CAR_Public/061218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 250

                            Headlines

180 CONNECT: Black Workers File Lawsuit Over Noose at Workplace
ACRES GAMING: Continues to Face Nev. Lawsuit Over IGT Merger
CANADA: Ontario Court Okays Residential School Suit Settlement
COLORADO: Court Grants Injunction Against "Two Document Rule"
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Overturns N.Y. Stock Suit Status

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Rejects Amended Stock Fraud Lawsuit
DDI CORP: Feb. 26 Fairness Hearing Set for $4.35 Suit Settlement
DELL INC: High Court To Hear Correction of Pocket PC Price Suit
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Falling Blades Prompts Ceiling Fans Recall
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Deere & Co. Workers Sue Over 401(k) Fees

GAMO USA: Recalls Air Rifles Posing Serious Injury Hazard
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
LG PHILIPS: Faces Antitrust Litigation in N.Y. Over LCD Panels
LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Climbing Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard
LOTO QUEBEC: 2007 Trial Set for Canadian Suit Over Lottery Games

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Judge Partially Dismisses ERISA Violation Suit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Former Employee Sues in N.Y. Over Pension Plan
NEW JERSEY: Prisoners Sue Camden County Over Jail Conditions
OIL COMPANIES: Motorists File Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Hot Fuel"
REMEC INC: Calif. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Responds to Securities Suit Filing in Fla.
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for $24.5M Settlement
TYSON FOODS: Appeals Certification of Trollinger Suit in Tenn.
TYSON FOODS: Asks Partial Summary Judgment in Neb. Labor Suits

TYSON FOODS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
TYSON FOODS: Grand Lake O' Property Owners Abandon Class Claims
TYSON FOODS: Reaches $10.2M Settlement in Wash. Labor Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Requests Summary Judgment in Kansas FLSA Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Immigration Advocates Add More Families to Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
HANSEN NATURAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


180 CONNECT: Black Workers File Lawsuit Over Noose at Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven African-Americans cable technicians have filed an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) class-action
discrimination suit against their employer, 180 Connect, a
Cablevision Systems Corp. subcontractor, The New York Post
reports.

The group alleges that a white manager displayed a noose at
their Farmingdale, New York warehouse.  They claim that manager
joked about hanging some of them.

The suit alleges that despite numerous complaints, a second
white manager refused to remove the noose, considered by some as
a symbol of racist lynchings.  It also alleges that plaintiffs
they are discriminated against on the job and the noose was the
last straw

The workers' lawyers, Lenerd Leeds and James Vagnini, filed the
suit on Dec. 15, 2006.

According to James Jackson, Jr., one of workers, "Supervisor
Dave Willie said he put it there to hang anybody who would pass
the gate."  

He also alleged that Mr. Willie and Gary Murdock, another white
supervisor, also joked about the noose, which hung over their
heads for a week.


ACRES GAMING: Continues to Face Nev. Lawsuit Over IGT Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Gaming Inc. remains a defendant in a suit alleging the
company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to their
stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger
transaction between Acres and International Game Technology,
Inc.

The class action, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.,"
has been remanded back to the Clark County, Nevada District
Court after being removed earlier to the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Nevada.  

The suit seeks to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among
other forms of relief.  It also seeks damages.  

Other defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown,
     -- Ronald G. Bennett

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from
voting on the merger.  

On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court
to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding
its stockholder vote on the merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court
denied the petition on Sept. 25, 2003.   

On Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.   

On April 29, 2004, the court issued a ruling denying defendant's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On May 12, 2004
the court issued an order denying defendants motion to dismiss.   

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties on Aug. 13, 2004,
plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.  The court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

On April 7, 2006 defendant filed a Notice of Removal to U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.  On April 7, 2006
defendant filed a Notice of Removal to U.S. District Court, D.
Nev. (Las Vegas).  Plaintiff sought to remand this action to
state court, which was granted in August 2006.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no.  
P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court
under Judge Michelle Leavitt.   

Representing the lead plaintiff Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein,
while lawyer for the defendants is Paul R. Hejmanowski.


CANADA: Ontario Court Okays Residential School Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Warren Winkler approved on
Dec. 15 a settlement of the residential school class action
"Cloud v. Attorney General of Canada" and in the Baxter class
action, reports say.

A settlement in principle was reached in proceedings in Ontario,
Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Nunavut,
British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon in November 2005.  Approval
hearings in the Ontario suit took place before Justice Winkler
in Toronto the week of August 28, 2006.  To date, the Nunavut
and the Northwest Territories are the only jurisdictions left to
approve the deal, according to Edmonton Sun.com.

As reported by The Class Action Reporter in July, the settlement
provides:

     -- at least CA$1.9 billion available for "common  
        experience" payments to former students who lived at one  
        of the schools.  Payments will be CA$10,000 for the  
        first school year (or part of a school year) plus  
        CA$3,000 for each school year (or part of a school year)  
        after that;

     -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious  
        physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious  
        psychological effects, to get between CA$5,000 and  
        CA$275,000 each.  Students could get more money if they  
        also show a loss of income; and

     -- money for programs for former students and their  
        families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and  
        commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses  
        suffered: CA$125 million to the Aboriginal Healing  
        Foundation, CA$60 million to research, document, and  
        preserve the experiences of the survivors, and CA$20  
        million for national and community commemorative  
        projects.

The government will pay lawyers representing former students up
to approximately CA$100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes.

The compensation will only be paid out to former students who
were still living on May 30, 2005, and who have attended a
recognized Indian residential schools.  Students who are
eligible can apply for an advance payment of $8,000 by filling
out a form available on the Indian Residential Schools  
Resolution Web site (http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/)or by calling    
1-800-816-7293.   Applications for advance payment will be
accepted until Dec. 31.

For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement  
Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247.


COLORADO: Court Grants Injunction Against "Two Document Rule"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry Naves of the Denver District Court granted a
temporary injunction in favor of plaintiffs in a class action
against Colorado's Department of Motor Vehicles regarding the
"two document rule" that was imposed this year.

In granting the injunction, Judge Naves stated that the new rule
was discriminatory, according a report by Sara Gandy of 9 News
Denver.

The state requires two forms of identification to get a state  
ID card or a driver's license, and that's more than what's  
required to get a passport, which is federal document that takes  
only a birth certificate.  The two-document rule was meant to  
crack down on illegal immigrants obtaining a driver's license or  
a state ID (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) along with three  
individuals filed the suit both against the DMV and the Colorado  
Department of Revenue (CDR).   

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the rules  
must be overturned since officials didn't follow the law in  
adopting them.   

It was filed on behalf of all people who can prove their  
identity under state law but cannot under the more restrictive  
rules.

According to the suit, Diana Galliano, 42, one of three named  
plaintiffs has tried three times to obtain a Colorado license,  
but has failed.  Ms. Galliano of Fort Collins has a valid U.S.  
passport and a New York driver's license.   

Under the DMV's rules, any individual with a U.S. passport must  
present another document such as a certified marriage  
certificate to obtain a driver's license or a state ID card.  A  
driver's license or an ID card issued by other states does not  
count as a second form of ID when used with a passport.

According to the lawsuit, the strict requirement is unduly  
restrictive and constantly changing.  It also alleges that the  
'two-document' rule has never been subjected to public notice or  
comment and is found only on the DMV Web site.
  
Thus, the suit seeks:  

     -- for a judge to invalidate the rule,  
     -- to block the state from enforcing it, and  
     -- an order that requires the Revenue Department's DMV to  
        issue identification to the plaintiffs and other people  
        who can prove their identity under the law, which calls
        for a valid birth certificate or other proof of age and  
        identity as defined by the department.

Identification is needed to obtain access to "fundamental rights  
and necessities" such as employment, housing, government  
benefits, health care, travel and voting, the suit states.

However, CCH President John Parvensky said in an affidavit that  
without a photo ID, homeless persons couldn't obtain lawful  
employment, creating a virtually insurmountable barrier to  
returning to the mainstream.

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, Phone: 303-
         293-2217, E-mail: cch@coloradocoalition.org, Web site:  
         http://www.coloradocoalition.org;and  

     (2) Sean Connelly of Reilly Pozner Connelly, LLP, The  
         Kittredge Building, 511 Sixteenth Street, Suite 700,  
         Denver, Colorado 80202, Phone: 303 893 6100, Fax 303  
         893 6110, E-mail: sconnelly@litigationcolorado.com, Web  
         site: http://www.litigationcolorado.com/.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Overturns N.Y. Stock Suit Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a
lower court ruling certifying a proposed class in the suit,
"Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," pertaining to Conexant Systems, Inc.

In November 2001, Collegeware Asset Management, LP, on behalf of
itself and a putative class of persons who purchased the common
stock of GlobeSpan, Inc., (GlobeSpan, Inc. later became
GlobespanVirata, Inc., and is now the company's Conexant, Inc.
subsidiary) between June 23, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000, filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging violations of federal securities laws by
the underwriters of GlobeSpan, Inc.'s initial and secondary
public offerings as well as by certain GlobeSpan, Inc. officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing and selling GlobeSpan, Inc.'s common
stock in the initial and secondary offerings without disclosing
to investors that the underwriters had solicited and received
undisclosed and excessive commissions or other compensation and
entered into agreements requiring certain of their customers to
purchase the stock in the aftermarket at escalating prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages.  The complaint was
consolidated with class actions against approximately 300 other
companies making similar allegations regarding the public
offerings of those companies during 1998 through 2000.

In June 2003, Conexant, Inc. and the named officers and
directors entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that will, among other
things, result in the dismissal with prejudice of all the claims
against the former GlobeSpan, Inc. officers and directors.  The
final settlement was executed in June 2004.  

On Feb. 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval
of the settlement, subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.  

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the lower court, ruling that no class was
properly certified.  

It is not yet clear what impact this decision will have on the
issuers' settlement.  The settlement remains subject to a number
of conditions and final approval.  It is possible that the
settlement will not be approved.  

The suit is "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  

Some plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Rejects Amended Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
a second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
class action against Conexant Systems, Inc.

Between December 2004 and January 2005, the company and certain
current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in several class actions seeking monetary damages
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased company common
stock during a specified class period.

These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts.

The California cases have now been consolidated with the New
Jersey cases so that all of the class actions are being heard in
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge.

On Sept. 1, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the case.  On Nov. 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion to file a second amended complaint, which was filed on
Dec. 5, 2005.

The defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the case on
Feb. 6, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 24,
2006, and defendant's reply was filed on June 14, 2006.  

On Dec. 4, 2006, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint.  Two claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the
third was dismissed without prejudice.

The suit is "Witriol v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-06219-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ
         07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:
         PSP@njlawfirm.com; and

     (2) Katrina Blumenkrants and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite
         Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Phone: (973) 623-3000,
         E-mail: kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com and
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Gregory B. Reilly and Deborah A.
Silodor of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue,
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone: (973) 597-2500 and (973) 597-
2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com and
dsilodor@lowenstein.com.


DDI CORP: Feb. 26 Fairness Hearing Set for $4.35 Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 26, 2007 at 10 a.m. for the
proposed $4,350,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re DDi Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-7063-SGL (SHx)."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside,
California.  

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased
shares of DDi common stock in DDi's Feb. 14, 2001 public
offering for $23.50 per share.   

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or Jan. 26, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of a
proof of claim is on April 6, 2007.

                        Case Background

On Jan. 31, 2001, DDi filed a registration statement with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission covering the public sale
of 6 million shares of DDi common stock.  

On Feb. 14, 2001, pursuant to its February Prospectus, DDi
completed its offering, selling its common stock at $23.50 per
share and yielding net proceeds of approximately $66 million for
the company and another $66 million for selling shareholders.   

Five federal securities class action complaints were filed on or
after Oct. 1, 2003 against some or all of the Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws, and these
actions were consolidated by the court.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on July
26, 2004, and defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint
on Sept. 9, 2004.  

By order dated Jan. 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint.   

Thereafter on Feb. 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their second
amended consolidated class action complaint (SACC) which
asserted claims solely under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  

The SACC alleged that DDi's February Prospectus was materially
incomplete and contained materially false and misleading
statements pertaining to, inter alia, DDi's customer base,
market conditions, financial results, business focus and future
prospects.  

The SACC further alleged that defendants' misleading statements
and omissions caused the February Offering to be completed at an
inflated price, resulting in damages to persons and entities
that purchased DDi common stock in DDi's February Offering.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the SACC on March 25, 2005.  
Both parties submitted additional briefing related to the
motions to dismiss.  

On July 20, 2005, the court denied in part and granted in part
defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs to proceed
with:

      -- claims against all defendants under Section 11 of the
         Securities Act,

      -- claims against the Underwriter Defendants under Section
         12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and

      -- claims against the Individual and Bain Defendants under
         Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

The court dismissed claims in the SACC relating to convertible
notes sold in connection with DDi's Feb. 14, 2001 public
offering on statute of limitation grounds.  On Sept. 19, 2005,
Defendants filed answers to the SACC.  

On Feb. 21, 2006, the court held a scheduling conference
regarding discovery, at which time the parties were required to
resolve matters of class certification before continuing with
discovery on the merits of the action.  

The court also referred the action to a private mediator.
Thereafter, the parties proceeded with class certification
discovery and the case was reassigned to the Judge Stephen
G. Larson.  

On April 19, 2006, defendants served plaintiffs with
interrogatories relating to class certification issues, and on
June 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.

While discovery was ongoing, the parties participated in a
mediation session with the assistance of a retired federal judge
and formally began their settlement discussions.  

Although the parties did not resolve the action at the
mediation, they then reached the proposed settlement after
several months of ongoing telephonic negotiations.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Andrew L. Zivitz and Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  
         19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706, E-mail:
         info@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6465,
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-888-292-1828, Web
         site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


DELL INC: High Court To Hear Correction of Pocket PC Price Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday will hear a case
between a consumer advocacy group and Dell Inc. over alleged
addition of hundreds of dollars to the listed price of a hand-
held unit on its website, CBC News reports.

In 2003, the consumers' group Union des consommateurs initiated
a lawsuit, which seeks to determine if consumers can launch
class-action lawsuits against online retailers, in Quebec
against Dell Canada for adding hundreds of dollars to the listed
price of a hand-held unit on its website (Class Action Reporter,
May 13, 2003).

The Company allegedly posted a list price for its Axim x5 pocket
PC models of $89 to $118 last month. On April 7, 2003, the
Company corrected the price, saying the actual retail price for
the units was $379 for a basic model and $549 for a faster unit.
The consumer advocacy group alleged that a number of customers
had already placed Internet orders under the original price. It
added Dell is violating Canadian competition and consumer-
protection laws by refusing to honor the lower price.

Although Dell learned of the mistake quickly and blocked the
page, some consumers found the incorrect listings and placed
orders.  The company issued a correction notice and offered the
customers a discount, but refused to honor the incorrect price
listings.

Dell maintains that a standard clause on its website, which says
that arbitration will be the sole method used to settle
disputes, should protect it from class-action lawsuits.

However, Quebec's Superior Court in 2004 granted Olivier
Dumoulin of Saint-Laurent, Quebec, and the Union des
consommateurs class-action certification.


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Falling Blades Prompts Ceiling Fans Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Air Comfort Products Division of Emerson Electric Co., of St.
Louis, Missouri, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 units of Emerson 60-
inch designer ceiling fans.

The company said the brackets holding the fan blades can break,
causing the blade to detach.  Falling pieces can hit and injure
bystanders.  

Air Comfort Products has received one report of a fan blade
striking a consumer in the head. The company is also aware of
six incidents of the brackets failing. Three incidents resulted
in minor property damage.

The recall involves the "Emerson Designer 60-inch Ceiling Fan."
The recalled fans have a 60-inch diameter and come in seven
types of finishes including weathered bronze, pewter, antique
brass, white, antique white, oil rubbed bronze and brushed
steel. The following model numbers are included in the recall
and can be found on the base of the fan.

Model Number      Finish

CF760WB           Weathered Bronze
CF760PW           Pewter
CF760AB           Antique Brass
CF760WW           White
CF760AW           Antique White
CF760ORB          Oil Rubbed Bronze
CF760BS           Brushed Steel

These designer ceiling fans were manufactured in Taiwan and are
being sold by Menards and other lighting showrooms, electrical
distributors and hardware stores nationwide from May 2005
through September 2006 for between $90 and $300.

Pictures of the recalled ceiling fans:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07047a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07047b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07047c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these fans immediately and
contact Air Comfort Products to receive a voucher for a free
Emerson replacement fan of comparable value. Air Comfort will
reimburse consumers up to $75 for charges incurred in the
removal and installation of replacement fans from Air Comfort.

For more information, consumers should contact Air Comfort toll-
free at (866) 478-8564 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.emersonfans.com.


FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Deere & Co. Workers Sue Over 401(k) Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Investments faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin over the
retirement plan management fees they charges to workers at Deere
& Co., according to Reuters.

Four Deere & Co. workers, claiming that the mutual fund company
charged them "unreasonable" fees and expenses to manage their
retirement savings, filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2006.  

The workers who brought the suit are:

      -- Dennis Hecker,
      -- Jonna Duane,
      -- William Wallace, and
      -- Roger Bradley.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, specifically named as
defendants Deere & Co., Fidelity Management Trust Co. and
Fidelity Management & Research Co.  Fidelity, essentially acts
as a trustee and record keeper for the farm equipment maker's
401(k) plan.

Plaintiffs, represented by the law firm Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, charge that defendants assessed plan participants
expenses that "were, or are, unreasonable and/or not incurred
solely for the benefit of Plan participants."

They also argue that administrative fees and expenses can weigh
on participants' returns and that "even seemingly small
reductions in a participant's return in one year may
substantially impair his or her accumulated savings at
retirement."

Additionally, plaintiffs charge that defendants engaged in so-
called revenue sharing where the mutual fund firm administering
the plans shares some the fees it charges with the customer.  
The Deere & Co. employees said they were not told about the
revenue sharing.

The suit is "Hecker, Dennis v. Deere & Company, Case No. 06-C-
0719-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin under Judge John C. Shabaz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, Attorneys At Law, 100
         South Fourth Street, #900 Saint Louis, MO 63102, Phone:
         (314) 621-6115; and

     (2) Solheim, Billing & Grimmer, S.C., P.O. Box 1644, 1 S.
         Pinckney St., Ste. 301, Madison, WI 53701-1644, Phone:
         (608) 282-1200.


GAMO USA: Recalls Air Rifles Posing Serious Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
GAMO USA Corp., of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
14,000 GAMO air rifles.

The company said the scope mount on these rifles can be
installed incorrectly, causing the rifle to unexpectedly fire.
This poses a serious injury hazard to consumers.

GAMO has received one report of an air rifle firing
unexpectedly. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled air rifles are the following GAMO models: Hunter
Pro, Hunter Sport, Shadow Sport, and F1200. These models bear
the serial numbers 04-IC-415577-06 through 04-IC-579918-06. The
model and serial numbers can be found on the left side of the
barrel just above the front left side of the stock. Models
Shadow Sport and F1200 look identical.

These recalled air rifles were manufactured by Duel Delta, S.L.
of Barcelona, Spain and are being sold by sporting goods stores
and gun shops nationwide from June 2006 to September 2006 for
between $150 and $280. Model F1200 was exclusively sold at Wal-
Mart stores.

Pictures of the recalled air rifles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07045a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07045b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07045c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled air rifles
immediately and contact the company to receive instructions for
returning them and receiving a free repair.

Consumers that have not been contacted by GAMO should call the
company toll-free at (877) 246-3831 anytime or visit the
company's Web site: http://www.gamousa.com.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a
securities suit filed against Keynote Systems, Inc. in relation
to some of its initial public offerings.

Beginning on Aug. 16, 2001, several class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, certain of its officers, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.  

These lawsuits were essentially identical, and were brought on
behalf of those who purchased our securities between September
24, 1999 and Aug. 19, 2001.

These complaints alleged generally that the underwriters in
certain initial public offerings, including our allocated shares
in those initial public offerings in unfair or unlawful ways,
such as requiring the purchaser to agree to buy in the
aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in other
companies with higher than normal commissions.

The complaint also alleged that we had a duty to disclose the
activities of the underwriters in the registration statement
relating to our initial public offering.  

Plaintiffs' counsel and the issuer defendants' counsel have
reached a preliminary settlement agreement whereby the issuers
and individual defendants will be dismissed from the case,
without any payments by the company.

The settlement was preliminarily approved and awaits final
approval by the court, according to the company's Form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Sept. 30.  

No amount is accrued as Sept. 30, 2006 and 2005, as the company
anticipates that it will be dismissed from the case as a result
of the settlement.

The suit is "In re Keynote Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ 7666 (SAS)," filed in relation to
"IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (SAS)," in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


LG PHILIPS: Faces Antitrust Litigation in N.Y. Over LCD Panels
--------------------------------------------------------------  
LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd., was named as one of the defendants in
a purported antirust class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
MarketWatch.

Gladys Baker of Florida filed the lawsuit against the company,
which is a joint venture between LG Electronics Inc. and Philips
Electronics NV (PHG), and several others.  Ms. Baker alleges
anticompetitive behavior in the sale and manufacture of liquid
crystal display (LCD) panels.

Electronic court filings indicated that defendants in the suit
currently include:

  -- LG Philips,
  -- LG Electronics USA, Inc.
  -- Philips Electronics North America Corp., and
  -- Several "John Does."

The suit, which is seeking class-actions status, claims that
defendants are excluding competition and maintaining a monopoly
over the market for LCD panels that use "thin-film transistor
technology" to improve their image quality by "colluding and
conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices."

It further claims that as a direct result of defendants'
anticompetitive conduct, plaintiffs have paid supra-competitive
prices for TFT LCD display units or in reassembled computers
bought from retailers.

The displays are used in computer monitors, laptops,
televisions, cell phones and a number of personal electronic
devices.

The suit is "Baker v. LG Philips LCD Company Ltd. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-14335-JGK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John G. Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiff is Christopher Loveall of Lovell,
Stewart, Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110
Phone: (212) 608-1900.


LIBERTY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Climbing Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mountain, of Salt Lake City, Utah, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
5,900 units of Edelweiss Challenge Climbing Harnesses.

The company said the buckles on the harness' leg loops could
fail, posing a fall hazard for climbers.  Liberty Mountain has
received five reports of the leg buckle failing.  No injuries
have been reported.

The sit harnesses are worn around climber's waist and legs and
attach to climbing ropes to protect climbers from falling.  The
harnesses have three buckles including one on the waist belt and
one on each leg loop.  "Edelweiss" is printed on the waist belt.  
Only harnesses using the para buckle system are included in this
recall.  Para buckle harnesses have a single bar installed in
the center of each of the three buckles.

These climbing harnesses were manufactured in France and are
being sold at Climbing equipment retailers, Liberty Mountain's
catalog, and by various Web retailers from January 2005 through
September 2006 for about $47.

Pictures of the recalled climbing harnesses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07049a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07049b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
harnesses and contact Liberty Mountain for instructions on
returning the harnesses including a return authorization number.
Liberty Mountain will provide a free inspection and free repair.
Send your harness for repair to: Liberty Mountain, 4375 West
1980 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104.

For more information, contact Liberty Mountain at (800) 366-2666
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, by fax at (801)
954-0766, by E-mail: info@libertymountain.com, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.libertymountain.com.


LOTO QUEBEC: 2007 Trial Set for Canadian Suit Over Lottery Games
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loto Quebec continues to face a suit in Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec, District of Quebec alleging users of its
video lottery machines developed pathological behaviors by
playing its lottery.  The court has scheduled trial of the
entire action against Loto Quebec to commence in early 2007.

Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc. --
a wholly owned subsidiary of International Game Technology, Inc.
-- and another manufacturer of video lottery machines in October
2003 in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District
of Quebec, seeking indemnification for any damages that may be
awarded against Loto Quebec in a class action, also filed in the
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec.

The class action against Loto Quebec, to which neither
International Game nor any of its affiliates are parties, was
filed by Jean Brochu on behalf of himself and a class of other
persons who allegedly developed pathological behaviors through
the play of video lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec
in taverns and other public locations.  

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the
class damages of approximately CAD$578.7 million, representing
CAD$4,863 per class member, and CAD$119.0 million in punitive
damages.  

Loto Quebec's Plea in Defense in the main action was due in
February.  VLC's Plea in Defense in the warranty action was due
April.  The court has scheduled trial of the entire action
against Loto Quebec to commence in early 2007.

International Game reported no development in the case at its
form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Judge Partially Dismisses ERISA Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order in which she
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the class action against Marsh & McLennan Companies
Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The order allows plaintiffs to proceed with the lawsuit against
all of the defendants named in the complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The suit also alleges that during the purported class period,
which extends from July 1, 2000 until Jan. 31, 2005, MMC's stock
price fell from $52.22 to $32.50.  MMC and the other defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated ERISA Complaint
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2006).

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

Marsh & McLennan ERISA suit on the net:  

                   http://www.erisafraud.com

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

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

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

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


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Former Employee Sues in N.Y. Over Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide Inc. is facing a putative class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
in October by a former company employee against the company and
a number of its current and former officers and directors.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all participants
in the company's 401(k) plan.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to plan
participants under section 404, 405, 409 and 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1104
et seq., by allowing Plan participants to purchase and to hold
and maintain company stock in their Plan accounts without
disclosing to those plan participants the historical stock
option practices.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, equitable restitution,
attorney's fees and an order that enjoins defendants from
violations of ERISA.

The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322-
AKH" filed before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

Representing plaintiff Jennifer Taylor is Thomas James McKenna
at Gainey & McKenna, LLP, 295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 983-1300, Fax: (212) 983-0383, E-
mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com.


NEW JERSEY: Prisoners Sue Camden County Over Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Camden County was named as a defendant in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
over conditions at the county jail, The Cherry Hill Courier Post
reports.

Former inmates at the Camden County Jail say that their beds
were crawling with bugs while overcrowded conditions required
them to sleep on floors that were filthy from overflowed dirty
toilet water, according to the suit, which was filed on Jan. 6,
2005.

Lisa Rodriguez, the attorney representing the inmates, plans to
file a motion, seeking to have the civil rights lawsuit
certified for as class action.

She explains that if Judge Jerome B. Simandle grants the motion,
all former prisoners who stayed at the Camden County Jail during
the past six years will be notified that they can join the
lawsuit.

Ms. Rodriguez emphasizes that if they win the lawsuit, the
inmates won't get money, however they could win a court order
requiring the county government to improve conditions.

The suit is "Dittimus-Bey et al v. Taylor, et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00063-JBS-JS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with
referral to Judge Joel Schneider.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo,
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.


OIL COMPANIES: Motorists File Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Hot Fuel"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Truck and car drivers from seven states filed a purported
federal class action against 17 oil companies and gasoline and
diesel retailers, claiming their service stations overcharge at
the pump for fuel that's hotter than an industry standard.

The case centers on a nearly 100-year-old agreement between
industry and regulators that fuel should be sold at a standard
of 60 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius).

Companies named in the lawsuit include:

      -- Alon USA;
      -- Ambest;
      -- Chevron USA;
      -- Circle K Corp.;
      -- Citgo Petroleum Corp.;
      -- ConocoPhilips;
      -- Flying J.;
      -- Petro Stopping Centers;
      -- Pilot Travel Centers;
      -- 7-Eleven Corp.;
      -- Shell Oil Products Co.;
      -- Tesoro Refining;
      -- Valero Marketing and Supply Co.;  
      -- Wal-Mart Stores;
      -- Costco Wholesale Corp.;
      -- Kroger Co.; and
      -- TravelCenters of America, Inc.

The suit, filed on Dec. 13, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, is charging defendants with
"breach of sales contract," and "consumer fraud" for allegedly
selling hot fuel and not compensating the buyer.

Specifically, the suit, which seeks class-action status, claims
that retailers for decades have sold "hot fuel" in warm
locations and in the summer that cuts vehicle mileage and costs
consumers $2 billion per year.

Like all liquids, fuel swells when outside temperatures warm it.
The suit claims the swelling cheats consumers because the fuel
then contains less energy per gallon, cutting vehicle mileage.

Thus, plaintiffs seek the return of alleged overcharges to
consumers and the installation of temperature compensation
equipment on all fuel pumps.  Relief is mostly sought for motor
fuel consumers in the states of California, Texas, Florida,
Arizona, New Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia.

Eleven individual consumers are named as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.  They are:
       
      -- Charles Parrish,
-- John Taylor,
-- John Telles,
-- Kenneth Becker,
-- Lesley Duke,
-- Mark Rushing,
-- Nathan Butler,
-- Pamela Alwell,
-- Richard Galauski,
-- Roy Edson, and
-- William Younger

The suit is "Rushing et al v. Alon USA, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-07621-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Guy D. Calladine and Robert M.
Peterson of Carlson, Calladine & Peterson, LLP, 353 Sacramento
Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-391-8140 and 415-
391-3911, Fax: 415-391-3898, E-mail: gcalladine@ccplaw.com and
rpeterson@ccplaw.com.


REMEC INC: Calif. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in the
consolidated securities fraud class action against REMEC, Inc.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.   

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.  

On March 10, 2005, Milberg Weiss filed a consolidated and
amended complaint.  The complaint asserted, among other things,
that during the class period, the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's financial condition and
performance, operations, earnings and business prospects.  It
seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses.  

On April 19, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted on Aug. 17, 2005, with leave to
amend.   

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint on or
about Sept. 16, 2005.  On Oct. 28, 2005, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint,
which was granted by the court on Feb. 14, 2006, with leave to
amend.  

On March 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.  
On April 18, 2006 the court granted the plaintiffs leave to
further amend the third amended complaint, and relieved the
defendants of the responsibility to respond to the third amended
complaint.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.   
The fourth amended complaint seeks unspecified legal expenses
and damages.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on June 2, 2006, which motion was denied by
the court on September 25, 2006.  

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov.
6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative
defenses.  REMEC maintains directors' and officers' liability
insurance, and has tendered the defense of this lawsuit to its
insurance carrier.  

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,  
         CA 90071, Phone: (213) 617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975;

     (2) David W. Mitchell of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, California 92101-4297, (San Diego Co.),  
         Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com;and   

     (3) Blake Muir Harper of Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, 550  
         West C. Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:  
         (619) 338-1133, Fax: (619) 338-1139.

Representing the defendants is Robert W. Brownlie of DLA Piper  
Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP, 401 "B" Street, Suite 1700, San  
Diego, California 92101, (San Diego Co.), Phone: (619) 699-2700  
and Phone: 858-638-6886, Fax: 858-677-1401, Web site:  
http://www.dlapiper.com.
  

SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.

In November 2001, the company, various officers and certain
underwriters of the its initial public offering of securities
were named in a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596," alleges
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the company's initial public offering, including
obtaining commitments from investors to purchase shares in the
aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.

Similar suits concerning more than 300 other companies' initial
public offerings were filed during 2001, and this lawsuit is
being coordinated with those actions (coordinated litigation).

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on or about April 19,
2002, bringing claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws and seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.

On or about July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed
in the coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer
defendants, of which the company and the company's named
officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.

On Oct. 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the
court dismissed the officer and director defendants from the
action without prejudice.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants, including the
company.  The court's order dismissed all claims against us
except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company, was
submitted to the court for approval.

The terms of the settlement, if approved, would dismiss and
release all claims against the participating defendants,
including the company.

In exchange for this dismissal, D&O insurance carriers would
agree to guarantee a recovery by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants of at least $1 billion, and the issuer
defendants would agree to an assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including final court approval.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a hearing regarding the
possible final approval of the previously described preliminary
settlement between the 300 issuers and the plaintiffs.

After hearing arguments from a number of interested parties, the
court adjourned the hearing to consider its ruling on the
matter.  The settlement remains subject to a number of
conditions, including final court approval.  

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


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Responds to Securities Suit Filing in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Olympic USA, Inc., says that it believes a securities
fraud class action that has been filed against the company and
certain executive officers is without merit and that it intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of TOUSA's
common stock between Aug. 1, 2005 and Nov. 6, 2006, alleges that
the company violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Filed on Dec. 8, 2006, the suit's named plaintiff is George
Durgin, who is represented by attorneys from Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins.

The plaintiff and other class members are seeking an amount to
be determined at trial (if any) for the alleged wrongdoing.

The suit is "Durgin v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-61844-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing the plaintiffs are Stuart Andrew Davidson, Paul
Jeffrey Geller and David J. George of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 750-3364, E-
mail: sdavidson@lerachlaw.com, pgeller@lerachlaw.com and
dgeorge@lerachlaw.com.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for $24.5M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska will hold
on Feb. 23, 2007, 1:30 p.m. a fairness hearing for the $24.5
million settlement of the class action "Desert Orchid Partners
v. Transaction Systems Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-
00553-JFB-TDT."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska in the courtroom of the Honorable Joseph F.
Bataillon, Jr.

Deadline to file for exclusion or objection is on Febraury 9,
2007.  Deadline to file claims is on April 24, 2007.

The class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of common stock of TSA between Jan. 21, 1999 and
Nov. 19, 2002, inclusive.

                        Case Background

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed against
the company and certain individuals alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as lead plaintiff.  The court appointed Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as lead counsel.

On March 22, 2005, the court issued an order certifying the
class.

In the litigation, Genesee County generally alleged that TSA and
certain of its former executives, during the class period,
prematurely recognized millions of dollars of revenue from
certain software licensing arrangements and issued annual and
quarterly financial statements that did not conform with
generally accepted accounting principles, in violation of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In November 2006, the court-appointed lead counsel for lead
plaintiff, Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, in a
securities class action against Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc. signed a Stipulation of Settlement, on behalf of its client
to settle the suit for $24.5 million in cash (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006).

The proposed settlement will resolve claims brought by Genesee
County, as lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of persons and
entities that purchased the common stock of Transaction Systems
Architects, Inc. between Jan. 21, 1999 and Nov. 19, 2002.

The Genesee County Employees' Retirement System is a multiple-
employer public pension plan that provides retirement and
survivor benefits for general and police, roads, mental health,
sanitation, library and other employees of Genesee County and
its various offices, boards, and department, and employees,
embracing the City of Flint and environs.

The Retirement System is overseen by an elected and appointed
nine-member Board of Retirement Commissioners, and presently
holds more than $473 million in assets on behalf of
approximately 2,800 beneficiaries.  

A copy of the Summary Notice is available free of charge at:
            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1739   

Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. Securities Class Action on
the net: http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com./tsa/index.html

The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems
Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed in
the U.S. District Court in Nebraska under Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon.

Representing the lead plaintiff is Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP  
-- http://www.labaton.com.


TYSON FOODS: Appeals Certification of Trollinger Suit in Tenn.  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. filed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
a petition for interlocutory review of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee's class certification of
the suit alleging racketeering laws violation against it.

On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's
Shelbyville, Tennessee, chicken processing plant filed the case
"Trollinger et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The case was filed as a putative class action against the
company, raising allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Practices Act (RICO), and specifically alleged the
Company, in conjunction with employment agencies and recruiters,
engaged in a scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers in 15 of
its processing plants to depress wages paid to hourly wage
employees at those plants.

On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case.  Following
appeal, on June 3, 2004 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  Discovery has been ongoing since September 2004.  

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  The
second amended complaint included different plaintiffs, narrowed
the list of plants at issue to eight and added the allegation
the company conspired with certain Hispanic civil rights groups
to hire illegal immigrant workers.  

In addition, the second amended complaint added the following,
all of whom are current or former officers or managers of the
company, as defendants in the case:

      -- John Tyson,
      -- Richard Bond,
      -- Greg Lee,
      -- Archibald Schaffer III,
      -- Kenneth Kimbro,
      -- Karen Percival, and
      -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt.

On Aug. 5, 2005, plaintiffs sought certification of a putative
class of all hourly wage employees at the eight company plants
since 1998 who were legally authorized to be employed in the
U.S., which the defendants opposed.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 24, 2006, defendants filed with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for
interlocutory review of the court's class certification
decision.  That petition is pending.  

No trial date has been set.  A class management conference has
been scheduled for Jan. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Trollinger, et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:02-cv-00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with
referral to Judge William B. Carter.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Howard W Foster of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., 33 East Monroe
         Street, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60603-5404, Phone: 312-
         372-0770, Fax: 312-372-9818, E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com;
         and

     (2) William G. Colvin of Shumacker, Witt, Gaither &
         Whitaker, P.C., 736 Market Street, Suite 1100,
         Chattanooga, TN 37402, Phone: 423-425-7000, E-mail:
         bcolvin@swgwlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Roger W. Dickson of Miller & Martin, 832 Georgia
         Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building, Chattanooga, TN
         37402-2289, Phone: 423-756-6600, E-mail:
         rdickson@millermartin.com; and

    (ii) Thomas C. Green of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP,
         1501 K. Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-
         736-8000.


TYSON FOODS: Asks Partial Summary Judgment in Neb. Labor Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc. filed a motion for partial summary judgment
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the suit, "Dimas
Lopez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.

The suit was filed on June 30, 2006 by 20 current and former
hourly employees of the beef slaughter facility operated by TFM
in Lexington, Nebraska.  Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of
themselves and other allegedly similarly situated employees.

This lawsuit is similar to Garcia in that employees claim they
were not paid their minimum hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked in addition to overtime as required by the FLSA and
Nebraska law.  

Plaintiffs have asserted state-law claims under the Nebraska
Wage and Hour Act, R.R.S. Neb. Section 48-1201-1209, and the
Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, R.R.S. Neb. Section
48-1228-1232.  

They seek to act as class representatives for a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of current
and former production and support employees at the plant since
July 1, 2001.

The 20 named plaintiffs also assert claims under the FLSA.  In
particular, the suit alleges employees should be paid for time
spent preparing, donning, doffing and sanitizing sanitary and
safety equipment and clothing, obtaining tools, equipment and
supplies, "working" steels and "mousetraps" and performing other
job-related functions, before and after paid time, and during
both paid breaks and unpaid meal-period breaks.

Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid straight-time wages and overtime
wages, liquidated damages and statutory penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and declaratory and injunctive relief.  

On Oct. 24, 2006, the company filed a motion for partial summary
judgment under the FLSA based on the holdings of "Reich v. IBP,
Inc., No. 88-2171-EEO, 1996 WL 445072 (D. Kan. July 30, 1996),"
aff'd, "Metzler v. IBP, Inc., 127 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1997)" and
related proceedings, where the compensability of donning and
doffing certain clothing and protective gear worn by these
company employees was fully litigated.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion for partial summary
judgment on Nov. 16, 2006, and the Company filed its reply on
Nov. 27, 2006.


TYSON FOODS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court has not yet ruled on a motion to
dismiss a consolidated shareholders complaint filed against
Tyson Foods Inc. after a Sept. 20 hearing.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two
previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and
"Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re
Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation."

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited
Partnership and certain present and former directors of the
company.  The company also is named as a nominal defendant, with
no relief sought against it.

The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by:

     -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert
        Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004;

     -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other
        compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to
        2003;

     -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and
        directors with alleged knowledge the company was about
        to make announcements that would cause the stock price
        to increase;

     -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related-
        party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs
        allege were unfair to the company; and

     -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree.

The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative
claims for:

     -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v.
        Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.);"

     -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment
        in "Herbets v. Tyson;" and

     -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the
        defendants through the various transactions challenged
        in the consolidated complaint.

The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action
claim that the Company's 2004 proxy statement contained
misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation.

On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8,
2006, and Defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006.  

Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were heard on Sept. 20,
2006.  The court has not yet issued a ruling, according to the
company's Dec. 13 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.


TYSON FOODS: Grand Lake O' Property Owners Abandon Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' in the class action filed by owners of Grand Lake O'
the Cherokee's littoral (lakefront) property against Tyson
Foods, Inc. have dropped class allegations in the suit.

On Oct. 23, 2001, a putative class action, "R. Lynn Thompson and
Deborah S. Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc.," was filed in
the District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, on behalf of all
owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's littoral (lakefront)
property.

The suit alleged the company "or entities over which it has
operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to
interfere with the putative class action plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their property, allegedly caused by diminished
water quality in the lake.

Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.  
Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc. were joined as
defendants.  

On Oct. 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of
Oklahoma reversed the decision of the District Court, holding
the claims of plaintiffs were not suitable for disposition as a
class action.

This decision ultimately was upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme
Court and remanded to the District Court with instructions the
matter proceed only on behalf of the three named plaintiffs.  

On May 24, 2006, three of the Plaintiffs filed a third amended
petition, which drops plaintiffs' class allegations, but seeks
injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $10,000.

The company and the other defendants have filed answers and
motions to dismiss a number of plaintiffs' claims.

The suit is "R. Lynn Thompson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. CJ-
01-00452," filed in the District Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma under Judge James D. Goodpaster.


TYSON FOODS: Reaches $10.2M Settlement in Wash. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
granted final approval of a $10.2 million settlement of a labor
suit filed against Tyson Foods Inc.

On November 5, 2001, employees of Tyson Fresh Meat's Pasco,
Washington beef slaughter, processing and hides facilities filed
the suit, "Maria Chavez, et al. v. IBP, LASSO ACQUISITION CORP.
and Tyson Foods, Inc.," in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington.  

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201 - 219, as well as violations of the
Washington State Minimum Wage Act, Revised Code of Washington
chapter 49.46, Industrial Welfare Act, RCW chapter 49.12, and
the Wage Deductions-Contribution-Rebates Act, RCW chapter 49.52.

The Chavez lawsuit alleges Tyson Fresh Meat and/or the company
required employees to perform unpaid work related to donning and
doffing certain personal protective clothing and equipment both
prior to and after their shifts, as well as during meal periods.

Plaintiffs further allege the holdings in "Alvarez, et al. v.
IBP" support a claim of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata
as to many of the issues raised in this litigation.  

On July 20, 2005, judgment was entered for $11.4 million,
exclusive of costs and attorney fees.  Attorneys for the Chavez
plaintiffs have indicated to the company their intention to file
a follow-on suit to Chavez for different potential claimants
alleging similar violations to those raised in Chavez.  

On Nov. 28, 2005, the court awarded the attorneys for the Chavez
plaintiffs approximately $1.9 million in fees and expenses.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the court awarded additional costs of $19,651.  
On Dec. 8, 2005, the company filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The parties later met and reached an agreement that will resolve
Chavez and certain post-Chavez claims for $10.2 million.

On May 19, 2006, the parties filed a settlement agreement and a
joint motion to approve class action settlement.  The court held
a final approval hearing on Sept. 26, 2006, at which time it
considered the terms of settlement.  

The settlement was approved by the court on Sept. 28, 2006, and
distribution of the settlement amounts are scheduled to occur in
the first and second quarters of fiscal 2007.


TYSON FOODS: Requests Summary Judgment in Kansas FLSA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc. filed a motion for partial summary judgment
under Fair Labor Standard Act for a lawsuit filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas by former
hourly employees of its Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. facility.

On May 15, 2006, a lawsuit, "Adelina Garcia, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.  About 262 current
and former hourly employees of TFM's beef slaughter facility in
Holcomb (Finney County), Kansas filed the action.

Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated employees, claiming defendants
failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA)
and Kansas law.  

Three plaintiffs also have asserted claims under state law for
breach of contract, quantum meruit and violation of the Kansas
Wage Payment Act, K.S.A. Section 44-312.  

They seek to act as class representatives for a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all
current and former hourly employees who worked at the plant in
the preceding five years who were allegedly not paid for all
time worked.

In particular, the suit alleges employees should be paid for the
time it takes to change into protective work uniforms and safety
equipment worn by employees, and walking to and from the
changing area, work areas and break areas.  

Plaintiffs are seeking back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

At present, approximately 700 persons have filed consents to
join the case.  No trial date has been set, according to the
company's Dec. 13 Form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the company filed a motion for partial
summary judgment under the FLSA based on the holdings of "Reich
v. IBP, inc., No. 88-2171-EEO, 1996 WL 445072 (D. Kan. July 30,
1996)," aff'd, "Metzler v. IBP, inc., 127 F.3d 959 (10th Cir.
1997)" and related proceedings, where the compensability of
donning and doffing certain clothing and protective gear worn by
these company employees was fully litigated.

Plaintiffs submitted Rule 56(f) discovery to the company to
obtain further information before responding to the motion for
partial summary judgment.

For more information, contact George A. Hanson or Eric L. Dirks
of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite  
250, Kansas City, Missouri, 64112, Phone: (800) 714-0360 or  
(816) 714-7100, Fax: (816) 714-7101, E-mail: hanson@sshwlaw.com,   
On the Net: http://www.sshwlaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Advocates Add More Families to Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys behind class action against the federal government
over the deportation of undocumented immigrants/parents of U.S.-
born children announced that they would add 63 Illinois families
to the case.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, the suit argues that the constitutional rights of those
young citizens are being violated by their families' precarious
status, and that deportations of the parents of U.S. citizen
children should stop until congress passes comprehensive
immigration reform (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2006).

Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, president of American Fraternity, also
known as the Nicaraguan Fraternity, filed the suit.  Honduran
Unity and the Peruvian-American Coalition joined him in its
filing.

The suit, filed on Oct. 4, 2006, seeks class action status for
60 families in South Florida.  It also seeks from the court an
emergency injunction to halt deportations (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006).

Aside from violating the children's constitutional rights, the
suit claims U.S. immigration laws that force families apart
violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Nora Sandigo, head of the Nicaraguan Fraternity, is the named
plaintiff in the suit, which was brought on behalf of children
whose parents hail from China, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Poland, Venezuela as well as other countries.

Included as defendants in the case are:

      -- President George W. Bush,
      -- the Department of Justice,
      -- the Department of Homeland Security, and
      -- the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
         Services, Emilio Gonzalez.

The case's premise is that the U.S. government did not enforce
its own immigration laws, thus allowing millions of undocumented
immigrants to live and work here for many years, eventually
forming families that include children who are American
citizens.

The suit argues that the government has since lost its right to
deport those parents, since it failed to do so for a long time,
and now the rights of the U.S.-born children trump the long-
unenforced laws that would break up their families.

Though the suit enjoys a modicum of support from the community,
advocates of stricter immigration enforcement laws, argue that
parenthood should not give undocumented immigrants special
status.

According to John Keeley of the Center for Immigration Studies,
the parents have made "breathtakingly bad decisions."  He points
out that "nobody forced them to come here illegally.  This is
their burden.  If they have a duty to care for their children,
they must do so in their home countries."

Though some legal experts describe the case as a long shot, it
has spurred immigrants from throughout South Florida and beyond
to seek help from the group's attorneys.  The suit started with
a roster of 60 families, and now has roughly 200.

Mr. Oviedo stressed that the case does not seek an outright ban
on deporting the parents of U.S. citizens, but asks a judge to
suspend those removals until Congress decides whether to
legalize undocumented immigrants.  He and others are seeking
class-action status for the case, and expects a decision on the
request in January.

The suit is "Sandigo v. Bush, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-22484-
PCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Michael Feldenkrais of Becker & Poliakoff, 5201 Blue
         Lagoon Drive, Suite 100, Miami, FL 33126, Phone: 305-
         262-1017, Fax: 262-4504;

     (2) Irving Joseph Gonzalez, 80 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL
         33130, Phone: 305-374-4343, Fax: 374-4348; and

     (3) Alfonso E. Oviedo-Reyes, 8370 W. Flagler Street, Miami,
         FL 33144, Phone: 305-221-6433, Fax: 221-6519.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ATRICURE INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action was filed on behalf of shareholders 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, inclusive.

The class action lawsuit 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 operations, thereby
artificially inflating the price of AtriCure securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.  

Interested parties have until Feb. 9, 2007, in which to move for
lead plaintiff status in the case.  

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


HANSEN NATURAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 30, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Hansen Natural Corp.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Nov. 12, 2001 through Nov. 9, 2006.


Interested parties have until Jan. 29, 2007, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status in the case.  

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, Phone: +1-405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Technical Olympic USA,
Inc. common stock during the period between Aug. 1, 2005 and
Nov. 6, 2006.

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

Technical Olympic, based in Hollywood, Florida, engages in the
design, building, and marketing of single-family residences,
town homes, and condominiums in the U.S.

According to the complaint, at the start of the class period,
Technical Olympic issued a press release announcing that,
through a joint venture, it had completed the acquisition of the
homebuilding assets and operations of Transeastern Properties,
Inc.  

The press release further stated that the joint venture was
funded with debt provided by Deutsche Bank, among others, and
was non-recourse to Technical Olympic.  The company also issued
multiple press releases throughout the class period describing
the financial contribution made, and expected to be made, by the
Transeastern Joint Venture to Technical Olympic's overall
financial performance.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants knew, but did not
disclose:

      -- that the company's exposure to the Transeastern Joint
         Venture's debt was not "non-recourse" and that, under
         certain circumstances, the company would be liable for
         the debt of the joint venture; and

      -- that the Transeastern Joint Venture was experiencing a
         severe slowdown that would likely result in the loss of
         the company's investment in the joint venture and any
         loans or receivables that were owed to it.

After the close of the market on Nov. 6, 2006, the company
disclosed - for the first time - in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company faced
exposure for the full repayment of the loans of the Transeastern
Joint Venture in the event the Joint Venture voluntarily filed
for bankruptcy protection.  

Then, the next day, the company disclosed that one of the
lenders to the joint venture had made a demand on the company in
connection with the debt of the joint venture, causing the
company's stock price to decline further.

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


                            *********


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  * * *