
after Dec. 1, 2004; the court denied the motion as to mailings
sent prior to Dec. 1, 2004.  

Also, in May 2006, the New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed
motions for partial summary judgment, while the plaintiffs also
filed motions for partial summary judgment on the alleged
underlying FCRA violations.  

In August 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The class size is limited to recipients of the
prescreened mailings residing within the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana.  

In October 2006, plaintiffs filed an MDL petition to transfer
New Century's three FCRA cases, including Bonner, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana pursuant to
rules governing multi-district litigation.  

New Century joined in their petition although plaintiffs have
filed a withdrawal of their petition.  The summary judgment
motions are pending and there has not yet been a ruling on the
MDL petition, 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 is "Bonner et al. v. Home123 Corp. et al, Case No.
2:05-cv-00146-PPS-APR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Philip P. Simon.

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman, Jeremy P.
Monteiro of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, 120 S LaSalle
Street Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-739-4200, Fax:
312-419-0379, E-mail: CourtECL@aol.com or jmonteiro@edcombs.com.  

Representing the company are Victoria R. Collado PHV, Lucia Nale
PHV, Diane R. Sabol PHV of Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw LLP, 71 S
Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-782-0600, Fax: 312-
701-7711, E-mail: vcollado@mayerbrownrowe.com,
lnale@mayerbrownrowe.com, drsabol@mayerbrownrowe.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in La. Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

Between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting
claims against Newpark for violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commision Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The suits are:

     -- "Kim v. Newpark Resources, Inc.,"
     -- "Lowry v. Newpark Resources, Inc.,"
     -- "Galchutt v. Newpark Resources, Inc.,"
     -- "Wallace v. Newpark Resources, Inc.," and
     -- "Farr vs. Newpark Resources, Inc."

All five complaints assert that James D. Cole, Newpark's former
chief executive officer and Matthew W. Hardey, Newpark's former
chief financial officer are liable for Newpark's violations as
control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The latter four lawsuits have been transferred to the judge
presiding over the Kim Suit who has consolidated all five
actions as "In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  Lead plaintiff's counsel had until Nov. 10 to file
an amended, consolidated class action complaint.  

The complaints, asserting unspecified damages, allege that:

     -- Newpark's April 17, 2006 press release concerning the
        internal investigation into potential irregularities in
        the processing and payment of invoices at one of its
        subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP;

     -- establishes that Newpark misrepresented or omitted to
        disclose to the investing public irregularities in the
        processing and payment of invoices at Soloco and a lack
        of internal controls and flawed accounting practices
        and;

     -- consequently, that Newpark did not prepare its
        consolidated financial statements according to generally
        accepted accounting principles.

The suit is "Kim v. Newpark Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.  
2:06-cv-02150-ML-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Marcel Livaudais under  
Judge Karen Wells Roby.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Dawn M. Barrios of Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, LLP,
         One Shell Square, 701 Poydras St., Suite 3650, New  
         Orleans, LA 70139-3650, Phone: (504) 524-3300, E-mail:
         barrios@bkc-law.com; and

     (2) Lewis Stephen Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650  
         Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:  
         504-455-1400, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert B. Bieck, Jr. of Jones, Walker, Waechter,  
         Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Place St. Charles, 201  
         St. Charles Ave., 50th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170-
         5100, Phone: (504) 582-8000, E-mail:
         rbieck@joneswalker.com; and

    (ii) Donald Lucas Hyatt, II, Donald L. Hyatt, II, APLC
         Energy Center, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 2960, New  
         Orleans, LA 70163, Phone: 504-582-2466, E-mail:
         hyattlaw@aol.com.  


PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presstek, Inc. together with certain of its executive officers,
continues to be named as defendants in a purported securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire, 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 claims to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
Presstek's common stock during the period from July 27, 2006
through Sept. 29, 2006.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc. et a., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro both of
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, 53 State St., Boston, MA 02109,
         Phone: 617 439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com  or tshapiro@shulaw.com; and

     (2) Mark L. Mallory of Mallory & Friedman PLLC, 8 Green
         St., Concord, NH 03301, Phone: 228-2277, E-mail:
         mark@malloryandfriedman.com.

Representing defendants is Robert E. McDaniel of McDaniel Law
Offices, 755 North Main St., Laconia, NH 03246, Phone: 603 527-
0520, Fax: 603 279-0540, E-mail: remcdanielesq@aol.com.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed all claims arising under the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. and the
individual defendants in a consolidated securities class action.

The first of the six consolidated cases against the company and
certain of its officers and directors was filed on Aug. 3, 2005.  
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of the
company that purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005 and Nov. 15,
2005.  

Plaintiffs also name as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering.  The district court
has appointed a Lead Plaintiff.  

On Dec. 23, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter in
regard to:

      -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
         release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

      -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
         of the company's products was declining and that the
         company was planning to withdraw several products from
         the market.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint in February 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the court
dismissed all claims against the company and the individual
defendants arising under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge  
Charles L. Brieant.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr., of Lerach,  
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIs),  
         50 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,  
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:  
         srudman@lerachlaw.com and malba@lerachlaw.com;   

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East  
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:  
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (4) Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
         Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,  
         NY 10119, Phone: (212) 613-5625, Fax: (212) 868-1229,  
         E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com;

     (5) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola  
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:  
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (6) William J. Ban of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two  
         Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA  
         19103, Phone: (215) 963-0600, Fax: (215) 963-0838, E-
         mail: wban@barrack.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Todd R. David and Scott P. Hilsen of Alston & Bird,  
         L.L.P., One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree  
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7357,  
         Fax: (404) 527-8717;

     (2) John Gueli of Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), 599  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 848-
         4744, Fax: 212 848-7179, E-mail: jgueli@shearman.com;
         and  

     (3) Jeff G. Hammel of Latham and Watkins (NY), 885 Third  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 906-1200, Fax:
         (212)-751-4864, E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com.

  
REXNORD CORP: Settles Suit Related to Illinois Plant Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
A global settlement was reached with the plaintiffs in the
"Muniz et al. v. Rexnord Corp. et al.," class action, according
to the company's Nov. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in relation to alleged release or
threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site, Downers
Grove, DuPage County, Illinois.  

Based on their proximity to the Site, the company and at least
10 other companies have been notified of their potential
liability for the remediation of the site.

The settlement does not release defendants from any potential
future claims for non-property damages.  

The settlement amounts allocated to each defendant are subject
to further reallocation through a binding arbitration process.


RYLAND GROUP: Tex. Court Revives Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
reinstated the lawsuit "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland Group Inc.,
et al."

On Jan. 15, 2004, the suit was filed against the company and two
of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  The lawsuit alleged violations of federal
securities law as a result of information about home sales
during the fourth quarter of 2003.  

The action alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the disclosure by the company of new home sales
for the fourth quarter of 2003.  In September 2005, the Court
dismissed the action because the lead plaintiff previously
selected by the Court had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. As a result, the Court also dismissed
the class action complaint.

Subsequently, a different member of the purported class asked to
be substituted as a new lead plaintiff.  In June 2006, the Court
granted that request and reinstated the action.  The company and
the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves.

The suit is "TDH Partners, LLP, et al. v. Ryland Group,  
Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-0073," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Jane J.  
Boyle.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:  

     (1) Roger F. Claxton and Robert J Hill of Claxton & Hill,  
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-
         2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:  
         claxtonhill@airmail.net  

     (2) Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St.,
         Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720,  
         Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com  

     (3) Leonard A. Epstein of Newman Davenport & Epstein, 700  
         N. Pearl St., Suite 1650 LB 314, Dallas, TX 75201,  
         Phone: 214/754-0025, Fax: 214/754-0936, E-mail:
         leonep@flash.net  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Alan W. Harris of DLA Piper  
Rudnick Gray Cary - Dallas, 1717 Main St., Suite 4600, Dallas,  
TX 75201-4605, Phone: 214/743-4572, Fax: 214/743-4545, E-mail:  
alan.harris@dlapiper.com.  


SUPER STEEL: Settles Minority Workers' Bias Lawsuit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Super Steel Schenectady Inc. reached a settlement for a civil
rights lawsuit filed against it in April by employees who
accused supervisors and co-workers of intentionally harassing
black workers, the Albany Times Union Reports.

Details of the agreement were not revealed, but initially, the
plaintiffs had sought $175 million in damages.

In April, nine current and former African-American employees of
Super Steel initiated a class action against the their employer
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
to redress the racial discrimination and harassment that they
claim is deeply embedded in the company's culture and work
climate (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006).

Plaintiffs in the matter are Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino
Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David
Chambers, Herion Murphy and Vincent Safford and a class of
current and former African American employees of the company.

The nine named plaintiffs seek:

     (1) certification of their case as a class action under
         federal statutes;

     (2) their designation as representatives of the class and
         Mr. Sanford as counsel of record for the class;

     (3) declaratory judgments that Super Steel's employment
         practices are illegal and in violation of the Civil
         Rights Acts of 1866; and

     (4) temporary and permanent injunctions against Super
         Steel, which would bar Super Steel from engaging in
         further unlawful practices, policies and customs.

In addition, the plaintiffs are also requesting:

     -- an order requiring the company to implement programs
        that effectively remedy the hostile work environment and
        eliminate the discriminatory and retaliatory practices
        currently in use;

     -- an order establishing a workplace task force on equality
        and fairness to monitor conditions at the company; and

     -- damages, including not less than $25 million dollars in
        compensatory damages, not less than $150 million dollars
        in punitive damages, and nominal damages.  

The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial in the matter.

The suit is "Murphy, et al. v. Super Steel Schenectady, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH," filed in the U.S. District for
the Northern District of New York under Judge Gary L. Sharpe
with referral to Judge David R. Homer.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Steven L. Wittels of Sanford,
Wittels Law Firm, 18 Half Mile Road, Armonk, NY 10504, US,
Phone: 914-273-7314, Fax: 914-273-7314, E-mail:
classaxe@optonline.net.


TRI-S SECURITY: Faces Securities Litigation in Ga. Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tri-S Security Corp. is facing a purported securities class
action filed in the State Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia over its initial public offering.

On Nov. 1, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the company, its chief executive officer, its former
chief financial officer and the lead underwriters in its initial
public offering, alleging, among other things, violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.s. Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, in connection with the company's initial public
offering.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration
statement relating to the company's initial public offering was
materially inaccurate and misleading because it failed to
disclose certain problems with the operations and financial
condition of Paragon Systems of which the compliant alleges the
company were aware.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages or
recission, as appropriate, and costs and disbursements relating
to the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Sauces that May Contain Glass Pieces
----------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 11 oz. jars
of Wegmans Italian Classics Lemon and Caper Sauce with a use-by
date of 11/05/07 because they may contain pieces of glass that
could cause injury or a choking hazard.  The use-by date is
located on the shoulder of the jar.  No other code dates are
being recalled.

The product was sold only at Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. located
in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland.
The recalled product consists of 1,893 cases (12 jars per case)
packed on Nov. 5, 2005.  To date, there have been no injuries
reported.  Wegmans became aware of the issue through customer
complaints.

Wegmans on the Net: http://www.wegmans.com.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Tip Sharing Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas Herndon of the Clark County District Court
dismissed a suit filed by two dealers of Wynn Las Vegas over the
resort's new tip-sharing policy, the Las Vegas Gaming Wire
reports.

In his decision, the judge said there was no contract of
employment between the dealers and Wynn, which meant that Nevada
law allows an employer to change any tip pooling policies.  He
noted that the company was not taking away tips, only widening
the pool of workers who share in the gratuities.

Reno attorney Mark Thierman, who represents the dealers along
with Las Vegas attorneys Leon Greenberg and James Kemp, said
that an appeal would be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court, but
that it could take up to six months or a year for the matter to
be heard.  

Dealers Daniel Baldonado and Joseph Cesarz filed the suit on
Sept. 13, 2006.  It is seeking damages for compensation lost
under the new tip-sharing arrangements, which gave casino
supervisors a share of dealers' tips (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 29, 2006).

Court documents show that the two Wynn Las Vegas dealers believe
the Wynn policy violates Nevada state law covering tip pooling
because employers are sharing in the tips.

The suit asks for class-action status to include more than the
500 dealers affected by the change in the tips policy at the
resort.  

Plaintiffs' lawyer argued that the new tip-sharing policy
violates at least three Nevada laws:

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.100, which requires that  
        dealers be paid what they've earned;

     -- another section of chapter 608 that prohibits improperly  
        withholding earned; and  

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.120 that outlaws charging  
        workers illegal fee or commission to keep their jobs.

According to the lawsuit, the two dealers are seeking the wages
they lost because of the tip pooling and they want the program
stopped.

The suit states that the resort breached contracts of employment
by unilaterally, illegally, and without cause, withholding
certain portions of the casino dealers' tip pool and paying such
portions to other persons who were not casino dealers and were
not entitled to such payments.

The new tip-pooling program, announced to dealers during three
separate shift meetings on Aug. 21, was part of a table-games
division restructuring designed to lessen the wage disparity
between dealers and front-line supervisors.  On Sept. 1, Wynn
Las Vegas began allowing table game supervisors to share in the
tips earned by dealers.

For more details, contact Mark R. Thierman of Thierman Law Firm,
7287 Lakeside Drive, Reno, NV 89511-7652, (Wahsoe County),
Phone: 775-284-1500, Fax: 775-284-1506, E-mail:
laborlawyer@pacbell.net.


ZIX CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zix Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder
class actions were filed against the company in Texas federal
court.

The purported class actions seek unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct.
30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

The suits alleged that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act during this time
period.  These class actions were later consolidated into one
case.

The defendants are Zix Corp., Dennis F. Heathcote, Daniel S.
Nutkis, John A. Ryan, Ronald A. Woessner, and Steve M. York.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits
pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and also pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court denied the motion in September
2006.  The consolidated class action is proceeding in due
course.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BODISEN BIOTECH: Ademi & O'Reilly Announces Stock Suit Filing  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, announces that a lawsuit seeking class-
action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Bodisen
Biotech, Inc. between Aug. 26, 2005 and Nov. 14, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Bodisen and certain of its officers
and directors, and Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei and his
company New York Global Group, Inc. (NYGG), violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  

Specifically, it is alleged that defendants issued materially
false and misleading information:

      -- "That the company made insufficient and/or inaccurate
         disclosure in public filings on its relationship with,
         and payments to, NYGG and its affiliates both prior to
         and subsequent to its listing on the exchange;"

      -- "That the company has deficient internal control issues
         related to its accounting and financial reporting
         obligations in the context of its relationship with
         NYGG;

      -- "That some of the company's majority shareholders were
         part of or otherwise affiliated with several criminal
         organizations. In fact, during the class period, there
         were mysterious sales of more than $40 million worth of
         recent Bodisen stock sales, most of which flowed
         through either NYGG or the troubled brokerage, Chicago
         Investment Group. In March 2006, Chicago Investment
         Group was named in a Brooklyn federal indictment as one
         of 15 New York-area brokerage firms with branch offices
         that had been infiltrated and taken over by members of
         the Colombo, Luchese and Bonanno crime families;

      -- That Wey had moved to New York to escape a history of
         regulatory violations at previous employers in the
         Midwest;

      -- That Bodisen and two other Chinese companies with
         shares trading in the U.S. were linked in an investment
         network that Wei secretly controlled;

      -- That company's Form 10-Q filed in March 2006, which
         stated, in part, that Bodisen filed an audited
         financial statement with the SEC acknowledging that its
         ownership list was incomplete "do (sic) to an
         inadvertent oversight," but that it was working to
         rectify the problem." Nevertheless, by the end of the
         class period, it still had not filed a corrected
         statement, even though evidence surfaced in the
         eruption of insider stock sales in Bodisen's shares in
         September 2006 that an individual named Wei Min Zhang
         was a recent owner of more than 10 percent of the
         company's shares. In truth, defendants never had the
         intention of providing such information;

      -- Publicly traded companies in the U.S. are required by
         law to provide audited annual financial statements that
         include the names of all investors holding 10 percent
         or more of the company's stock.  Nevertheless,
         defendants not only failed to provide such information,
         but actively concealed such information;

      -- That Wey acted as Bodisen's Investor Relations Officer,
         though his behind-the-scenes activities as its deal
         promoter continued. Several Bodisen SEC filings name
         NYGG in a $300,000 contract to sell unregistered
         Bodisen stock to investors in London early in 2006; and

      -- That the company originated as a Canadian penny stock
         called Bullet Environmental Systems, headed by a man
         named Ross Wilmot, a longtime investment world
         associate of a notorious one-time European boiler room
         operator named Altaf Nazerali.

On Nov. 12, Bodisen issued a press release stating that it had
received a letter from the American Stock Exchange (AMEX)
warning that it is out of compliance with certain listing
standards.  

The exchange said it believes Bodisen made insufficient or
inaccurate disclosure in public filings on its relationship
with, and payments to, NYGG and its affiliates both prior to and
subsequent to its listing on the exchange. The AMEX also
expressed concern that Bodisen has internal control issues
related to its accounting and financial reporting obligations in
the context of its relationship with the company.

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

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail:
gademi@ademilaw.com.


IKANOS COMMS: Yourman Alexander Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, announces that lawsuits seeking
class-action status have been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Ikanos
Communications, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the company's
initial public offering on Sept. 22, 2005, or its secondary
offering on March 8, 2006.

The lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  They are seeking remedies under
the federal securities laws.  

The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors, as well as a number of underwriters
for the public offerings, violated federal securities laws by
failing to present the true financial condition of Ikanos in the
company's registration statements and prospectuses for the
initial and secondary offerings.

It is further alleged that by omitting to disclose the truth
about the company, defendants artificially inflated the price of
Ikanos's securities for their own personal gain.  

Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
the true financial condition of Ikanos by flooding Japanese
customers with the company's products in excess of demand, which
would have an adverse affect on the company's future results.

Once the true financial condition of the company was disclosed,
on Oct. 4, 2006, Ikanos shares fell over 29% to close at $7.76
per share on Oct. 5, 2006.

The deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the
case is on Jan. 5, 2007.

For more details, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite
3000, Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020,
E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Web site: http://www.yaplaw.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  * * *