CAR_Public/061214.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 248

                            Headlines

AARON BROTHERS: Still Faces Wage Law Violations Suit in Calif.
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Recalls Lenses Over Bacterial Contamination
AMERICA'S CAR: Faces Litigation in Okla. Over Interest Rates
ANDRX CORP: Still Faces Suit Over cGMP Status Disclosure in Fla.
ATLAS AMERICA: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Royalty Payments for $300T

BEAZER HOMES: Fixes 999 Homes that Raised Claims Against Trinity
CATALINA MARKETING: Fla. Securities Fraud Suit to Cost $8.5M
CONCORD EFS: Tenn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Claims
CONCORD EFS: Additional Briefing Ordered in Calif. ATM Fee Suit
CONSOLIDATED MANUFACTURING: Settles WARN Violations Suit in Kan.

DYNEGY MIDWEST: Discovery Continues in Tex. Savings Plan Lawsuit
DYNERGY INC: W.Va. Antitrust Lawsuit Enters Discovery Stage
ENTERPRISE GP: Named in TEPPCO Unitholder's Suit Over Jonah Deal
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Oct. 2007 Trial Set for Tex. Stock Suit
LOUISIANA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Water Damage

MET-RX USA: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Pro-hormone Supplements
MICHAELS STORES: Mass. Laborers' Annuity Fund Files Stock Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Settles Calif. Suit by Hourly Retail Employees
MICHAELS STORES: No Hearing Date Yet for Calif. Managers' Case
MIRAB USA: Recalls Beef Jerky for Likely Presence of Animal Drug

MORTGAGEIT HOLDINGS: "Pressner" Attorneys Fee Capped at $250T
MURPHY OIL: Property Buyout in Oil Spill Suit Deal to Cost $55M
NATIONAL SECURITY: Ala. Court Okays Racial Bias Suit Settlement
OMNICARE INC: Ken. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Name New Defendants
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit

PEKIN INSURANCE: Ill. Circuit Court Junks Suit by Chiropractors
PHLX: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Wall Street Firms Deal Denied
PUBLIC STORAGE: Continues to Face Unit Renters Suit in Calif.
PUBLIC STORAGE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Storage Insurance
QC HOLDINGS: Accused of Breaching Ariz. Deferred Presentment Law

REXALL SUNDOWN: Conference Set for Lawsuit Over Nutrition Bars
SUTTER HEALTH: Court Grants Final OK to Uninsured Patients' Suit
TELEPHONE COS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal on Antitrust Lawsuit
TIVO INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Calif. Consumer Suit
TYCO INT'L: Appeal on N.H. ERISA Lawsuit Class Status Denied

TYCO INT'L: Court Affirms Dismissal of "Ezra" Amended Complaint
TYCO INT'L: Court Denies Appeal on MDL-1335 Class Certification
TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Mulls Class Certification for "Newby"
TYCO INT'L: Ruling in Ill. Suit Over Mallinckrodt Deal Appealed
VISTEON CORP: $7.6M Mich. ERISA Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK

VITAMIN WORLD: Dismissal of Hormone Supplement Suit Appealed
WARRIOR ENERGY: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Texas


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ATRICURE INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
TOP TANKERS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AARON BROTHERS: Still Faces Wage Law Violations Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a class action filed against
Aaron Brothers, Inc., in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego.

On Nov. 16, 2005, Geoffrey Morris, a former company employee in
San Diego, California, commenced a proposed class action
proceeding on behalf of himself, and current and former company
employees in California from Nov. 16, 2001 to the present.  

The suit is alleging that the Aaron Brothers, a subsidiary of
Michaels Stores, Inc., failed to pay overtime wages, reimburse
the plaintiff for necessary expenses (including the cost of gas
used in driving his car for business purposes), and provide
adequate meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof.

The suit alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's
unfair competition law.  With the exception of the meal and rest
breaks claim, the claims are asserted on behalf of the putative
class.  

Mr. Morris filed an amended complaint on June 8, 2006 and now
seeks to represent a class of current and former assistant
managers only, according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Dec. 7, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Oct. 28, 2006.  

Plaintiff seeks, injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime
pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Michaels Stores, Inc. on the Net: http://www.michaels.com.


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Recalls Lenses Over Bacterial Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., a global ophthalmic surgical and
eye care products company, is voluntarily recalling nationwide
certain lots of its 12-oz. COMPLETE MoisturePLUS multipurpose
contact lens care solution and Active Packs.

Three lots sold in Japan were found to have bacterial
contamination, which compromised sterility.  Because of this
production-line issue at its manufacturing plant in China, AMO
is recalling 18 lots distributed in the U.S. that were
manufactured on the same production lines during the same
production period.

Non-sterility of a contact lens solution may have serious health
consequences, including eye infection and microbial keratitis.
AMO has not received any reports of adverse health events
associated with the recalled product lots in the U.S.

Lot numbers are located on the top of the product box and on the
side of the product bottle.  The recalled product lots include:

Package Lot #  Product Description       Bottled Lot #(s)
                                         in Kit

ZB03087        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03085, ZB02845
               Active Pack

ZB03724        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03713, ZB03506
               Active Pack

ZB03734        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03713, ZB03506
               Active Pack

ZB03735        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03713, ZB03510
               Active Pack

ZB03736        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03713, ZB03510
               Active Pack

ZB03739        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03737, ZB03510
               Active Pack

ZB02710        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02709
               12oz (360 mL)

ZB02714        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02713
               12oz (360 mL)

ZB02718        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02717
               12oz (360 mL)

ZB02722        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02721
               12oz (360 mL)

ZB02746        COMPLTE MoisturePLUS      ZB02745
               2 X 12 oz

ZB02750        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02749
               2 X 12 oz

ZB02771        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02770
               2 X 12 oz

ZB02792        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02791
               2 X 12 oz

ZB02796        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02795
               2 X 12 oz

ZB02800        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02799
               2 X 12 oz

ZB02804        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB02803
               2 X 12 oz

ZB03535        COMPLETE MoisturePLUS     ZB03534
               2 X 12 oz

Contact lens users who experience symptoms of an eye infection
such as redness, pain, tearing, increased light sensitivity,
blurry vision, discharge or swelling, should remove their lenses
and consult their eye care provider immediately.

Consumers who believe they are in possession of the recalled
product should discontinue use immediately and call 1-877-884-
7779 Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time or visit http://www.amo-inc.comfor instructions.  

The company is currently contacting retailers, customers and
distributors regarding return and replacement instructions.  
Reply cards and mailing slips are being provided for return of
product.  Retailers may also call 1-877-884-7779 Monday through
Friday from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. Eastern Time for more
information.

Product from the recalled lots was distributed nationwide to
food, drug and mass merchandiser accounts.  The recall does not
include 4-oz. and 16-oz. bottles, or professional samples and
packs provided to eye care practitioners.

The U.S. recall includes approximately 183,000 units,
representing less than one percent of COMPLETE MoisturePLUS
contact lens products distributed in the U.S. on an annual
basis.  Based on its investigation to date, AMO believes the
likelihood of users experiencing an adverse reaction is low.
However, the company is taking a conservative approach and is
conducting the recall in the best interest of its customers.

The company commenced the investigation after testing of
products sold in Japan determined that three production lots
were found to be non-sterile and contaminated with bacteria.  As
a result, AMO conducted a limited product withdrawal in Japan
and notified appropriate global regulatory authorities,
including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  

The subsequent investigation traced the manufacturing issue to
two of the four production lines in its China facility that
manufactured product during a specific period. This product was
shipped to the U.S., Japan and Asia Pacific and is now the
subject of this recall.  AMO has temporarily ceased all
manufacturing at the China facility and scheduled a special
cleaning and sanitation of the manufacturing areas and all
applicable equipment.

Products manufactured in AMO's facility in Spain, which produces
the vast majority of AMO's contact lens solution products
distributed in the U.S. and Europe, are not affected by this
recall.

"AMO is committed to taking all necessary measures to remedy
this production-line issue and protect the trust physicians and
patients place in our products," said Randy Meier, executive
vice president, operations; president, global eye care and chief
financial officer.  "COMPLETE MoisturePLUS(TM) products have
been used safely by millions of contact lens wearers since their
introduction in 2003 and are supported by our 50-year heritage
of meeting high safety and efficacy standards."


AMERICA'S CAR: Faces Litigation in Okla. Over Interest Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed in
Oklahoma against America's Car Mart, Inc., according to the
company's Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 31,
2006.

In October 2006, the company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action complaint served in the District Court of
Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma.  A motion for class
certification is pending.

The complaint asserts that the company charged usurious interest
rates to retail customers in the State of Oklahoma for the
period June 11, 2004 and forward.  The company has answered the
complaint and discovery is ongoing.


ANDRX CORP: Still Faces Suit Over cGMP Status Disclosure in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corp. and it's chief executive officer remain defendants
in a securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock on March 9, 2005 through
Sept. 5, 2005.

Jerry Lowry filed the class action complaint on Oct. 11, 2005
(Case No. 05-61640).  The complaint seeks damages under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and alleges that
during the class period, it failed to properly disclose the
status of its compliance with current Good Manufacturing
Practices (cGMP) established by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

The complaint also alleges that the plaintiffs suffered damages
as a result of its disclosure on Sept. 6, 2005 that FDA placed
the company in Official Action Indicated status and a subsequent
decline in the trading price of its common stock from $17.94 on
Sept. 5, 2005 to a closing price of $14.89 on Sept. 6, 2005.   

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 7 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Jerry Lowry, et al. v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case
No. 05-CV-61640," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas.  The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

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

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com; and

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com.


ATLAS AMERICA: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Royalty Payments for $300T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas America Inc. tentatively settled in October a class action
filed in February 2000 in New York pertaining to the payment of
royalty revenues to landowners.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the company has agreed to pay
$300,000, upgrade certain gathering systems and cap certain
transportation expenses chargeable to the landowners.

Resource Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Atlas America, is named
defendant in a proposed class action originally filed in
February 2000 in the New York Supreme Court, Chautauqua County,
by individuals, putatively on their own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, who leased property to the
company.

The complaint alleges that the company is not paying landowners
the proper amount of royalty revenues from the natural gas
produced from the wells on leased property.  The complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged difference
between the amount of royalties actually paid and the amount of
royalties that allegedly should have been paid.

Plaintiffs were certified as a class in December 2003.  


BEAZER HOMES: Fixes 999 Homes that Raised Claims Against Trinity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. had completed remediation of 999 homes
under a settlement of a suit over defects at homes constructed
by its subsidiary Trinity Homes LLC.

Beazer Homes and certain of its subsidiaries have been and
continue to be named as defendants in various construction
defect claims, complaints and other legal actions that include
claims related to moisture intrusion and mold.  

We have experienced a significant number of such claims in the
company's Midwest region and particularly with respect to homes
built by Trinity Homes, a subsidiary which was acquired in the
Crossmann Communities, Inc. acquisition in 2002.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, there were nine pending lawsuits related
to such complaints received by Trinity.  All nine suits are by
individual homeowners, and the cost to resolve these matters is
not expected to be material, either individually or in the
aggregate.  

Additionally, a class action was filed in the State of Indiana
in August 2003 against Trinity Homes LLC.  The parties in the
class action reached a settlement agreement, which was approved
by the Court on Oct. 20, 2004.

The settlement class includes, with certain exclusions, the
current owners of all Trinity homes that have brick veneer,
where the closing of Trinity's initial sale of the home took
place between June 1, 1998 and Oct. 31, 2002.  The settlement
agreement establishes an agreed protocol and process for
assessment and remediation of any external water intrusion
issues at the homes which includes, among other things, that the
homes will be repaired at Trinity's expense.

The settlement agreement also provides for payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and for Trinity to pay an agreed
amount for engineering inspection costs for each home for which
a claim is filed under the settlement.

Under the settlement, subject to Trinity's timely performance of
the specified assessments and remediation activities for
homeowners who file claims, each homeowner releases Trinity,
Beazer Homes Investments, LLC and other affiliated companies,
including Beazer Homes, from the claims asserted in the class
action, claims arising out of external water intrusion, claims
of improper brick installation, including property damage
claims, loss or diminution of property value claims, and most
personal injury claims, among others.

No appeals of the Court's Order approving the settlement were
received by the Court within the timeframe established by the
Court.  the company sent out the claims notices on Dec. 17,
2004, and the Class Members had until Feb. 15, 2005 to file
claims.  Of the 2,161 total Class Members, a total of 1,311
valid claims were filed, of which 613 complaints had been
received prior to the company's receipt of the claim notices.

Class Members who did not file a claim by Feb. 15, 2005 are no
longer able to file a class action claim under the settlement or
pursue an individual claim against Trinity.  As of Sept. 30,
2006, the company had completed remediation of 999 homes related
to 1,782 total Trinity claims.

Beazer Homes' warranty reserves at Sept. 30, 2006 and Sept. 30,
2005 include accruals for the company's estimated costs to
assess and remediate all homes for which Trinity had received
complaints related to moisture intrusion and mold, including a
provision for legal fees.  Warranty reserves at Sept. 30, 2006
and 2005 also include accruals for class action claims received,
pursuant to the settlement discussed above, from Class Members
who had not previously contacted Trinity with complaints.

The cost to assess and remediate a home depends on the extent of
moisture damage, if any, that the home has incurred.  Homes for
which the company receive complaints are classified into one of
three categories: homes with no moisture damage, homes with
isolated moisture damage, or homes with extensive moisture
damage.


CATALINA MARKETING: Fla. Securities Fraud Suit to Cost $8.5M
------------------------------------------------------------
Catalina Marketing Corp. recorded a liability of $8.5 million
representing the amount of a settlement in the memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated shareholder class action
pending against it the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

In October 2006, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the pending and consolidated shareholder
class action.  The settlement, which is on terms that do not
adversely affect the company, involved no admission of liability
by the company or any of the current and former directors and
former officers named in the lawsuit.

In the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, the company recorded a
liability of $8.5 million representing the amount of the
settlement in the memorandum of understanding and a
corresponding receivable representing settlement proceeds
payable substantially by the company's insurers.  The settlement
is subject to various conditions including court approvals and
other customary conditions.

                        Case Background

Numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle  
District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and  
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and  
Rule 10b-5 thereunder (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2006).

The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 17, 2002 and  
Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.  

The complaints contain various allegations, including that,
during the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
operations with the result of artificially inflating the
company's share price and maintained inadequate internal
controls.  It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.   

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S.  
District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re  
Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-
CV-1582-T-27TBM."    

Named as co-lead plaintiffs in December 2003 are:

     -- Virginia P. Anderson, and  
     -- the Alaska Electric Pension Fund  

On Jun. 21, 2004, they served their consolidated amended class
action complaint on behalf of those who purchased the company's
stock between Aug. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.   

The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended class action complaint which motion was
denied by the court on March 31, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in May 2005, which was
subsequently granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.   

On May 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of  
Florida, granted class-action status to the consolidated
securities class action against Catalina Marketing Corp.,
certain of its present and former officers and directors and
Catalina Health Resource.  

The suit is "In re Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM."


CONCORD EFS: Tenn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shelby County Circuit Court for the state of Tennessee
granted a motion by plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed
against Concord EFS Inc. to file a third amended complaint.

On or about April 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action
complaints were filed on behalf of the public holders of Concord
EFS's common stock, excluding shareholders related to or
affiliated with the individual defendants.

The defendants in those actions were certain current and former
officers and directors of Concord.  The complaints generally
alleged breaches of the defendants' duty of loyalty and due care
in connection with the defendants' alleged attempt to sell
Concord without maximizing the value to shareholders in order to
advance the defendants' alleged individual interests in
obtaining indemnification agreements related to the securities
litigation discussed above and other derivative litigation.

The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief
directing the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged
sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts'
fees and other costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On or about April 2, 2003, an additional purported class action
complaint was filed by Barton K. O'Brien.  The defendants were
Concord and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

This complaint contained allegations regarding the individual
defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged violations of
securities and other laws and asserted that this alleged
misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of the company.

The complaint sought class certification, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, costs and other relief the Court deems just and
proper.  Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is
consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants
to account to the putative class members for unspecified
damages.

                      Consolidated Lawsuit

These complaints were consolidated in a second amended
consolidated complaint filed Sept. 19, 2003 into one action, "In
Re: Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholders Litigation," in the Shelby
County Circuit for the State of Tennessee.

On Oct. 15, 2003, the plaintiffs the Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation moved for leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint similar to the previous complaints but
also alleging that the proxy statement disclosures relating to
the antitrust regulatory approval process were inadequate.

A motion to dismiss was filed on June 22, 2004 alleging that the
claims should be denied and are moot since the merger has
occurred.  On Sept. 12, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to file a third amended complaint.


CONCORD EFS: Additional Briefing Ordered in Calif. ATM Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of California requested additional
briefing in the ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation filed against
Concord EFS, Inc.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla  
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves  
and all others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for  
the Northern District of California against the company, its  
subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.   

Plaintiffs claim the defendants violated antitrust laws by  
conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were  
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  They seek a declaratory  
judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys'  
fees, costs and such other relief as the nature of the case may  
require or as may seem just and proper to the court.  

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and  
October 2004, two in the Central District of Los Angeles,  
California; two in the Southern District of New York, and one in  
the Western District of Seattle, Washington.   

The plaintiffs sought to have all of the cases consolidated by  
the Multi District Litigation panel.  The panel denied that  
request on Dec. 16, 2004 and all cases were transferred to the  
Northern District Court of California and assigned to a single  
judge.  All cases other than Brennan were stayed.  Subsequently,  
a seventh lawsuit was filed in the District of Alaska, which  
thereafter was also transferred to the Northern District of  
California and assigned to the same judge.

In Brennan, on May 4, 2005, the court ruled on defendants'  
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The  
court did not dismiss the complaint, except for a technical  
dismissal of the claims against First Data Corp., Bank One Corp.  
and JPMorgan Chase.   

On May 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that  
clarified the basis for alleging that the holding companies  
First Data Corp., Bank One Corp. and JPMorgan Chase were
liable.   

On Jul. 21, 2005, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment  
seeking to foreclose claims arising after Feb. 1, 2001, the date  
that Concord acquired the STAR network.   

On Aug. 22, 2005, the court also consolidated all of the ATM  
interchange cases pending against the defendants in Brennan that  
is now referred to collectively as the "ATM Fee Antitrust  
Litigation."  

On Sept. 14, 2006, a hearing on Concord's Motion for Summary
Judgment was held and the Court requested additional briefing.

The suit is "In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-
cv-02676-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Daniel O. Myers, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and  
         Brickman, LLC, 1037 Chuck Dawley, Building A, Mt.  
         Pleasant, SC 92464, Phone: 843-727-6500, fax: 843-216-
         6509, E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com; and  

     (2) Joseph R. Saveri, Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein,  
         LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA  
         94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-
         mail: jsaveri@lchb.com.   

Representing the defendants are Buckmaster DeWolf, Peter Edward  
Moll, Esq., Benjamin K. Riley, Brian Wallach of Howrey Simon  
Arnold & White, LLP, 301 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA  
94025, Phone: 650-463-8100, E-mail: dewolfb@howrey.com,  
mollp@howrey.com, rileyb@howrey.com and wallachb@howrey.com.


CONSOLIDATED MANUFACTURING: Settles WARN Violations Suit in Kan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Manufacturing reached a tentative agreement to
settle for $240,000 a suit filed by former employees in relation
to a sudden mass layoff in February, The Hutchinson News
reports.

Ninety-eight former Consolidated Manufacturing employees filed
the suit in June in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging the company violated the federal Workers
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The suit claims that about 120 employees were given 30 minutes
notice before the company shut down its manufacturing plant at
1600 North Halstead on Feb. 28.  But the law requires a company
to give at least 60 days notice if it plans to lay off 100 or
more employees.

The suit sought pay and benefits for all employees for 60 days.  
But lead plaintiff Bart Newberry said the proposed $240,000
settlement is about half of what workers had asked for.

According to attorney Jeff Spahn, of the Wichita law firm of
Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, under the settlement,
each employee will get about $1,600 to $1,700 after attorney
fees are paid, but before state and federal withholding taxes
are withdrawn.

The company, which under the agreement does not admit it
violated the act, contends it fell under the "faltering company"
exemption and was not required to give notice.  According to
plaintiffs' attorney, Jeff C. Spahn, Jr., the company argued it
was exempted from notification because of "unforeseeable
business circumstances" and it was attempting to secure capital
and feared the notice would make it harder to do.

"Through discovery in the lawsuit, we found most of the factors
they were relying upon they'd been aware of more than 60 days
before," Mr. Spahn said.

A Dec. 21 hearing is set to consider the settlement agreement.

The suit is "Newberry v. Consolidated Manufacturing, Inc., Case
No. 6:06-cv-01170-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge Monti L Belot, with referral
to Judge Karen M. Humphreys.

Representing plaintiffs are Jeff C. Spahn, Jr. and Terry L. Mann
both of Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP --
Wichita, 100 North Broadway, Suite 500, Wichita, KS 67202,
Phone: 316-265-9311, Fax: 316-265-2955, E-mail:
jcspahn@martinpringle.com or tlmann@martinpringle.com.

Representing defendant are Andrew J. Nazar and Paul D. Sinclair
both of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC--KC, Twelve Wyandotte
Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Suite #1700, Kansas City, MO 64105,
Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax: 816-374-0509, E-mail: nazar@stklaw.com
or psinclair@stklaw.com.


DYNEGY MIDWEST: Discovery Continues in Tex. Savings Plan Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A second putative class action over Dynegy Midwest Generation,
Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan remains pending at the class discovery
stage, according to Dynegy Inc.'s Nov. 8 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30.

In September 2005, two former Illinois Power salaried employees
who were participants in the Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
401(k) Savings Plan for salaried employees filed a lawsuit in
federal court in the Southern District of Texas against the
company and several individual defendants.

The salaried employees purport to represent all DMG Salaried
Plan participants who held Dynegy common stock through the DMG
Salaried Plan during the period from Jan. 1, 2002, through Jan.
30, 2003.  

The Savings Plan is formerly known as the Illinois Power
Incentive Savings Plan.  It is now referred to as the "DMG
Salaried Plan."

The complaint alleges violations of ERISA in connection with the
DMG Salaried Plan that are similar to the claims made in the
ERISA litigation referenced in the preceding paragraph.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the losses to the plan, as
well as attorney's fees and other costs.

In December 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, in response to which plaintiffs' counsel filed a
second putative class action on behalf of three alleged plan
participants that is materially identical to the original
action.  

In March 2006, the original action was dismissed by the court
with prejudice based on lack of standing and lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs in that matter have
appealed that dismissal.

The second putative class action relating to the DMG Salaried
Plan remains pending at the class discovery stage.


DYNERGY INC: W.Va. Antitrust Lawsuit Enters Discovery Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the Stand Energy Litigation, formerly
Atlantigas Corp. Litigation, which names as defendants Dynergy
Inc.

In October 2004, the company was named as a defendant in a West
Virginia federal court class action alleging that interstate
pipelines provided preferential storage and transportation
services to their own unregulated marketing affiliates in return
for a percentage of the profits.

Plaintiffs contend that such conduct violated applicable Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission regulations and federal and state
antitrust laws, and constituted common law tortious interference
with contractual and business relations.  

In addition, the complaint claims the defendants conspired with
the other market participants to receive preferential natural
gas storage and transportation services at off-tariff prices.  
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.  

The parties are actively engaged in discovery, according to
Dynegy Inc.'s Nov. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.


ENTERPRISE GP: Named in TEPPCO Unitholder's Suit Over Jonah Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. is named in a purported class action
filed by a unitholder of its TEPPCO Partners, L.P. affiliate, a
publicly traded Delaware limited partnership.

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

     * a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of
       TEPPCO, and

     * derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO,

concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving
TEPPCO and Enterprise GP or its affiliates.

The complaint names as defendants TEPPCO, its directors, and
certain of its affiliates; Enterprise GP and certain of the
company's affiliates; EPCO, Inc.; and Dan L. Duncan, the
chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions with the
company or its affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise
unfairly favored the company or the company's affiliates over
TEPPCO.  

These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to
further expand the Jonah Gas Gathering System -- located in the
Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming -- entered
into by TEPPCO and one of the company's affiliates in August
2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of the company's affiliates
of the Pioneer gas processing plant in March 2006.

The Jonah system gathers and transports natural gas produced
from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas
processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver
natural gas to end-use markets.

The complaint seeks:

     -- rescission of these transactions or an award of
        rescissory damages with respect thereto;

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

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


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Oct. 2007 Trial Set for Tex. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 1, 2007 trial was set for an amended consolidated
securities class action pending against Flowserve Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2003, related lawsuits were
filed in federal court in the Texas, alleging that the company
violated federal securities laws.  Since the filing of these
cases, which have been consolidated, the lead plaintiff has
amended its complaint several times.  The lead plaintiff's
current pleading is the fifth consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that federal securities violations
occurred between Feb. 6, 2001 and Sept. 27, 2002.  It names as
defendants:

     -- Mr. C. Scott Greer, the company's former chairman,
        president and chief executive officer;

     -- Ms. Renee J. Hornbaker, the company's former vice
        president and chief financial officer;

     -- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the company's independent
        registered public accounting firm; and

     -- Banc of America Securities LLC and Credit Suisse First
        Boston LLC, which served as underwriters for two of the
        company's public stock offerings during the relevant
        period.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1933.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
forfeiture by Mr. Greer and Ms. Hornbaker of unspecified
incentive-based or equity-based compensation and profits from
any stock sales, and recovery of costs.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Court entered an order denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint.  The case is
currently set for trial on Oct. 1, 2007.  


LOUISIANA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Water Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana refused to dismiss a consolidated
lawsuit for damages from Hurricane Katrina's floods, citing that
the defendants failed to distinguish between natural and manmade
catastrophes in their insurance policies.

The 85-page ruling covered several cases that had been
consolidated in "In re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated
Litigation, Case No. 05-4182." In anticipation of defendants'
appeals on the decision, the judge promptly sent his ruling for
review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Essentially, the judge denied motions by Allstate Insurance Co.,
St. Paul Travelers Cos., and several insurers, who relied on
water damage exclusions written by the Insurance Services Office
to dismiss a number of Hurricane Katrina-related claims the
insurers asserted were not covered by the policies.

Though the ruling covers several cases, Judge Duval has not
decided to certify it as a class action as of the moment.  A
decision on whether to do that probably won't come until the
appellate court rules on the judge's decision, says plaintiffs'
attorney Joseph Bruno.

The consolidated litigation is for claims arising out of damage
caused by the breach or overtopping of Louisiana's 17th Street
Canal, London Avenue Canal, Industrial Canal, and Mississippi
Gulf River Outlet levees.  

Judge Duval found that language used by most insurance companies
doesn't differentiate between a flood caused by an act of God,
such as excessive rainfall, and a flood caused by an act of man
or by human errors, which would include the levee breaches.

However, Judge Duval also found that both State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co. and Hartford Insurance Co. are exceptions to his
ruling.  Thus, the judge dismissed suits filed against both
insurers, ruling that their policies effectively employed
language that more explicitly denied coverage for water damage
irrespective of cause.

Both St. Paul Travelers and Allstate Insurance are planning an
appeal for Judge Duval's ruling.

For more details, contact Joseph Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, 855
Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-525-1335 or 1-
800-966-1335, Fax: 504-581-1493, Web site:
http://www.brunobrunolaw.com/.


MET-RX USA: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Pro-hormone Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
MET-Rx USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Rexall Sundown, Inc., remains
a defendant in a putative consumer fraud class action in
California state court, claiming that the advertising and
marketing of certain pro-hormone supplements were false and
misleading, or alternatively, that the pro-hormone products
contained ingredients that were controlled substances under
California law.

The suit, which was filed on July 25, 2002, seeks equitable and
monetary relief.  On June 18, 2004, the case was coordinated
with several other cases brought against other companies
relating to the sale of products containing androstenediol, one
of the pro-hormones contained in the Met-Rx products.   

The coordinated proceedings have been assigned to a coordination
judge for further pretrial proceedings.  No trial date has been
set, the court has not yet certified a class, and the matter is
currently in discovery, according to the NBTY, Inc.'s Dec. 11,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.  Rexall Sundown
is an acquisition of NBTY, Inc.

In March 2004, a putative class action was filed in New Jersey
against the company, claiming that the advertising and marketing
of certain pro-hormone supplements were false and misleading and
that plaintiff and the putative class of New Jersey purchasers
of these products were entitled to damages and injunctive
relief.  

Because these allegations are virtually identical to allegations
made in the putative nationwide class action previously filed in
California, the company moved to dismiss or stay the New Jersey
action pending the outcome of the California action.  The motion
was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at this time.


MICHAELS STORES: Mass. Laborers' Annuity Fund Files Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its directors were named as
defendants in a purported securities fraud class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On Sept. 6, 2006, the Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund filed
a putative class action on behalf of itself and all holders of
Michaels Stores, Inc. common stock during the period of May 4,
2004 through the present.  

The suit alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for
2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other things, that
Michaels' reported financial results inflated its reported
earnings by not properly recording stock-based compensation
expense relating to the granting of stock options, that problems
with Michaels' internal controls prevented it from issuing
accurate financial reports and projections, and that Michaels'
directors had received and acquiesced in the granting of
backdated stock options.  

Plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of
violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (b) violations
of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit sought an indeterminate amount of damages from the
defendants and equitable or injunctive relief, including the
rescission of stock option grants.  

The suit is "Massachusetts Laborers Annuity Fund v. Michaels
Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01635," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge
David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiff is Mark Solomon of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins - San Diego, 655 W. Broadway,
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/231-1058.

Representing the defendant is Patricia J. Villareal of Jones Day
- Dallas, PO Box 660623, 2727 N. Harwood St., Dallas, TX 75266-
0623, Phone: 214/969-2973, Fax: 214/969-5100, E-mail:
pjvillareal@jonesday.com.


MICHAELS STORES: Settles Calif. Suit by Hourly Retail Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for a class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, which alleged violations of the state's
wage and labor laws.

On July 13, 2005, Michael Clark, a former Michaels store
assistant manager and Lucinda Prouty, a former Michaels store
department manager in San Diego, California, commenced the suit
on behalf of themselves and current and former hourly retail
employees employed in California from July 13, 2001 to the
present.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, and alleges that the company failed to pay
overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods (or compensation
in lieu thereof), and provide itemized employee wage statements.
The Clark suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
California's unfair competition law.  

Plaintiff seeks, injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime
pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the company removed the
case to federal court on Aug. 5, 2005.  The parties participated
in a voluntary mediation on Oct. 16, 2006 and have reached a
tentative settlement of the case.

Contingent on court approval, the parties have agreed to a
claims made process, with no material impact on the company's
statement of operations, balance sheet, or cash flows for any
period presented, according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Dec. 7,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Oct. 28, 2006.

The suit is "Clark, et al v. Michaels Stores Inc, et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-01678-WQH-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California under Judge William Q. Hayes
with referral to Judge Jan M. Adler.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael D. Singer of Cohelan and
Khoury, 605 C. Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
(619) 595-3001, Fax: (619) 595-3000, E-mail:
msinger@ck-lawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants is Catherine A. Conway of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer and Feld, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 229-1000, Fax: (310) 552-6746.


MICHAELS STORES: No Hearing Date Yet for Calif. Managers' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to schedule a
hearing on the certification of the class action filed against
Michaels of Canada and Michaels Stores, Inc.

On Dec. 20, 2002, James Cotton, a former store manager of
Michaels of Canada, ULC, the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada, commenced the proposed class proceeding on behalf of
themselves and current and former employees employed in Canada.

The Cotton claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and alleges that the defendants violated employment
standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and
territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as
required by that legislation.

The Cotton claim also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
the contracts of employment of those individuals.  It seeks a
declaration that the defendants have acted in breach of
applicable legislation, payment to current and former employees
for overtime, damages for breach of contract, punitive,
aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs delivered material in support of
their request that this action be certified as a class
proceeding.  

The company filed and served its responding materials opposing
class certification on Jan. 31, 2006.  A date has not yet been
set for the hearing with respect to certification, according to
Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Dec. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Oct. 28, 2006.

Michaels Stores, Inc. on the Net: http://www.michaels.com.


MIRAB USA: Recalls Beef Jerky for Likely Presence of Animal Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirab USA, Inc., of Taylor, Michigan, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 23,200 lbs. of
beef jerky products that may contain the animal drug Doramectin.

The following product is subject to recall:

     -- Four- and 16- ounce packages of "MOUNTAIN TRAILS BEEF
        JERKY, ORIGINAL."  Each label bears a "best before date"
        of "04/14/08."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio,
        Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and West
        Virginia.

     -- Four- and 16- ounce packages of "MOUNTAIN TRAILS BEEF
        JERKY, TERIYAKI."  Each label bears a "best before date"
        of "04/14/08."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in Arizona, California, New Hampshire, Oregon,
        Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and West
        Virginia.

     -- Four - and 4.375 - ounce packages of "SPORTMAN'S
        WAREHOUSE OUTFITTER BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL."  Each label
        bears a "best before date" of "04/14/08."  This product
        was distributed to retail stores in California,
        Minnesota and Nevada.

     -- Three-ounce packages of "STEAKHOUSE BEEF JERKY,
        ORIGINAL."  Each label bears a "best before date" of
        "04/14/08," "04/20/08," "04/21/08" or "04/26/08."  This
        product was distributed to retail stores in Arizona,
        California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and
        Wisconsin.

     -- Three-ounce packages of "STEAKHOUSE BEEF JERKY,
        TERIYAKI."  Each label bears a "best before date" of
        "04/14/08,"  "04/19/08." "04/20/08."  This product was
        distributed to retail stores in California and Florida.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "GOLD AWARD BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/17/08,"
        "04/20/08" or "04/21/08."  This product was distributed
        to retail stores in California, Illinois, Massachusetts,
        Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "GOLD AWARD BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/21/08."
        This product was distributed to retail stores in
        California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and
        South Carolina.

     -- Four-ounce packages of "KROGER BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/17/08."   
        This product was distributed to retail stores in
        California, Colorado, Indiana and Tennessee.

     -- 1.75- and 3.5-ounce packages of "PECOS BILL'S BEEF
        JERKY, ORIGINAL."   Each label bears a "best before
        date" of "04/17/08" or "04/19/08."  This product was
        distributed to retail stores in California, Florida,
        Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma and Ohio.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "RITE AID BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/17/08" or
        "04/21/08."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in California, Michigan, New York and Oregon.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "RITE AID BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/14/08,"
        "04/17/08" or "04/21/08."  This product was distributed
        to retail stores in California, Michigan and Oregon.

     -- Four-ounce packages of "KROGER BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/18/08" or
        "04/21/08."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in California, Colorado, Indiana and Tennessee

     -- Four- and 16-ounce packages of "FIRST CHOICE BEEF JERKY,
        ORIGINAL."  Each label bears a "best before date" of
        "04/18/08."   This product was distributed to retail
        stores in California.

     -- 16-ounce packages of "FIRST CHOICE BEEF JERKY,
        TERIYAKI."  Each label bears a "best before date" of
        "04/18/08" or "04/21/08."   This product was distributed
        to retail stores in Arizona and California.

     -- Four-ounce packages of "RAPLH'S BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/18/08" or
        "04/21/08."   This product was distributed to retail
        stores in California.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "PECOS BILL BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/19/08."  
        This product was distributed to retail stores in Georgia
        and Texas.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "LOWES BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/19/08."  
        This product was distributed to retail stores in North
        Carolina.

     -- 3.5-ounce packages of "PECOS BILL BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL
        WITHOUT TRANS FAT."  Each label bears a "best before
        date" of "04/19/08."  This product was distributed to
        retail stores in Oklahoma.

     -- 16-ounce packages of "WILD RIVER BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/20/08" or
        "04/26/08."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in California, Utah and Washington.

     -- 16-ounce packages of "WILD RIVER BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI".  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/20/08."  
        This product was distributed to retail stores in
        California and Washington.

     -- 4.375-ounce packages of "SPORTMAN'S WAREHOUSE OUTFITTER
        BEEF JERKY, SELECT, ORIGINAL."  Each label bears a "best
        before date" of "04/20/08."  This product was
        distributed to retail stores in Colorado, Idaho, Utah
        and Washington.

     -- Four-ounce packages of "AMERICAN FARE BEEF JERKY,
        TERIYAKI."  Each label bears a "best before date" of
        "04/21/08."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in Florida.

     -- 4.6-ounce packages of "MEIJER BEEF JERKY, ORIGINAL."  
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/21/08."  
        This product was distributed to retail stores in
        Illinois and Michigan.

     -- 4.6-ounce packages of "MEIJER BEEF JERKY, TERIYAKI."
        Each label bears a "best before date" of "04/21/08."
        This product was distributed to retail stores in
        Illinois.

     -- Four- and 16-ounce packages of "HILL COUNTRY FARE BEEF
        JERKY, ORIGINAL."  Each label bears a "best before date"
        of "10/17/07."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in Texas.

     -- Four-ounce packages of "HILL COUNTRY FARE BEEF JERKY,
        TERIYAKI."  Each label bears a "best before date" of
        "10/17/07."  This product was distributed to retail
        stores in Texas.

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 27373" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The problem was discovered through FSIS routine sampling.  The
amount of Doramectin found in this product exceeds the tolerance
level established by the Department of Health and Human
Service's Food and Drug Administration of 30 parts per billion
in meat.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact Mirab USA, Inc. customer service at 313-292-4100.


MORTGAGEIT HOLDINGS: "Pressner" Attorneys Fee Capped at $250T
-------------------------------------------------------------
The entity that will be formed from the planned merger of
MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. and DB Structured Products is paying
the attorneys of plaintiffs in a class action challenging the
merger up to $250,000 under a proposed settlement of the suit.

On July 13, 2006, as amended on Sept. 15, 2006, Mr. Jerry
Pressner, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a
complaint, "Pressner v. MortgageIT Holdings, Inc., et al.,
(Index No. 602472/06)," in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York in New York County against the company and seven of its
eight directors.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value with regard to the proposed acquisition by DB
Structured Products.  Among other things, the complaint sought
class action status, a court order enjoining the company and its
directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger, and
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiff in the above referenced action
that led to the execution of a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release on Oct. 6, 2006.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the company agreed to include
certain additional disclosures in its proxy statement relating
to the special stockholders' meeting to vote on the proposed
acquisition by DB Structured Products from that which were
included in its preliminary proxy statement that was filed on
Aug. 11, 2006.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court entered an Order Regarding
Preliminary Approval of Class Action and Notice to Class, which,
among other things, approved the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Hearing Thereon, and contained additional information
regarding the litigation, the settlement of the litigation
according to the terms of the Stipulation, and procedures for
objecting to the Settlement, among other things.

The parties have agreed to seek final Court approval of the
Settlement, which will provide for certification of a non-opt-
out class of the company's stockholders, for entry of a judgment
dismissing the purported class action with prejudice and a
complete release and settlement of all claims that were made or
could have been made in the litigation.

The parties entered into the Stipulation to eliminate the
burden, risk and expense of further litigation.  The Stipulation
is not an admission by the company or its directors of any
breach of duty, liability or wrongdoing.

Subject to the occurrence of certain events, including the
consummation of the merger and final Court approval of the
Settlement, the entity surviving the merger has agreed to pay
plaintiff's counsel attorney's fees in an amount not to exceed
$250,000 and documented expenses in an amount not to exceed
$25,000.

The settlement covers all record and beneficial holders of
MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. common stock from July 24, 2006
through effective date of the merger.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016, Phone: 212-545-4657, Fax: 212-545-4758, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


MURPHY OIL: Property Buyout in Oil Spill Suit Deal to Cost $55M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. expects that purchases of properties and
associated remediation under the settlement of a suit filed
against it over the Meraux Louisiana oil spill will cost the
company about $55 million.

The class action was filed in federal court in the Eastern
District of Louisiana on Sept. 9, 2005.  It seeks unspecified
damages to the class comprised of residents of St. Bernard
Parish caused by a release of crude oil at a Meraux Louisiana
refinery of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Murphy Oil Corp., as a result of flood damage to a crude oil
storage tank following Hurricane Katrina.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

On or about Sept. 25, 2006, the company reached a settlement
with class counsel and on Oct. 10, 2006, the court granted
preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement and
scheduled a fairness hearing for Jan. 4, 2007.

The majority of the settlement of $330 million will be paid by
insurance.  The company recorded an expense of $14 million in
the third quarter 2006 related to settlement costs not covered
by insurance.  

As part of the settlement, all properties in the class area will
receive a fair and equitable cash payment and will have residual
oil cleaned.  In addition, the company will offer to purchase
all properties in an agreed area adjacent to the west side of
the Meraux refinery; these property purchases and associated
remediation will be paid by the company and are expected to
total $55 million.

Approximately 100 non-class actions regarding the oil spill have
been filed and remain pending; however, as part of its Oct. 10,
2006, order, the court stayed these actions pending the
settlement proceedings and further orders of the court.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Ala. Court Okays Racial Bias Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District court for the Middle District of Alabama gave
final approval to the settlement of a class action against a
subsidiary of The National Security Group, Inc.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving a proposed settlement of a case pending against a
subsidiary of the company captioned, "Mary W. Williams, et al.
v. National Security Insurance Co.," and preliminarily
certifying such case as a class action.  

The suit relates primarily to claims that a subsidiary of the
company sold industrial burial insurance policies to racial
minorities on which it charged higher premiums or provided
inferior benefits than premiums charged to or policy benefits
provided to similarly situated non-minority policyholders.  The
company's subsidiary has not sold industrial burial insurance
for more than 20 years.  

The proposed settlement provides for the company's subsidiary
to, among other matters, provide additional policyholder
benefits, including premiums adjustments and benefits
enhancements on existing policies and additional benefits on
matured policies and pay attorneys fees.  

Following a fairness hearing held on Aug. 22, 2006, the court,
in an order dated Aug. 30, 2006, granted final approval to the
proposed settlement.  The effective date of the settlement was
Sept. 30, 2006, with a scheduled implementation date of Dec. 29,
2006.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Nat'l Security Ins., Case No.
1:02-cv-00877-MHT-DRB," filed in the U.S. District court for the
Middle District of Alabama under Judge Myron H. Thompson with
referral to Judge Delores R. Boyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric James Artrip of Watson Jimmerson, 203 Greene
         Street, PO Box 18368, Huntsville, AL 35801, Phone:
         (256) 536-7423, Fax: 256-536-2689, E-mail:
         artrip@watsonjimmerson.com;

     (2) Christa L. Collins of James, Hoyer, Newcomer &
         Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, 4830 W. Kennedy
         Boulevard, Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: (813)
         286-4100, Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail:
         ccollins@jameshoyer.com; and

     (3) Joel Lee Dilorenzo of Jackson and Tucker, P.C., Black
         Diamond Building, 2229 1st Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
         35203, Phone: 205-252-3535, Fax: 205-252-3536, E-mail:
         joel@jacksonandtucker.com.

Representing the defendant is Richard A. Ball, Jr. of Ball Ball
Matthews & Novak PA, PO Box 2148, Montgomery, AL 36102-2148,
Phone: 334-387-7680, Fax: 387-3222, E-mail: rball@ball-ball.com.


OMNICARE INC: Ken. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Name New Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Omnicare
Inc. filed a second amended complaint that seeks to add two
members of the company's board of directors as defendants and
raises a new claim of fraud in relation to the company's
December 2005 public offering.

On Feb. 2 and Feb. 13, 2006, respectively, two substantially
similar putative class actions:

     -- "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers  
        Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.  
        2:06cv26," and  

     -- "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31"

were filed against the company and two of its officers in the
U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Kentucky,
purporting to assert claims for violation of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of all
company shareholders, allege that the company artificially
inflated its earnings by engaging in improper generic drug
substitution and that the defendants have made false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects.

Thus, the suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and injunctive relief.

On March 7, 2006, the parties to both actions filed stipulations
agreeing that the cases should be consolidated and proposing a
scheduling order for the conduct of the actions upon
consolidation.  

Those scheduling orders were entered on March 10, 2006.  On
April 3, 2006 plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally moved
for consolidation and the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.  

On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the cases were
consolidated, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
appointed.

On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, adding a third officer as a defendant and new factual
allegations relating primarily to revenue recognition, the
valuation of receivables and the valuation of inventories.

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint.  The proposed second amended complaint, which
purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare
common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, seeks to
add two members of the company's board of directors as
defendants and a new claim -- asserted by a new proposed
plaintiff -- for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading statements in the
registration statement filed in connection with the company's
December 2005 public offering.

In addition, the proposed second amended complaint would, among
other things, add allegations that the company failed to timely
disclose its contractual dispute and failed to timely record
certain special litigation reserves.

Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
was due on Nov. 20, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Indiana State District  
Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund,
et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
  
     (1) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,  
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;
  
     (2) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade  
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,  
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:  
         pivenlaw@erols.com;
   
     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (San Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,  
         CA, 92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423;
  
     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,  
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;
  
     (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,  
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and
  
     (6) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,  
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated securities class
action filed against OmniVision Technologies, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company's Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Oct. 31, 2006.

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its present and
former directors and officers on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's common stock at various times from
February 2003 to June 9, 2004.

Those actions were consolidated as, "In re OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., No. C-04-2297-SC."  It asserts claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between June
11, 2003 and June 9, 2004.  It is seeking unspecified damages.

The suit generally alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices that
purportedly led to the company's financial restatement.  

On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint and discovery commenced thereafter.  The
parties engaged in settlement discussions and in November 2006,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this
litigation.

The parties are currently drafting a written settlement
agreement and other customary documentation.  As a result of the
pending statement, the parties have agreed to stay discovery and
other proceedings.

The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel  
L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc Louis Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala  
         Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 94104, Phone: 610-
         667-6200, Fax: 610-667-9029, E-mail:  
         mackerman@brodsky-smith.com;   

     (2) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801  
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
         pbinkow@glancylaw.com; and  

     (3) Jeffery C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt  
         & Pucillo, 8th Floor, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA  
         02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: 6175421194, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com.   

Representing the defendants are Jenny L. Dixon, Cameron Powers  
Hoffman and Claudia N. Main of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,  
Phone: 415-947-2000, (650) 493-9300 and 415-947-2053, Fax: 415-
947-2099, E-mail: jldixon@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com and  
cmain@wsgr.com.


PEKIN INSURANCE: Ill. Circuit Court Junks Suit by Chiropractors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox dismissed a class
action filed by chiropractors against Pekin Insurance Co. over
alleged improper reduction of payments for treatment of patients
who suffered injuries in accidents, the Madison County Record
reports.

In dismissing Count I of the suit for failure to state a cause
of action, Judge Maddox wrote, "Plaintiffs' failed expectations
of receiving 100 percent of what they billed (or payment of
their billing at usual and customary rates) does not constitute
actual damages."

On Count II, the unjust enrichment allegation, the judge ruled
that the only benefit Pekin received was the insurance premiums
paid for by the insureds.

"Plaintiffs presents no case authority that the reductions from
their charges to the [preferred provider organization] schedule
rates constitute a benefit to defendant for which suit can be
brought for unjust enrichment," Judge Maddox wrote in dismissing
the claim.

She also ruled that the plaintiffs did not have a contract with
Pekin therefore no breach could exist.

Judge Maddox further ruled that any agreement could only be
enforced by the PPO administrator and Pekin, not the plaintiffs.
Therefore the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Pekin based on
the terms of any payor agreement because they were not parties.

"Plaintiffs have failed to establish any duty or responsibility
on the Defendant for providing plaintiffs steerage under
Illinois law," she wrote.  "Because there was no breach of any
contract, there can be no damages."

The judge also ruled there was no civil conspiracy because there
was no contract between the plaintiffs and Pekin, dismissing the
fourth and final count of the complaint.  The claims were
dismissed without leave to amend.  

Filed originally in February 2005 by chiropractor Frank Bemis,
the suit accuses Pekin Insurance of improperly reducing payouts
on medical bills.  Mr. Bemis sought to represent a class of
plaintiffs in at least five states.

In June 2005, Pekin Insurance attorney David Osborne asked
Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran to dismiss, arguing
that Mr. Bemis failed to state a cause of action.

In 2006, the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River filed an amended
complaint with the Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran
after fusing three lawsuits filed by chiropractors against Pekin
Insurance (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

On Feb. 1, the parties agreed to add Lakin's client Thomas
Kalterbronn to a proposed class suit filed by another Lakin
client, Frank Bemis.  They further named a third plaintiff, Dale  
Fischer, doing business as Lebanon Chiropractic.

The lawsuit accuses Pekin of improperly reducing payments for
treatment of patients who suffered injuries in accidents that
its policies covered.

Before her Nov. 30 resignation, Judge Maddox dismissed the class
action and ordered the clerk to close the file.

Representing Pekin Insurance is David S. Osborne of Pretzel &
Stouffer Chartered, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago,
IL 60606-8242, Phone: (312) 346-1973, Fax: (312) 346-8242.

Plaintiffs' counsel is the Lakin Law Firm PC, 300 Evans Avenue,
PO Box 229, Wood River, IL 62095-0229, Phone: (618) 254-1127 or
(800) 851-5523, Fax: (618) 254-0193, Web site:
http://www.lakinlaw.com.


PHLX: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Wall Street Firms Deal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor William Chandler of the Delaware Court of Chancery
denied all defendants' motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought on
behalf of shareholders of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange
(PHLX).

Named defendants in the suit are the Board of Governors of the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange and six Wall Street firms:

     -- UBS Securities, LLC;
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.;
     -- Citigroup Financial Products, Inc.;
     -- Credit Suisse First Boston;
     -- Citadel Derivatives Group, LLC; and
     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith.

The firms bought a non-dilutable 90% interest of the 100%
interest held by Class A shareholders of PHLX in 2005.

Lawrence Deutsch, Esquire, of Berger & Montague, P.C. argued the
motions on behalf of representative plaintiff Chuck Ginsburg and
the class of injured Class A shareholders regarding the
challenged transactions.

Mr. Deutsch notes, "This is an important victory for PHLX's
Class A shareholders as well as for shareholder rights,
particularly as to the limits of the power of a board whose
actions may have injured its own shareholders."

Chancellor Chandler ordered that trial be set by early summer
2007.

For further information, contact Plaintiff's Counsel Lawrence
Deutsch, Esquire and Robin Switzenbaum, Esquire both of Berger &
Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: 800-424-6690 or 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-5715, E-Mail:
ldeutsch@bm.net or rswitzenbaum@bm.net, Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Continues to Face Unit Renters Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in California Superior Court for Orange County,
alleging violations of consumer fraud laws, 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 plaintiff filed the suit, "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc.,"
in April 2003 against the company on behalf of a putative class
of renters who rented self-storage units from the company.

Plaintiff alleges that the company misrepresented the size of
its storage units, has brought claims under California statutory
and common law relating to consumer protection, fraud, unfair
competition, and negligent misrepresentation.

The suit seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.  

On Nov. 3, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.

In Aug. 2005, the company filed a motion to remove the case to
federal court, but the case has been remanded to the Superior
Court.

The company is vigorously contesting the claims upon, which this
lawsuit is based, including class certification efforts.

Glendale, California-based Public Storage, Inc. (NYSE: PSA) --
http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a fully integrated, self -
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust
(REIT) that acquires, develops, owns and operates storage
facilities.  The company is an owner and operator of storage
space in the U.S., with direct and indirect equity investments
in 1,501 storage facilities containing approximately 92 million
square feet of net rentable space, as of Dec. 31, 2005.  The
company also has a 44% ownership interest in PS Business Parks,
Inc., a public REIT that, as of Dec. 31, 2005, owned and
operated commercial properties containing approximately 17.6
million net rentable square feet of space located in eight
states.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Storage Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the Superior Court of California, Orange County in relation to
the company's sale of storage insurance, 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.
  
Filed on January 2006, plaintiffs brought the action, "Simas v.
Public Storage, Inc.," against the company on behalf of a
purported class, who bought insurance coverage at the company's
facilities.

They are alleging that the company does not have a license to
offer, sell and/or transact storage insurance.  The suit was
brought under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200.
  
The company filed a demurrer to the complaint.  While the
demurrer was pending, plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege
a national class and claims for unfair business practices,
quasi-contract, common counts, and negligent and intentional
misrepresentation.

Public Storage renewed its demurrer and moved to strike the
national class allegations.  The court dismissed all the claims
with leave to amend, except for the claim for unjust enrichment.

Based on this ruling, the court held that the motion to strike
was moot.  Plaintiff elected not to amend her complaint and is
therefore only proceeding with the claim for unjust enrichment.

Glendale, California-based Public Storage, Inc. (NYSE: PSA) -
http://www.publicstorage.com-- is a fully integrated, self-
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust that
acquires, develops, owns and operates storage facilities.  The
company is an owner and operator of storage space in the U.S.,
with direct and indirect equity investments in 1,501 storage
facilities containing approximately 92 million square feet of
net rentable space, as of Dec. 31, 2005.  The company also has a
44% ownership interest in PS Business Parks, Inc., a public REIT
that, as of Dec. 31, 2005, owned and operated commercial
properties containing approximately 17.6 million net rentable
square feet of space located in eight states.


QC HOLDINGS: Accused of Breaching Ariz. Deferred Presentment Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. is facing a suit filed by an Arizona customer
in Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, alleging that a loan
to him violated the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies
Statute and asserting various other claims based in tort,
contract and violations of state law and seeking class.

The company has removed this matter to federal court, and the
company has filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit in accordance
with the mandatory arbitration provisions in the consumer loan
contracts signed by the plaintiff in this matter.

Overland Park, Kansas-based QC Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCCO) --  
http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer  
loans, known as payday loans.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company
operated 532 branches in the U.S.  It also provides other
consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing
services, title loans, credit services, money transfers and
money orders.


REXALL SUNDOWN: Conference Set for Lawsuit Over Nutrition Bars
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court scheduled a Jan. 10, 2007
conference for the class action filed against Rexall Sundown,
Inc., a company acquired by NBTY, Inc.

The suit was filed in 2002 on behalf of all California consumers
who bought various nutrition bars.  Plaintiffs allege
misbranding of nutrition bars and violations of California
unfair competition statutes, misleading advertising and other
similar causes of action.  Plaintiffs seek restitution, legal
fees and injunctive relief.  

Until recently, the case was stayed for all purposes, pending
rulings on relevant cases before the California Supreme Court.
The court has now lifted the stay and has permitted Rexall
Sundown and the other defendants to re-raise a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  

The court has scheduled a conference on that motion for Jan. 10,
2007, according to the NBTY, Inc.'s Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


SUTTER HEALTH: Court Grants Final OK to Uninsured Patients' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David W. Abbott of the Sacramento Superior Court
granted final approval to a class action settlement resolving
claims regarding pricing and collection practices for uninsured
patients at all of Sutter Health's affiliate hospitals.

The settlement resolves the named plaintiffs' and class members'
claims against Sutter and its affiliated hospitals.

As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to
make a claim for refunds or deductions of between 25% to 45%
from their prior hospital bills.

For the next three years, Sutter hospitals have also agreed to
maintain discounted pricing policies for uninsureds that will
make Sutter's pricing for uninsureds comparable to the pricing
for patients with private insurance.

In addition, Sutter has agreed to maintain more compassionate
collections policies that will protect uninsureds who fall
behind in their payments.

Commenting on the settlement, plaintiffs' attorney and Lieff
Cabraser partner Kelly M. Dermody stated, "We are pleased that
the Court has granted final approval to this groundbreaking
settlement so that uninsured patients will receive substantial
refunds or reductions on their bills going back to September
2000.

"In the future, uninsured patients will also benefit
substantially, because the settlement requires that Sutter end
price discrimination against its uninsured patients, maintain
generous charity case policies for low-income uninsureds to
receive free or heavily discounted care, and protect uninsured
patients from unfair collections practices.  We hope that other
hospital systems will follow this positive trend in fair
hospital pricing and treatment for uninsured patients."

The proposed class includes all persons who:   
      
     -- received hospital services from a Sutter-affiliated  
        hospital between September 3, 2000 and Aug. 3, 2006;  
        and

     -- were uninsured at the time of treatment.

The consolidated lawsuit was filed by six uninsured patients on
behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of uninsured
patients at Sutter-affiliated hospitals in California, alleging
that Sutter charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair
prices for medical treatment and services given at Sutter-
affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and unfair
collections practices.  

The lawsuits claim that Sutter violated numerous laws by
"charging unfair, unreasonable and inflated prices for medical
care to its uninsured patients who are generally the least able
to pay."  The suits also claim that Sutter "pursues aggressive
collection techniques that often result in lawsuits, judgments,
garnishments and bankruptcies against uninsured patients."  

Stutter denies wrongdoing and liability in the case.  

In August, Judge Abbott granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

Uninsured Pricing Cases on the Net:
http://www.uninsuredsettlement.com/

Representing the plaintiffs is Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff  
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th  
Floor San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 956-1000, Fax: (415)  
956-1008, E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com; Website:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/sutterhealth.htm


TELEPHONE COS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal on Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments by defendants for the
consumer class action, "William Twombly, et al. v. Bell
Atlantic Corp., et al.," which has been remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.

According to xchange online, it is not yet known when the
justices will decide, but the session of the Supreme Court ends
in June.

The suit was filed on December 2002 in the U.S. District Court  
for the Southern District of New York, alleging antitrust  
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against:

      -- BellSouth Corp.;
      -- Verizon;
      -- AT&T, formerly known as SBC; and  
      -- Qwest Corp.   

It alleges that defendants conspired to restrain competition by  
agreeing not to compete with one another and to impede  
competition with others.   

Plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble damages  
and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses.  

In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for  
failure to state a claim.  In October 2005, the U.S. Court of  
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the district court's  
decision and remanded the case to the district court for further  
proceedings.  

In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants'  
petition for writ of certiorari.

The suit is "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
10220-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.
   
Representing the plaintiffs is J. Douglas Richards of Milberg  
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New  
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 946-9390, Fax: (212) 244-5423, e-
mail: drichards@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Hector Gonzalez and Lily Fu Swenson of Mayer, Brown,  
         Rowe & Maw, LLP (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY  
         10019, Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, e-
         mail: hgonzalez@mayerbrownrowe.com;   

     (2) Colin Ryle Kass of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Washington),
         655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC  
         20005, Phone: (202) 879-5172, Fax: (202) 879-5200, e-
         mail: ckass@kirkland.com; and

     (3) Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), 1615 M.
         Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., DC 20036,  
         Phone: 202-326-7902, Fax: 202-326-7999, e-mail:
         mkellogg@khhte.com.


TIVO INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Calif. Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. tentatively settled the consumer class action filed
against it in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco in relation to gift subscriptions that
it sold, according to the company's Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Oct. 31, 2006.

Filed on Dec. 22, 2005, the action, "Nolz, et al. v. TiVo,
Inc.," was brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the company's gift subscriptions, which were allegedly sold
to consumers in violation of a California law that allegedly
makes it unlawful to sell gift certificates in California
containing an expiration date.

In November 2006, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, which is expected to result in
dismissal of the action in the company's first quarter of fiscal
year 2008, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Oct. 28, 2006.

TiVo, Inc. on the Net: http://www.tivo.com.


TYCO INT'L: Appeal on N.H. ERISA Lawsuit Class Status Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Tyco International, Inc. and certain defendants to
appeal the class certification by the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire of a consolidated lawsuit alleging
pension laws violations, has been denied.

The company and certain of its current and former employees,
officers and directors, were named as defendants in eight class
actions brought under of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.  

Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire and the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the six remaining actions
to that court later on.  

Thus, all eight actions are now consolidated in the District
Court in New Hampshire, falling under the Multidistrict
Litigation, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.
1:02-md-01335-PB."

The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of the Tyco
International (US) Inc. Retirement Savings and Investment Plans
and the participants therein.

On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire denied, without prejudice, the company's motion to
dismiss certain additional individual defendants from the
action.

On Jan. 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Jan. 27, 2005, the company answered the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's Jan. 12, 2005
order, insofar as it related to the Tyco International (US) Inc.
Retirement Committee.  On May 25, 2005, the court denied the
motion for reconsideration.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The motion
is still pending.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose
individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of
Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25,
2002."

On Aug. 29, 2006, Tyco filed a petition for leave to appeal the
class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.  

On Nov. 13, 2006, the court denied Tyco's petition, according to
the company's Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 29, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, Mdl-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the ERISA plaintiffs is Kenneth G. Bouchard
Bouchard & Kleinman, PA, 1 Merrill Drive, Ste. 6, Hampton, NH
03842-1968, Phone: 603 926-9333, E-mail:
kbouchard@bestnhlaw.com.
  
Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: Court Affirms Dismissal of "Ezra" Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the
court's dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire of the amended complaint in a consolidated class
action against Tyco International, Ltd.

On May 28, 2003, a class action complaint, "Ezra Charitable
Trust v. Tyco International Ltd.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire under the caption, "In Re Tyco International
Securities Litigation, 1:02-md-01335-PB."  Thereafter, the
company moved to dismiss the complaint.

On Dec. 22, 2004, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint.  The
proposed amendment asserts causes of action under Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against:

     * the company and Edward Breen, its current chief
       executive officer, and seeks to add as defendants

     * David FitzPatrick, its former chief financial officer,
       and

     * PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, its former independent
       auditors.

As against defendants Messrs. Breen and FitzPatrick, the
complaint asserts a cause of action under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

On Mar. 25, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire granted plaintiff's motion to amend.  Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint that day.

On Mar. 28, 2005, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the original complaint, without prejudice to the defendants'
ability to move against the amended complaint.

On Apr. 25, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.  On Sept. 2, 2005, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire entered a
memorandum and Order dismissing the amended complaint.

On Oct. 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice to appeal in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire and briefing
has begun.

On Sept. 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the court's dismissal of the amended class
action complaint.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Biron L. Bedard of Cook & Molan,
PA, PO Box 1465, Concord, NH 03302-1465, Phone: 603 225-3323, E-
mail: blb@cooknmolan.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: Court Denies Appeal on MDL-1335 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a
petition by Tyco International, Ltd. for leave to appeal the
class certification order for the consolidated class action
under MDL-1335.

Initially, the company and certain of its former directors and
officers were named as defendants in over 40 securities class
actions.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
most of the securities class actions for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New
Hampshire securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International,
Ltd., Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335,
Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," a consolidated securities
class action complaint against the company certain of the
company's former directors and officers and its former auditors.  
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

As to the company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  

Claims against the company's former directors and officers are
also asserted under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among others:

      -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed
         acquisitions;

      -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;

      -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,
         promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings
         performance;

      -- compensation of certain of the company's former
         executives;

      -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal
         benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate
         transactions;

      -- their sales of Tyco shares;

      -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and

      -- the criminal investigation of the company's former
         chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs sought class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Mar. 31, 2003, the company made a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  The other defendants moved
to dismiss shortly thereafter.  

On Oct. 14, 2004, the court granted the company's motion, in
part, and denied it in part.  The court granted the company's
motion to dismiss Count II of the Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleging a violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants.  

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss Count I
alleging a violation of Section10 (b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Counts V and VI alleging violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933.

In addition, the court granted former director Michael
Ashcroft's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Counts III and IV alleging a
violation of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, respectively, and Count VII alleging a violation of
Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On Jan. 7, 2005, the company answered the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint.  On Jan. 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs made
a motion for class certification, which the company opposed on
Jul. 22, 2005.  The motion is still pending.

On Jul. 5, 2005, the company moved for revision of the court's
Oct. 14, 2004 order in light of a change in law, insofar as the
order denied the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint for failure to plead loss causation.  On Dec. 2, 2005,
the court denied the company's motion.  

On April 4, 2006 plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary
judgment that was denied without prejudice to its later renewal.
On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and
June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling interest."

On June 26, 2006, Tyco filed a petition for leave to appeal the
class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.  Separately, on Sept. 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied Tyco's petition.

The suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.
1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Vicki K. Andreadis of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, One
         Battery Park Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212 837-
         6000, E-mail: andreadi@hugheshubbard.com;

     (2) Francis P. Barron of Cravath Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825
         8th Ave., New York, NY 10019-7475, Phone: 212 474-1000,
         E-mail: fbarron@cravath.com;

     (3) Gregory A. Blue of Morgenstern Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885
         Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212 750-
         6776, E-mail: gblue@mjbllc.com;

     (4) R. Matthew Cairns of Ransmeier & Spellman, PO Box 600,
         Concord, NH 03302-0600, Phone: 603 228-0477, Fax: 603
         224-2780, E-mail: matt@ranspell.com; and  

     (5) William L. Chapman of Orr & Reno, PA, One Eagle Sq., PO
         Box 3550, Concord, NH 03302-3550, Phone: 603 224-2381,
         E-mail: wlc@orr-reno.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Mulls Class Certification for "Newby"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
yet to rule on Mark Newby's motion for class certification of
the case "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md-
01335-PB."

Initially, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted one plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff in "Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.," an action
originally filed on July 28, 2003 and "O'Loughlin v. Tyco
International Ltd.," an action originally filed on Sept. 26,
2003.

On Dec. 13, 2004, lead plaintiff Mark Newby filed a consolidated
securities class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of purchasers of TyCom securities between Jul. 26, 2000
and Dec. 17, 2001.  

Plaintiff names as defendants the company, TyCom, Ltd., Goldman
Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
and Citigroup Inc., (the underwriters) along with certain former
company and TyCom executives.

The complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the company, TyCom, Goldman
Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and certain former the company
and TyCom executives.

The complaint alleges the TyCom registration statement and
prospectus relating to the sale of TyCom securities were
inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose facts necessary to
make the registration statement and prospectus not misleading.

Further, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among other things,
executive compensation, the company's and TyCom's finances and
TyCom's business prospects.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the company moved to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action complaint.  On Sept. 2, 2005, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted in part
and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss allegations
that the TyCom registration statement and prospectus were
misleading to the extent that they failed to disclose alleged
looting of Tyco by former senior executives, accounting fraud,
analyst conflicts and the participation by James Brennan in the
offering, because plaintiff failed to plead that those alleged
omissions were disclosed during the class period, with a
resultant drop in the value of TyCom stock.  However, the court
denied the company's motion to dismiss with respect to other
allegations.  

On Sept. 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's Sept. 2, 2005 ruling with respect to Goldman
Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
and Citigroup Inc.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the court held that the Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and
Citigroup Inc. should remain in the case on the claim concerning
TyCom's business prospects, but that the Section 11 claim
related to alleged looting of Tyco by former senior executives
was dismissed as to both the Tyco defendants and the
underwriters because the affirmative defense of lack of loss
causation was apparent on the face of the complaint.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the company and TyCom answered the
consolidated securities class action complaint.  On March 8,
2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which
is still pending, according to the company's Dec. 11, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, Mdl-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John F. Harnes, Darren T. Kaplan, Gregory E. Keller,
         Mary Kathryn King and Jill Asch Levenson of Chitwood
         Harley Harnes, LLP, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
         St., Ste 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404 873-3900,
         E-mail: jfharnes@chitwoodlaw.com,
         dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com, gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com,
         kking@chitwoodlaw.com and jlevenson@chitwoodlaw.com;

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

     (3) Renee L. Karalian and Michael A. Schwartz of Wolf
         Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022-6601,
         212 759-4600, E-mail: rkaralian@wolfpopper.com and
         mschwartz@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: Ruling in Ill. Suit Over Mallinckrodt Deal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action relating to the merger
between Tyco International, Inc. and Mallinckrodt, Inc., filed a
motion to reconsider the denial of their motion for summary
judgment in the case.

On March 10, 2005, plaintiff Lionel I. Brazen filed an amended
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois purporting to represent a class of purchasers who
exchanged shares of Mallinckrodt, Inc. common stock for shares
of the company's common stock pursuant to the Joint Proxy
Statement and Prospectus, and the Registration Statement in
which it was included, in connection with the Oct. 17, 2000
merger of the company and Mallinckrodt.

Plaintiff names as defendants the company and certain of its
former executives and asserts causes of action under Section 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The amended class action complaint alleges that the defendants
made statements in the Registration Statement and the Joint
Proxy Statement and Prospectus that were materially false and
misleading and failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the business and operations of the company.

On Apr. 21, 2005, the company moved in the Circuit Court for
Cook County, Illinois to dismiss or stay or, in the alternative,
to strike the class allegations.  On Jul. 22, 2005, the court
denied the company's motion.

Also, on Jul. 22, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss
individual defendants Michael A. Ashcroft, Joshua M. Berman,
Richard S. Bodman, John F. Fort, III, Stephen W. Foss, James S.
Pasman Jr., W. Peter Slusser and Frank E. Walsh, Jr.

On Aug. 2, 2005, the company filed a motion for a finding
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a), which was denied on Aug.
16, 2005.  On Aug. 19, 2005, the company filed an interlocutory
appeal of the Circuit Court for Cook County Illinois' July 22,
2005 memorandum and order.

On Dec. 27, 2005, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
Judicial District, denied the company's interlocutory appeal.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification, which was granted.  On Jan. 31, 2006, the company
filed a petition for leave to appeal the decision of the
appellate court, but that petition was denied.  On Feb. 14,
2006, the company filed its answer to the complaint.

On July 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary
judgment, which was denied on Nov. 8, 2006.  On Nov. 22, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the denial of their
motion for summary judgment.  Briefing is ongoing, according to
the company's Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 29, 2006.


VISTEON CORP: $7.6M Mich. ERISA Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Avern Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan preliminarily approved a $7.6
million settlement of a class action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act against Visteon Corp.

The Settlement with Visteon Corp. will provide for payments to
the Visteon Investment Plan and the Visteon 401(k) Savings Plan
(formerly known as the Visteon Investment Savings Plan for
Hourly Employees) and for allocation of those payments to the
accounts of members of the Settlement Class who had portions of
their Plan accounts invested in Visteon stock.

Lead Counsel in the case, Lynn Sarko of Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
stated, "This proposed settlement would allow us to immediately
restore retirement monies to current and former Visteon
employees.  If the settlement receives final approval, members
of the Settlement Class could see their individual portions of
the settlement restored to their retirement accounts as early as
the spring of 2007."

In March and April 2005, the company and a number of current and
former employees, officers and directors were named as
defendants in three class actions brought under ERISA in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In September 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that: the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA during
the class period by among other things:

     -- continuing to offer the company stock as an investment  
        alternative under the Visteon Investment Plan;

     -- failing to disclose complete and accurate information  
        regarding the prudence of investing in the Visteon  
        stock;

     -- failing to monitor the actions of certain of the  
        defendants; and  

     -- failing to avoid conflicts of interest or promptly  
        resolve them.  

The consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of a named
plaintiff and a putative class consisting of all participants or
beneficiaries of the Plans whose accounts included Visteon stock
at any time from July 20, 2001 through May 25, 2005.  

In November 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

The court has scheduled a March 9, 2007 hearing for the final
approval of the Settlement at the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

Deadline to file any objections to the settlement is set on Feb.
19, 2007.

The suit is "Skiles v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
71205-AC-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn with referral to
Judge Donald A. Scheer.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback (Phoenix), 3101 N.  
         Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600,  
         Phone: 602-248-2822, E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com;
         and  

     (2) Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S.  
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009,  
         Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail:  
         esimon@esimon-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Gabor Balassa and Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis,  
         Phone: 312-861-2186 and 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200  
         and 312-861-2200, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com;

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

   (iii) Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. of Steptoe & Johnson  
         (Washington), 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington,  
         DC 20036-1795, Phone: 202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902,  
         E-mail: pondrasik@steptoe.com.


VITAMIN WORLD: Dismissal of Hormone Supplement Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of all claims in a
purported class action that was filed in New York State Court
against Vitamin World, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of NBTY,
Inc.

On July 25, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against Vitamin World,
alleging that Vitamin World engaged in deceptive trade practices
and false advertising with respect to the sale of certain
prohormone supplements and that the plaintiffs were therefore
entitled to equitable and monetary relief under the New York
General Business Law.  

By a July 18, 2006 Decision and Order, the court granted Vitamin
World's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims.  

The plaintiffs have appealed, according to the NBTY, Inc.'s Dec.
11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


WARRIOR ENERGY: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Warrior Energy Services Corp. and president Bill Jenkins are
defendants in a purported securities fraud class action filed by
22 investors, The Commercial Dispatch reports.

The suit was filed two years ago in Harris County, Texas,
District Court and revised last month.  It was filed by St.
James Capital Partners (SJCP) against the company and Charles
Underbrink, St. James Capital Corp., KPMG LLP, and St. James
Merchant Bankers.

A November filing to amend the suit does not name KPMG.  SJCP
intervened to also claim wrongdoings by Messrs. Underbrink,
Jenkins and the others.  

Plaintiffs include investors from Texas, California, Colorado,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and Florida.  They
allege that defendants sold stock in Warrior Energy at "a price
depressed by the self-dealing, fraud and breaches of fiduciary
duties" of executives.  

The defendants allegedly misrepresented what they did in selling
the stock and omitted information related to the sale.  They
also failed to pursue alternative financing that would have
retired Warrior Energy's debt to benefit its shareholders.

The suit also claims that defendants made financial decisions
concerning Warrior Energy's debts that should've been put to a
vote by shareholders.

Plaintiffs in the suit are seeking to recover losses in
investments.  The case awaits a 2007 trial.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ATRICURE INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common
stock of AtriCure, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's initial public offering on or about Aug. 4, 2005
through Feb. 16, 2006.

The suit seeks to pursue remedies under the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933.  This action concerns the initial public offering of
AtriCure common stock, which took place on or about Aug. 4,
2005.

The complaint charges AtriCure and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act.  AtriCure is a
medical device company that engages in the development,
manufacture, and sale of surgical devices designed to create
precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac and soft tissues.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the company's IPO contained
inaccurate statements of material fact because they failed to
disclose that the Cleveland Clinic, where a significant portion
of procedures that used the company's products were being
performed, was an investor in the company and that doctors from
the Cleveland Clinic had been paid consultants to the company.

On Feb. 16, 2006, AtriCure issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the fourth quarter of 2005 and the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2005 and disclosed, among other things, that
the company was experiencing a "negative impact" on its business
due to the revelations concerning the Cleveland Clinic.

In response to this announcement the price of AtriCure common
stock dropped from $10.36 per share to $8.04 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/atricure/.


ATRICURE INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all common stock purchasers of AtriCure, Inc.
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public
offering on or about Aug. 4, 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint charges AtriCure and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that AtriCure's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the company's
initial public offering on or about Aug. 4, 2005 failed to
disclose that the Cleveland Clinic, where a significant portion
of procedures with the company's products were being performed,
was an investor in the company and that doctors from the
Cleveland Clinic had been paid consultants to the company.

On Feb. 16, 2006, AtriCure announced financial results for the
fourth quarter of 2005 and the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.
Among other things, the company reported that it was
experiencing a "negative impact" on its business due to the
revelations concerning the Cleveland Clinic.  

In response to this announcement, the price of AtriCure common
stock dropped from $10.36 per share to $8.04 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiffs may move the court not later than Feb. 9, 2007, for
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


TOP TANKERS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of TOP Tankers, Inc. between June 28,
2005 and Nov. 28, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of TOP
Tankers securities.  No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

Plaintiffs may move the court not later than Feb. 9, 2007, for
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


                            *********


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  * * *