CAR_Public/061219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 251

                            Headlines

AIRLINES: Aussie Travel Agents File Suit Over Unpaid Commission
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Awaits NY Court's Final OK on Suit Settlement
AMERICAN HONDA: Dec. 28 Hearing Set for "Collins" Settlement
ATRICURE INC: Responds to Securities Fraud Suits Filed in N.Y.
BIRMINGHAM RACE: Ala. Attorney Files Suit Over Illegal Gambling

CALIFORNIA: Court Sued Over Alleged "Blanket Policy" in Trials
CALIFORNIA: Temp. Firefighters Sue Bernardino County Over Pay
CANADA: Montreal to Face Lawsuit Over Parc Avenue Name Change
CARDINAL GLENNON: Lawsuit Over Alleged Exorbitant Fees Stayed
CHECK 'N GO: Fla. Circuit Court Strikes Down Ban on Mass. Suit

COPART INC: Continues to Face Antitrust Litigation in La.
COPART INC: Ga. Court Mulls Motion in Consumer Fraud Litigation
COPART INC: March 5 Trial Set for "Dessources" Lawsuit in Mass.
EAST COAST: Recalls 48 Cans of Kaija Brand Uneviscerated Herring
F5 NETWORKS: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

FARMER'S BEST: Recalls Cantaloupes for Possible Health Risks
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Tex. Court Mulls Class in Contractor's Suit
LAND OF NOD: Recalls Antique Furniture Due to Lead Paint Hazard
LOJACK CORP: Employee Files Labor-Related Suit in C.D. Calif.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles N.J. Suits Over Alcatel Unit Merger

MASSACHUSETTS: Lawful Immigrants Sue RMV Over Denied Licenses
MULTIPLEX GROUP: Faces AU$100M Suit Over Wembley Stadium Project
NETOPIA INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. Courts
NGK METALS: Faces Penn. Suit Over Protracted Beryllium Pollution
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Suit Prompts Replacement of Faulty Straps

NUANCE COMMS: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in IPO Test Cases
OPTIO SOFTWARE: Awaits Final Court Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement
PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Circuit Court Limits Class in Consumer Suit
SERENA SOFTWARE: Settlement of Suits Over Merger Gets Final Okay
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Ga. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Motions to Dismiss Suit Over Hurricane Katrina
WAL-MART STORES: Calif. Court Might Dismiss Suit Over Sweatshops
WITTINGSLOW ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Trial on Royal Show Ride Mishap


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


AIRLINES: Aussie Travel Agents File Suit Over Unpaid Commission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Australian travel agents are suing several international
airlines for allegedly refusing to pay commission on money
collected for fuel surcharges, reports say.

Plaintiff law firm Slater & Gordon filed a statement of claim in
the federal court in Australia on Dec. 15, according to The
Sydney Morning Herald.  Defendants include:

     -- Qantas,
     -- British Airways,
     -- Air New Zealand,
     -- Singapore Airlines,
     -- Cathay Pacific, and
     -- Malaysia Airlines

Qantas is specifically reported as facing a $50 million claim.  

The defendants are accused of breaching the Trade Practices Act
by forcing travel agents to record fuel surcharges as a tax
rather than as part of the fare.

According to the report, a now unregistered travel agent,
Leonie's Travel represents the other travel agents affected by
the commission arrangement.  

The suit involves more than 1,400 travel agents who say they are
owed up to $80 million in ticket commissions dating back to May
2004.

Slater & Gordon on the Net: http://www.slatergordon.com.au/.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Awaits NY Court's Final OK on Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Airspan
Networks, Inc., certain of the underwriters of its initial
public offering, and:

      -- Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive  
         Officer),

      -- Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and  
         Chief Financial Officer),  

      -- Matthew Desch (Chairman) and  

      -- Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief  
         Operating Officer)

On and after July 23, 2001, three class-action complaints were
filed.  These suits were later consolidated.  The consolidated
amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration
Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and
misleading information and failed to disclose material
information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
mount.  

This action is being coordinated with approximately three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.

On July 15, 2002, the company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the individual defendants.  On Oct. 9, 2002, the
court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice based upon stipulations of dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the individual defendants.  

This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control
person claims without prejudice, since these claims were
asserted only against the individual defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the company, but allowed the Section 11 claim to
proceed.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions.  In her
opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that the decision is
intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding
class certification in the remaining cases.  

Judge Scheindlin determined that the class period for Section 11
claims is the period between the IPO and the date that
unregistered shares entered the market.  

The judge also ruled that a proper class representative of a
Section 11 class must have purchased shares during the
appropriate class period; and have either sold the shares at a
price below the offering price or held the shares until the time
of suit.

In two of the six cases, the class representatives did not meet
the above criteria and therefore, the Section 11 cases were not
certified.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in
the Airspan case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
it, the individual defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast
majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and
the individual defendants currently or formerly associated with
those companies.  

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The company would agree
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it
may have against its underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.  

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to contribute the
difference.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  

Judge Scheindlin ruled that the issuer defendants and the
plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement which
provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the
settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties
from pursuing other claims.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  

The court also appointed the notice administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on Nov.
15, 2005 and completed by Jan. 15, 2006.  

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the court.  The court held a
hearing regarding those and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on March 24, 2006, but has not yet issued
a ruling.

On April 20, 2006, JPMorgan Chase and the plaintiffs reached a
preliminary agreement for a settlement for $425 million.  The
JPMorgan Chase settlement has not yet been approved by the
court.

However, if it is finally approved, then the maximum amount that
the issuers' insurers will be potentially liable for is $575
million.

It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of
Airspan to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement and related agreements will be covered by existing
insurance.

The company currently is not aware of any material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.

Its carriers are solvent, and the company is not aware of any
uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim
with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs.

The company, therefore, does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by Airspan.  If material limitations on the
expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the
plaintiffs from Airspan's insurance carriers should arise,
Airspan's maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to
the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4 million.

However, if the JPMorgan Chase settlement were finally approved,
Airspan's maximum financial obligation to the plaintiffs
pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $2
million.

There is no assurance that the court will grant final approval
to the settlement.  If the settlement agreement is not approved
and Airspan is found liable, we are unable to estimate or
predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether
such damages would be greater than Airspan's insurance coverage,
and whether such damages would have a material impact on our
results of operations or financial condition in any future
period.

The suit is "In re Airspan Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (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; and

     (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.


AMERICAN HONDA: Dec. 28 Hearing Set for "Collins" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
Alameda will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 28, 2006, at 9:00
a.m., for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Chris Collins,
et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc."

The hearing will be held before Judge Ronald M. Sabraw in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, 1221 Oak St.,
Department 22, Oakland, California 94512.

Any objection or exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made by Dec. 11, 2006.

The suit covers anyone who owned or leased a 2000-2001 Honda
Accord, 1999-2001 Honda Odyssey, 2000-2001 Honda Prelude, 2001-
2002 Acura 3.2 CL, 1999-2002 Acura 3.2TL and certain 2003 Acura
3.2 CL & TL.

Plaintiffs allege that automatic transmissions in the affected
vehicles contain defects that may result in the partial or
complete failure of the transmission.

The vehicles covered in the settlement must have an original
purchase or lease date of Nov. 21, 1998 or later and must also
have 109,000 miles in service on Aug. 21, 2006.

For more details, contact Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge, LLP, 600
West Broadway, Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 1-866-
907-5635 and 1-800-356-9451, Web site:
http://www.hondatransmissionsettlement.com.


ATRICURE INC: Responds to Securities Fraud Suits Filed in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., has made statements in regards to securities
fraud class actions that were allegedly filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and certain of its officers.

David Drachman, President and Chief Executive Officer said, "We
believe that these allegations are without merit and we intend
to vigorously defend the company.  As a public company, the
company has maintained insurance coverage to address such
matters.  Management is and will remain focused on the growth
and development of our company."

Earlier, AtriCure and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2006).

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws and
seek damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from its Initial Public Offering in Aug.
2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The complaints charge 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:

     (1) David J. Drachman, President and Chief Executive
         Officer of AtriCure, Inc., Phone: (513) 755-5758, E-
         mail: ddrachman@atricure.com;

     (2) Nick Laudico and Jason Rando both of The Ruth Group,
         Phone: (646) 536-7030 or (646) 536-7025, E-mail:
         nlaudico@theruthgroup.com or jrando@theruthgroup.com;

     (3) [Plaintiff] 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/;and

     (4) [Plaintiff] 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.


BIRMINGHAM RACE: Ala. Attorney Files Suit Over Illegal Gambling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham attorney Matt Lembke filed a suit on behalf of a
customer at a sweepstakes games at the Birmingham dog track in
Alabama, seeking to recover the money that the plaintiff and all
other customers lost on the game, Associated Press reports.

Mr. Lembke filed the suit on behalf of customer Debra Johnson.  
He is seeking to have the suit acquire class-action status on
behalf of all Alabamians who lost money and their immediate
families.  He is filing the suit under a state law that allows
customers to sue for money lost at illegal gambling.

The Legislature passed the law in 1852, which says that if a
gambler loses money in a bet, he has six months in which to have
that money returned.  A man's wife, children and next of kin
have 12 months to go back to the person who won the bet and
collect money lost (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2006).

Though more than a century old, the statute was used several
times in the past for recoveries, according to Mr. Lembke.

As a representative of Jefferson County District Attorney David
Barber, Mr. Lembke recently won a Supreme Court ruling
challenging the sweepstakes games at the Birmingham Race Course.  
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the
games amounted to illegal slot machines.

Mr. Lembke is member at Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP, One
Federal Place, 1819 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203-
2119 (Jefferson & Shelby Cos.), Phone: 205-521-8000, Fax: 205-
521-8800.

The track's attorney is Mark White member at White Arnold
Andrews & Dowd P.C., 2025 3rd Avenue North, Suite 600,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (Jefferson & Shelby Cos.), Phone: 205-
323-1888, Fax: 205-323-8907.


CALIFORNIA: Court Sued Over Alleged "Blanket Policy" in Trials
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Carlsbad lawyer who is accusing the Superior Court in Vista of
exercising a "blanket policy" regarding misdemeanor defendant's
presence in court trials filed a class action petition on behalf
of all misdemeanor defendants ordered to appear at trial in
2006, the North County Times reports.

Richard Duquette is representing Christina Harris, an Arizona
resident, who was formally charged in August with driving under
the influence of alcohol in Carlsbad.  Mr. Duquette had appeared
in court on Ms. Harris' behalf and planned to represent her at
trial in November without her being present, according to the
report.

However, Mr. Duquette alleges now in court documents that the
court has a "blanket policy" of requiring people charged with
misdemeanors to be present in court for their trials even though
state law does not mandate their presence.  

He had asked the Superior Court's appellate division to order
that attorneys for misdemeanor defendants can appear for them at
trial without them being present or present justification for
ordering the defendants to do so.  He also filed the petition as
a class action.

Mr. Duquette argues that it would be a financial burden for Ms.
Harris to pay for travel and lodging to come to North County for
the misdemeanor trial.  

The Superior Court's appellate division judge, Lisa Foster,
signed an order Dec. 1 staying further proceedings in the case
against Ms. Harris until the court decides Mr. Duquette's
petition.

For more details, contact The Law Firm of Richard L. Duquette,
P.O. Box 2446, Carlsbad, CA 92018-2446, Phone: (800) 464-4123,
Fax: (760) 730-0120, Web site: http://www.911law.com/.


CALIFORNIA: Temp. Firefighters Sue Bernardino County Over Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four former temporary firefighters at San Bernardino County is
suing the county to recover unpaid back wages and overtime pay
as full-time firefighters, it emerged in a report by Press-
Enterprise.

Plaintiffs, who worked under the county's Limited Term
Firefighter program, allege they were given full-time
firefighting workload but were paid significantly less and were
offered fewer benefits than full-time firefighters.  

They also allege that they were denied the temporary
firefighters the right to a hearing when their positions were
terminated this year.  A hearing on the matter is set for Feb.
26.  

In a reply filed with the court, the country stated the
plaintiffs were aware that there were many differences between
limited-term and full-time firefighters when they joined the
program.  The Limited Term Firefighter program gives temporary
employment to individuals interested in full-time firefighting
careers.  

The program does not allow temporary firefighters to work more
than three 351-day terms, but, according to the suit, the county
rolled temporary firefighters continuously year after year for
more than three years without re-testing.  

The county essentially treated the firefighters like their full-
time counterparts -- minus the pay and benefits, the lawsuit
stated, according to the report.

Filed in April, the suit states that plaintiffs were paid about
$8.91 an hour and received no benefits beyond the county's
Deferred Compensation Plan, whereas, full-time firefighters,
were paid $43,000 to $63,000 salaries per year and given a more
extensive benefits package.

Plaintiffs in the case are Nicholas Groff, Sherman John Heath,
Gilbert Cruz and Anthony Rapoza, who are represented by Gillian
Wade of Santa Monica, California, Los Angeles County.  

They are asking the county to hire them as full-time
firefighters and to pay them back wages and overtime in line
with rates for full-time firefighters.


CANADA: Montreal to Face Lawsuit Over Parc Avenue Name Change
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Parc Avenue Merchants' Association in Montreal's Parc Avenue
is planning to file a class action over the street's name
change, according to CBC News.

The group has hired human-rights lawyers Julius Grey and May
Chiu to help prepare their case questioning whether the city had
followed proper procedures on public consultation regarding the
name change.  

Mr. Grey will represent merchants at the Toponymy Committee
meeting in mid-January to decide whether the city's proposal to
rename the street has merit.  Ms. Chiu will prepare the suit
against the City of Montreal on behalf of Parc Avenue's
merchants and residents.  

The suit came after Montreal's city council approved a plan in
November to rename Parc Avenue after former Quebec premier
Robert Bourassa.  


CARDINAL GLENNON: Lawsuit Over Alleged Exorbitant Fees Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack stayed a class action
accusing Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, in St. Louis of
charging unreasonable rates for patients who lack insurance, The
Madison County Record reports.

Judge Stack stayed the suit pending adjudication of a lien on
the settlement of an auto accident involving the plaintiff in
the class action.  The plaintiff's attorney, Lanny Darr, said
there was no petition for adjudication.

Jacqueline Johnson, an Illinois resident, met an auto accident
in 2003 that injured her children.  Mrs. Johnson's attorney, Mr.
Darr, negotiated a personal injury payout for the accident and
obtained a settlement.  But she did not pay the hospital and the
hospital asserted a lien against her settlement.

Judge Stack already dismissed the class action, but allowed Mr.
Darr to amend it.  Mr. Darr filed an amended complaint removing
all references to a lien in July and proposed to certify Mrs.
Johnson as representative of all Cardinal Glennon patients who
lacked insurance or other third party benefits and received
unreasonable bills.  It stated that Cardinal Glennon charged
$82,542.30 for their treatment.

Mr. Darr asked Judge Stack to impose a trust upon all monies
Cardinal Glennon received as a result of unlawful and unjust
conduct.  At a Nov. 29 hearing he stayed the class action
pending adjudication of the lien.

For more details, contact Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine,
Kelly & Darr, L.T.D., Suite 415, 307 Henry Street, Alton, IL
62002-6326, Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-2318, Web
site: http://sbkdlaw.com/.


CHECK 'N GO: Fla. Circuit Court Strikes Down Ban on Mass. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County ruled on Dec. 13
allowed a class action filed by Florida consumers to go ahead
against payday lender Check 'n Go, according to a blog entry
posted by Cyrus Dugger at TortDeform, the civil Justice Defense
blog.

The suit was filed by Donna Reuter who was allegedly forced to
"rollover" a loan she took while on maternity leave after she
was unable to repay it in full after a two-week cycle.  

Under the "rollover" she had to pay an additional fee and
finance charge with each rollover.  The loan agreements she
entered into stated she is not allowed to bring any claims
whatsoever against Check 'n Go on a class-wide basis in
arbitration.  The agreements showed that the cost of credit to
her on an annual basis was 338.93% to 615.94%.

The recent ruling, allowed her to pursue a class action despite
a provision against it in her loan contract.  The court ruled
that the contract term agreement is unconscionable and
unenforceable where customers were charged interest rates well
above Florida's criminal usury limit of 45%.

Florida state Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth T. Maass, affirming
the value of class actions to consumers, noted that "the judge's
decision was based on the fact that "making a loan with annual
interest in excess of 45% is loan sharking, a third degree
felony, and results in the forfeiture of the right to collect
not only interest, but principal."

A copy of the court's opinion is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1741

The suit is "Reuter v. Check 'n Go of Florida Inc., Case No.
502001 CA001164XXXXMB."  It was filed against A. David Davis;
Jared A. Davis; Stephen K. Curtis; William Foltyn; L. Patches
Berry; Edna M. Forbes; Melissa Shongo; CNG Financial Corp.; and
Chen 'n Go of Florida Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by the Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice (http://www.tlpj.org/)and a team of consumer attorneys.


COPART INC: Continues to Face Antitrust Litigation in La.
---------------------------------------------------------
Copart Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action
filed by Foreign Car Sales and Service, LLC, on July 28, 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,
alleging antitrust violations and unfair trade practices.

The suit is seeking class certification, damages, fees, costs
and expenses.  Plaintiff is in pro per and is demanding a total
award of the now current value of 51% of Copart issued stock,
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.

The suit is "F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00535-FJP-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola with
referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kimuel Wayne Lee, 16137 Berryhill
Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70817, Phone: 225-751-3775.

Representing the defendants is Charles A. Schutte, Jr. of
Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love, 320 Somerulos
Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, Phone:  225-387-6966, Fax: 225-
387-8230, E-mail: cschutte@gmstl.com.


COPART INC: Ga. Court Mulls Motion in Consumer Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court for the County of Chatham, Georgia has yet to
rule on a motion for summary judgment in the class action filed
against Copart, Inc., which is alleging that the company claimed
unreasonable amounts for storage liens.

On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking relief
including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses.  

On Oct. 20, 2005, the company denied the claims and on May 12,
2006, filed a motion for summary judgment.  

The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Dec. 4,
2006 and no decision has yet been made, 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.


COPART INC: March 5 Trial Set for "Dessources" Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department has
set a March 5, 2007 trial was scheduled for the purported class
action against Copart, Inc., which is claming that the company
violated state laws in the way it disposes vehicles.

Ciano Dessources filed a lawsuit on May 21, 2003, in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department against
Copart of Connecticut, Inc. and Copart Inc.  

Mr. Dessources filed the suit as a purported class action on
behalf of persons whose vehicles were disposed of by the company
as abandoned vehicles.

The named plaintiff contends the vehicles were disposed of
without complying with state laws.  Relief sought includes class
certification, declaratory, remedial and/or injunctive relief,
including the ordering of a compliance program that will
essentially protect consumers, as well as damages, fees, and
costs.

Copart's motion for summary judgment was granted on Dec. 8,
2004, dismissing the class claim element of the lawsuit.  On
Aug. 9, 2006, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was
denied.  

A trial date has been set for March 5, 2007, 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.


EAST COAST: Recalls 48 Cans of Kaija Brand Uneviscerated Herring
----------------------------------------------------------------
East Coast Foods Inc., 2723 W. 15th St. Brooklyn, N.Y., 11224,
is recalling 48 cans of Kaija brand uneviscerated Herring in
Special Brine.

The uneviscerated fish was discovered by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets inspectors during a
routine inspection and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel confirmed that the fish had not been
eviscerated prior to processing.

This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum
spores, which can cause botulism, a serious and potentially
fatal food-borne illness.

The sale of this type of fish is prohibited under a New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets regulations because
Clostridium botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated
in the viscera than in any other portion of the fish.

Uneviscerated fish has been linked to outbreaks of botulism
poisoning.  Symptoms of botulism include blurred or double
vision, general weakness, and poor reflexes, difficulty
swallowing and respiratory paralysis.

The recalled Kaija brand uneviscerated Herring in Special Brine
in an uncoded 1300g metal can with Cyrillic but no English
labeling was sold nationwide.  

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have Kaija brand uneviscerated Herring in Special
Brine are advised not to eat it, but should return it to the
place of purchase. Consumers with questions should contact the
company at (718) 372-1113.


F5 NETWORKS: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to a consolidated securities
fraud suit filed against F5 Networks Inc.

In July and August 2001, a series of putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed in United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against certain investment banking
firms that underwrote the Company's initial and secondary public
offerings, the Company and some of the Company's officers and
directors.

These cases, which have been consolidated under "In re F5
Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 01 CV 7055," assert that the registration statements for the
company's June 4, 1999 initial public offering and Sept. 30,
1999 secondary offering failed to disclose certain alleged
improper actions by the underwriters for the offerings.

The consolidated, amended complaint alleges claims against the
company and those of its officers and directors named in the
complaint under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Other lawsuits have been filed making
similar allegations regarding the public offerings of more than
300 other companies.

All of these various consolidated cases have been coordinated
for pretrial purposes as, "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."  In October
2002, the directors and officers were dismissed without
prejudice.

The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to dismiss
these lawsuits in July 2002, which the court granted in part and
denied in part in an order dated Feb. 19, 2003.  The court
declined to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 claims against the company.  

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

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

The company reported no other development in the case at its
Dec. 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Sept. 30.


FARMER'S BEST: Recalls Cantaloupes for Possible Health Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
Farmer's Best International on behalf of Agroproductos San
Rafael recalled cantaloupes under the Lucia label brand because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella,
although no illnesses have been reported to date.

Salmonella is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
thtal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.

In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in
the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
sever illness such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditic and arthritis. If individuals believe
they may have experienced symptoms of illness, FDA recommends
that they seek medical advice.

Approximately three hundred and thirty six (336) cartons of
cantaloupes were distributed in New York City and Boston between
Nov. 1 and 4, 2006 no product was sold internationally.

This cantaloupe was distributed for sale in 1-1/9 bushel cartons
with 12 cantaloupes to a carton, under the Lucia label. The
cantaloupes are straw-colored on the exterior, with orange
flesh. As of this date there have been no reported outbreaks of
illness due to our product.

Farmer's Best and Agroproductos San Rafael are working together
with the FDA to investigate and identify the source of the
problem.

Farmer's Best has had 40 years in this business with no previous
food safety issues.

The recall was a result of a routine sampling program by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 31, 2006.  The
laboratory analysis revealed that a portion of the products
contained the bacteria.

Farmer's Best International ceased distribution of this product
as soon as the FDA apprised the company of a potential problem.

Consumers who have purchased Lucia brand cantaloupes are urged
to return them to the place of purchase.  Consumers with
questions may contact Farmer's Best International at
(520) 281-1411.


FFE TRANSPORTATION: Tex. Court Mulls Class in Contractor's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
yet to rule on a motion seeking class certification for a
lawsuit against FFE Transportation Services, a subsidiary of
Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc., which was filed over
independent contractor agreements.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. and three independent contractors with trucks
formerly contracted to the company filed a putative class action
complaint against the company.

The complaint alleges that parts of the company's independent
contractor agreements violate the federal Truth-in-Leasing
regulations at 49 CFR Part 376.

The complaint seeks to certify a class comprised of all
independent contractors of motor vehicle equipment who have been
party to a federally regulated lease with the company during the
time period beginning four years before the complaint was filed
and continuing to the present.  It seeks injunctive relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, and legal costs.

The company's response to the complaint was filed in March 2006,
and the parties are engaged in discovery concerning class
certification issues.  

Plaintiffs submitted a motion for class certification on Sept.
15, 2006, the subsidiary's response will be due in December
2006, and the court is expected to rule on the motion sometime
after Feb. 1, 2007, according to Frozen Food Express Industries,
Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc. et al. v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 3:06-
cv-00010," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Cohen of The Cullen Law Firm, 1101 30th St. NW,
         Suite 300, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202/944-8600,
         E-mail: dac@cullenlaw.com; and

     (2) Jay R. Stucki of Hulse Stucki, 2912 W. Story Rd.,
         Irving, TX 75038, Phone: 214/441-3000, Fax: 214/441-
         3001, E-mail: JRS@TExasNetLaw.com.

Representing the defendants are George C. Lamb, III and Aimee
Williams Moore of Baker Botts, 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 600,
Dallas, TX 75201-2980, Phone: 214/953-6659 and 214/953-6500,
Fax: 214/953-6503 and 214/661-4695, E-mail:
george.lamb@bakerbotts.com and aimee.moore@bakerbotts.com.


LAND OF NOD: Recalls Antique Furniture Due to Lead Paint Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Land of Nod, of Northbrook, Illinois, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 2,000
units of antique white furniture from the Cottage Collection.

The company said some of the recalled furniture contains paint
with high levels of lead.  The lead level exceeds that allowed
by the federal ban on lead-containing paint, which is designed
to protect children who might ingest paint chips or peelings.
Lead paint is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.   No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes the following furniture and item numbers.
The item number can be found on a label located on the back of
the product.  

The shelf kits include one shelf and two shelf supports for use
in the Low Rider Bookcase, the Double-Door Armoire or the
District 28 Armoire.

Catalog Description                                  Item Number

Antique White Cottage 2-Over-4 Drawer Dresser        0405161-AW
Antique White Cottage 3-Drawer Dresser               0405181-AW
Antique White Cottage 7-Drawer Dresser               0405231-AW
Antique White Cottage Accessory Top                  0405162-AW
Antique White District 28 Armoire                    0411011-AW
Antique White District 28 Armoire Shelf Kit          0411012-AW
Antique White Double-Door Armoire                    0411031-AW
Antique White Double-Door Armoire Shelf Kit          0411032-AW
Antique White Low Rider Bookcase                     0404241-AW
Antique White Low Rider Shelf Kit                    0406191-AW

Pictures of the recalled Cottage Collection furniture:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043f.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043g.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07043h.jpg

These recalled antique white furniture were manufactured in
Mexico and are sold by The Land of Nod catalog and Web site
nationwide, and The Land of Nod stores in Illinois and
Washington from September 2003 to August 2006 for between $50
and $1,100.

Consumers are advised to contact the Land of Nod immediately to
determine whether their furniture is included in this recall. If
included in this recall, consumers should stop using the
recalled furniture.

The Land of Nod will arrange for an exchange, credit or refund
and offer consumers a gift card to be used toward a future
purchase.

For more information, contact The Land of Nod's toll-free at
(866) 990-5263, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT or
through E-mail: recall@landofnod.com - if inquiring by e-mail,
please include your full name and address.


LOJACK CORP: Employee Files Labor-Related Suit in C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lojack Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the California Labor Code and the California Business &
Professions Code, 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.

An employee contending that the company improperly credited
breaks and overtime pay filed the suit on April 14, 2006.  It
seeks unspecified monetary and injunctive relief.  

The suit is "Mike Rutti v. Lojack Corporation Inc., Case No.  
8:06-cv-00350-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Central District of California under Judge David O. Carter with  
referral to judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are John Glugoski and Matthew  
Righetti of Righetti & Wynne, 456 Montgomery St., Ste. 1400, San  
Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-983-0900, E-mail:  
jglugoski@righettilaw.com and matt@righettilaw.com.  

Representing the company are Dan Chammas, Peter D. Holbrook and  
Christopher C. Scheithauer of McDermott Will & Emery, 2049  
Century Park E, 34th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208, Phone:  
310-277-4110 and 949-851-0633, E-mail: dchammas@mwe.com and  
lbates@mwe.com.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles N.J. Suits Over Alcatel Unit Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc., reached a tentative settlement of two
shareowner suits were filed against the company asserting claims
with respect to a merger by the company with a wholly owned
subsidiary of Alcatel.  

On April 3, 2006, a putative class action, "Resnick v. Lucent
Technologies Inc., et al." was filed against the company and
members of the company's board of directors in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County.

The named plaintiffs proposed to represent a class of the
company's shareowners and claimed that, among other things, the
merger with Alcatel was the product of breaches of duty by the
company's board of directors in that they allegedly failed to
maximize shareowner value in the transaction.

On May 4, 2006, a second putative class action, "AR Maley Trust
v. Lucent Technologies, et al." was filed against the company
and members of the company's board of directors in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff proposed to represent a class of our
shareowners and claimed that, among other things, Lucent and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing
to maximize shareowner value in the transaction.

Along with other relief, both the Resnick and AR Maley Trust
complaints sought an injunction against the closing of the
merger.  

On Sept. 6, 2006, the company reached a tentative settlement of
these actions.  The settlement is subject to customary
conditions including court approval.

The suit is "AR Maley Trust v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03647-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C.
Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs is William Bernard Federman of
Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City,
OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Lawful Immigrants Sue RMV Over Denied Licenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of legal immigrants residing in Massachusetts and are
legally authorized to work there have filed a purported class
action against the state's Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV),
claiming its employees unlawfully denied them driver's licenses.

Kenneth Berman, an attorney at Nutter, McClennen & Fish, along
with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts
and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, filed the suit in
Suffolk Superior Court on Dec. 14, 2006.  

They are specifically charging the Registry of unlawfully
denying them driver's licenses, learner's permits, and
identification cards.   

Plaintiffs claim that the Registry workers asked them for proof
of legal residency when they were not allowed to, then
incorrectly denied the licenses because they believed the
immigrants hadn't demonstrated they were in the U.S. legally.

Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts,
which is representing the seven immigrants who brought the suit,
contends that the workers overstepped their legal authority and
violated the immigrants' constitutional rights.  She pointed out
that the workers don't have the authority to enforce federal
immigration law.

Under state policy, applicants for a driver's license must show
a valid Social Security number, which the Registry checks
against a Social Security Administration database.  They also
need proof of age, signature and legal Massachusetts residency.

All plaintiffs presented valid Social Security numbers when they
applied for licenses, according to Ms. Wunsch, but Registry
workers rejected their applications.  Some applicants were
allegedly not even given reasons for the rejection.

Among those filing suit are:

      -- A woman from China who has been granted asylum in the
         U.S.  The Registry denied her a learner's permit even
         though she submitted standard federal documentation of
         her asylum status.  The Registry asked her for
         additional proof of her asylum status, which the
         federal government typically does not issue.   

      -- Two women who are permitted to remain in the U.S. under
         the protection of the Violence Against Women Act
         (VAWA).  One, from the Philippines, was denied a
         Massachusetts ID card, and the other, from the
         Dominican Republic, was denied a drivers license.  The
         Registry asked them for visas, which the federal
         government typically does not provide when someone is
         already lawfully present under VAWA.  

      -- A woman who was the target of persecution in Zimbabwe
         and was granted permission by the U.S. government to
         remain and work here because of the risk of persecution
         in her home country.  She has been in Massachusetts for
         many years but the Registry denied her a license
         renewal.   Her daughter is also lawfully present in the
         U.S. and has been denied a learner's permit.  In both
         instances, the Registry asked them to furnish current
         visas, which do not exist for people in their protected
         status.

      -- A Bolivian woman who is a lawful permanent resident of
         the U.S. whose application for a drivers license was
         put on "hold" after the Registry asked her to produce a
         visa and a Bolivian passport.

Two organizations, Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy
Coalition (MIRA) and the Brazilian Immigrant Center, are also
plaintiffs in the case.   

The lawsuit seeks an order from the Court directing the Registry
to cease using someone's immigration status or documentation as
grounds to deny or delay their applications for licenses,
renewals, learner's permits, or IDs.

The suit is "Chen v. Collins, Case No. 06-5197" filed in the
Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts.  Anne Collins, the
defendant, is the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Kenneth R. Berman of Nutter McClennen & Fish, LLP,
         World Trade Center West, 155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston,
         Massachusetts 02210-2604, (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-
         439-2000, Telex: 94-0790, Fax: 617-310-9000, Web site:
         http://www.nutter.com/home.php;and

     (2) Sarah Wunsch of American Civil Liberties Union of
         Massachusetts, 99 Chauncy St., Boston, MA 02111-1703,
         Phone: (617) 482-3170, Fax: (617) 451-0009, Web site:
         http://www.aclu-mass.org/.


MULTIPLEX GROUP: Faces AU$100M Suit Over Wembley Stadium Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman lodged a AU$100 million
class action in the Federal Court, in Melbourne, on behalf of
shareholders of Australian property developer Multiplex over the
redevelopment of London's iconic Wembley Stadium, The Sydney
Morning Herald reports.

The suit claims shareholders were victims of Multiplex's failure
to keep the market properly informed about problems it was
having with the $1 billion project and the likely impact those
problems would have on the company's profits.

It alleges Multiplex was behind schedule and had incurred cost
overruns by August 2004, but did not announce the project would
be making a loss until May 2005.

In September 2002, Multiplex won a contract to rebuild Wembley
Stadium. Cost blowouts and problems with contractors delayed
construction and caused hundreds of millions in losses.

According to Andrew Watson, Maurice Blackburn Cashman principal,
the class action consisted of 45 investors, who ranged from
small shareholders to large institutions.

Multiplex Class Action on the net:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1749.


NETOPIA INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Netopia, Inc. reached a settlement in the consolidated
securities fraud suit pending against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 3, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order consolidating previously
filed class action cases as "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities
Litigation," and appointing lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs'
counsel.

On June 29, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint.  On June 19, 2006, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class of shareholders who
purchased company stock between Nov. 6, 2003 and Aug. 16, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, based on allegations that during the class
period, the company made false and misleading statements or
failed to disclose material facts, and that the market price of
our common stock was artificially inflated as a result of such
alleged conduct.

In December 2006, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle of this litigation contingent upon a number of
factors, including the closing of the acquisition by Motorola
and the entering into of a binding agreement regarding the
settlement.

The suit is "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
04-CV-3364," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael David Braun of Braun Law Group, P.C., 12400  
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025,  
         Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
         service@braunlawgroup.com; and

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

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Sara B. Brody of Heller Ehrman, 333 Bush Street, San  
         Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone: 415/772-6000, Fax:
         (415) 772-6268, E-mail: sara.brody@hellerehrman.com;  
         and

    (ii) Richard Marmaro of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom  
         LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los Angeles,  
         CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000, Fax: 213-687-5600,  
         E-mail: rmarmaro@skadden.com.


NGK METALS: Faces Penn. Suit Over Protracted Beryllium Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
NGK Metals Corp. is facing a class action complaint in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania, alleging
that the company exposed residents of Muhlenberg to that
carcinogenic element for more than 50 years through beryllium
emissions from its 65-acre plant 4 miles north of downtown
Reading, The Courthouse News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- NGK North America, Inc.
     -- NGK Insulators, Ltd.
     -- NGK Metals Corp.
     -- Yasuhito Niwa
     -- Leonard Velky
     -- Cabot Corp. and
     -- Spotts, Stevens & McCoy, Inc.

The complaint alleges NGK and its affiliates and co-defendant
Cabot Corp.:

     -- extracted beryllium oxide from ore at the plant from
        1936 to 1965;
     -- cleaned, heated and cast beryllium alloys there from
        1965 to 1992; and
     -- all these operations tossed inhalable beryllium dust
        into the air.

The complaint further alleges the defendants also sold beryllium
insulators without warning, and they did all this without
monitoring emissions in and near the plant.

The class action seeks medical monitoring for anyone who lived
within 1 mile of the plant from the 1950s through 2000, and a
trust fund established for this.

Chronic beryllium disease has an incubation period of six to 10
years.

There are common questions of law and/or fact common to the
class, including, but not limited to:

     -- whether plaintiffs and the class members have been
        exposed to greater than normal background levels of
        beryllium;

     -- whether beryllium is a proven hazardous substance;

     -- whether as a proximate result of the exposure,
        plaintiffs and the class have a significantly increased
        risk of contracting a serious latent disease;

     -- whether a monitoring procedure exists that makes early
        detection of the disease possible;

     -- whether the prescribed monitoring regime is different  
        from that normally recommended in the absence of
        exposure;

     -- whether the prescribed monitoring regime is reasonably
        necessary according to contemporary scientific
        principles;

     -- whether defendants engaged in or conducted defective,
        dangerous, unhealthful emissions, discharges, and/or   
        carriage of beryllium dust, fumes and particulate
        matter;

     -- whether defendants operated and/or performed
        manufacturing processes without proper and adequate
        pollution or emission controls and devices;

     -- whether defendants failed to employ proper
        architectural, engineering, and/or other design measures
        in connection with the operation of its beryllium
        manufacturing or related processes;

     -- whether defendants violated applicable regulations and
        standards concerning air pollution;

     -- whether defendant insulators sold defective beryllium
        containing products without adequate warnings to the
        operators of the Reading plant such that beryllium dust,
        fumes and particulate matter was emitted and
        significantly increased the risk of disease to the
        proposed class;

     -- whether defendant SSM failed to use proper analytical
        methods and failed to warn plaintiffs of the actual and
        threatened exposure to beryllium and of the reasonably
        foreseeable effects of such exposure;

     -- whether SSM permitted plaintiffs and the class to be  
        exposed to beryllium at unsafe levels and breached an
        implied and/or express duty which was reckless, grossly
        negligent, and/or negligent; and

     -- alternatively, whether the operations at the Reading
        plant could have been performed without emitting  
        dangerous particulate matter even had the defendants
        operated the plant with utmost care.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class members,
respectfully request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- enter an order pursuant to Rule 1710 of the Pennsylvania
        Rules of Civil Procedure permitting this action to be
        maintained as a class action, appointing plaintiffs as
        the representative of the class and plaintiffs' counsel
        as counsel for the class;

     -- create a trust fund, paid for by defendants, under court
        supervision, to finance medical monitoring services,
        including, but not limited to, testing, examination,
        preventative and diagnostic screening for conditions
        that can result from, or potentially result from,
        exposure to beryllium dust and particulates;

     -- enter an order requiring defendants to bear the cost of
        publication to plaintiffs and members of the class of
        approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening
        and monitoring of plaintiffs and members of the class,
        the content, form and manner of such publication to be
        approved by the court;

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the members of
        the class against defendants for costs incurred in
        medical monitoring and for all other relief, in an
        amount to be proved at trial, as to which they may be
        entitled, including interest, attorneys' fees, expert
        fees and costs of this suit;

     -- award prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided
        by law; and

     -- such further relief as the court deems necessary, just
        and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?173a

The suit is "Sheridan, et al. v. NGK Metals Corp., et al, Case
No. 000207," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County.

Representing plaintiffs is Ruben Honik, Esq. and Stephan
Matanovic, Esq. both of Golomb & Honik, P.C., 121 South Broad
Street, Ninth Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: (215) 985-
9177.


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Suit Prompts Replacement of Faulty Straps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo of America, Inc. announced a replacement program for
the defective Wii remote wrist straps following a Dec. 6, 2006
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

Earlier, a class action complaint was filed against Nintendo of
America Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington accusing the company of providing defective wrist
straps on its Wii nunchuck controller (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 13, 2006).

The new Wii game system, released Nov. 19, includes a controller
that players can swing around, making video tennis games, for
example, more realistic.

Lead plaintiff TJ Diaz claims the wrist strap is "prone to
break" while being used in the intended manner, causing the
remote device to fly out of the user's hand, "causing damage to
the remote, surrounding objects and/or injury to other people.

The replacement program also follows about a month of increasing
reports posted on the Internet of damage and injuries resulting
from the defective strap.

Green Welling LLP, of San Francisco, California along with
Siebken & Siegele of Austin, Texas and Short, Cressman & Burgess
of Seattle, Washington, filed the nationwide class action on
behalf of the owners of the Nintendo Wii against Nintendo of
America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The Nintendo Wii game console includes a remote and a wrist
strap for the remote.  Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that
when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as
instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the
wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's
hand.  The Wii remote then smashes through the plasma television
hanging on the wall, or when someone is injured by the flying
remote.

Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects
is in breach of it's own product warranty, according to Robert
Green of Green Welling.

The class action seeks to enjoin Nintendo from continuing its
unfair or deceptive business practices as it relates to the
Nintendo Wii.  

It also seeks an injunction that requires Nintendo to correct
the defect in the Wii remote and to provide a refund to the
purchaser or to replace the defective Wii remote with a Wii
remote that functions as it is warranted and intended.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:  
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?16cd

For more information about the replacement program, go to
http://www.classcounsel.com.

The suit is "Diaz v. Nintendo of America Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-
01743-JLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge James L. Robart.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Elliot Breskin and Daniel Foster Johnson of Short
         Cressman & Burgess, 999 3rd Ave., TE 3000, Seattle, WA
         98104-4088, Phone: 206-682-3333, Fax: 340-8856, E-mail:
         dbreskin@scblaw.com or djohnson@scblaw.com; and

     (2) Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP, Phone: 415-477-
         6700, Fax: (415) 477-6710, Web site:
         http://www.classcounsel.com/firm.html.


NUANCE COMMS: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in IPO Test Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district
court's order certifying a class in several "test cases" in
relation to "In re Nuance Communications Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."

In August 2001, the first of a number of complaints was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased former
Nuance Communications stock between April 12, 2000 and Dec. 6,
2000.  Those complaints have been consolidated into one action.

The complaint generally alleges that various investment bank
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in Former Nuance's initial
public offering of securities.  

It makes claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against Former Nuance and some of the Former Nuance's directors
and officers.

Similar lawsuits, concerning more than 250 other companies'
initial public offerings, were filed in 2001.  In February 2003,
the court denied a motion to dismiss with respect to the claims
against Former Nuance.

In the third quarter of 2003, a proposed settlement in principle
was reached among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants, including
Former Nuance, and the issuers' insurance carriers.  

The settlement calls for the dismissal and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including Former Nuance, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be paid, if necessary, by
the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims.

The timing of the conclusion of the settlement remains unclear,
and the settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval of the court.  

The settlement is not expected to have any material impact upon
Former Nuance or the company, as payments, if any are expected
to be made by insurance carriers, rather than by Former Nuance.

In July 2004, the underwriters filed a motion opposing approval
by the court of the settlement among the plaintiffs, issuers and
insurers.  

In March 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, subject to the parties agreeing to modify the term
of the settlement, which limits each underwriter from seeking
contribution against its issuer for damages it may be forced to
pay in the action.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement.  
The court has yet to issue a ruling on the motion for final
approval.  

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the court's order certifying a class in several
"test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter
defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding.  The
settlement remains subject to a number of conditions, including
final court approval.  

The suit is "In re Nuance Communications Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-7344."


OPTIO SOFTWARE: Awaits Final Court Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue a ruling on the final approval of the
settlement of Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation.

On Nov. 13, 2001, a lawsuit styled, "Kevin Dewey vs. Optio
Software, Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

A single plaintiff purportedly on behalf of persons purchasing
Optio's common stock between Dec. 14, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000
filed the complaint against the underwriters in the company's
initial public offering as well as Optio and certain officers
and directors of Optio.

The lawsuit also seeks class-action status.  Optio is a co-
defendant with approximately 300 other issuers in this suit.  
The complaint includes allegations of violations of:

     -- Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
        amended, by all named defendants;

     -- Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act by the
        underwriter defendants;

     -- Section 15 of the Securities Act by the individual
        defendants; and

     -- Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
        underwriter defendants.

The complaint alleges that Optio's prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     -- the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
        and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
        exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
        investors material portions of a limited number of Optio
        shares issued in connection with the Optio initial
        public offering; and

     -- the underwriters had entered into agreements with
        customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
        Optio shares to those customers in the Optio initial
        public offering in exchange for which the customers
        agreed to purchase additional Optio shares in the
        aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified amounts as compensatory damages
as a result of Optio's alleged actions, as well as punitive
damages and reimbursement for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and associated costs and expenses of the lawsuit.

                           Settlement  

A proposal to settle the claims against Optio and other
companies and individual defendants in the litigation was
conditionally accepted by Optio.  The completion of the
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including court
approval.  

The court preliminarily approved the settlement on Feb. 15,
2005, subject to certain modifications, which are currently
pending approval by the defendants.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release
all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action.

Optio may still have yet undetermined exposure to the
underwriters pursuant to indemnification provisions in the
underwriting agreement entered into at the time of the initial
public offering.  

Under the guaranty, all of the insurers for all the issuers will
be required to pay an amount equal to $1.0 billion less any
amounts ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants in all of the pending cases.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006,
however no ruling has been issued yet by the court, according to
the company's Dec. 15 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31.

The suit is "In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, (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


PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Circuit Court Limits Class in Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Cook County Circuit Court limited the potential class members
seeking damages in a suit alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act against
Peoples Energy Corp., together with its consolidated
subsidiaries.

The class now consists of those persons who were customers
during the time that Peoples Energy's joint venture with Enron
Corp. was in operation and did not receive part of the
settlement proceeds from gas charge reconciliation cases.

In February 2004, a purported class action was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy, together with its
consolidated subsidiaries and Peoples Gas by Stephen Alport, a
Peoples Gas customer.

The suit alleges, among other things, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to
matters at issue in Peoples Gas' fiscal year 2001 gas charge
reconciliation proceedings.  It seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

The company and Peoples Gas deny the allegations and are
vigorously defending the suit.  Peoples Gas has been dismissed
as a defendant and the only remaining counts of the suit allege
violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and that the company acted in concert with others
to commit a tortuous act.

Based upon the settlement and dismissal of Peoples Gas' fiscal
years 2001 through 2004 reconciliation cases by the Illinois
Commerce Commission, the court on Sept. 25, 2006 ruled to limit
the potential class members in the suit seeking damages to those
persons who were customers during the time that Peoples Energy's
joint venture with Enron Corp. was in operation and did not
receive part of the settlement proceeds from the reconciliation
cases.

The court also denied Peoples Gas' motion to dismiss the case to
the extent that the complaint seeks punitive damages, which
could not have been obtained in the administrative
reconciliation cases.  Plaintiffs have filed a third amended
complaint and a motion for class certification, to which the
company is in the process of responding, according to the
company's Dec. 13 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Sept. 30.


SERENA SOFTWARE: Settlement of Suits Over Merger Gets Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court issued a final order approving the
settlement of lawsuits filed by shareholders of Serena Software,
Inc. over the company's merger with Spyglass Merger Corp.

On Nov. 11, 2005, Serena entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Spyglass.  As a result of the announcement of the
acquisition and beginning on Nov. 11, 2005, several purported
class actions were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court and the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo naming Serena and the then members of its board of
directors as defendants.

In pursuing these actions, plaintiffs purported to represent
stockholders of Serena who were similarly situated with the
plaintiffs.  

Among other things, the complaints alleged that Serena's then
directors breached the fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders
in approving the merger with Spyglass Merger Corp. because they
failed to take steps to maximize the value to Serena's public
stockholders.

On Feb. 27, 2006, Serena and the other defendants reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of the actions.  

In connection with the settlement, Serena agreed to make
available additional information to its stockholders.  Some of
that information was included in the merger proxy statement.  
The remaining additional information was contained in a press
release Serena issued on Feb. 28, 2006.

In return, the plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the actions
and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with such
actions.  

Additionally, Serena agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses
of plaintiffs' counsel, subject to the approval by the
respective courts.  This payment did not affect the amount of
merger consideration that was paid to Serena's stockholders in
the merger.

Serena and the other defendants continue to deny plaintiffs'
allegations in the actions but agreed to settle the purported
class actions to avoid costly litigation and the risk of delay
to the closing of the merger.

On July 31, 2006, the California Superior Court conducted a
hearing to consider the settlement and, on Nov. 15, 2006, issued
a final order approving the settlement, reducing the fee award
to plaintiff's counsel and dismissing the California action with
prejudice.  

Following the judgment by the California Superior Court, the
parties are required to submit the settlement to the Delaware
Chancery Court for review and dismissal of the Delaware action.  

The settlement amount, including legal fees associated with the
litigation settlement, has been accrued at Jan. 31, 2006, and is
included in acquisition-related and restructuring charges and
accruals.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Ga. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted a motion by defendants in a securities suit filed
against Spectrum Brands Inc. to dismiss a consolidated amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs had filed a motion seeking an extension
of time to file an amended complaint and a partial lift of the
stay of discovery.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company, along with Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer David A. Jones, and Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer Randall J. Steward, were named
defendants in a purported class action "Jain v. Spectrum Brands  
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-2494-WSD."

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule  
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   

It was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities between Jan. 4, 2005 and  
Sept. 6, 2005.  

Plaintiff generally alleges that the company and the
individually named defendants made materially false and
misleading public statements concerning the company's
operational and financial condition, thereby allegedly causing
plaintiff to purchase company securities at artificially
inflated prices.  

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.  

The suit was followed by these additional cases:

     -- "Dague v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and  
        Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-0580-C," filed  
        Oct. 3, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western  
        District of Wisconsin (Wisconsin Action);  

     -- "Davies v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and  
        Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-2814," filed on  
        Oct. 31, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the  
        Northern District of Georgia; and  

     -- "Hunkapiller v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and  
        Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-2911-WSD," filed  
        Nov. 14, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the  
        Northern District of Georgia, purportedly brought on  
        behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly-
        traded securities between Jan. 4, 2005 and Nov. 11,  
        2005.  

By order dated Nov. 18, 2005, all cases pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia were
consolidated, and the court entered a scheduling order providing
for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and briefing
schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Dec. 22, 2005,
plaintiff in the Wisconsin action dismissed the complaint.  

On Nov. 28, 2005, a motion was filed in the Georgia Action to
appoint lead plaintiffs and approve selection of co-lead
counsel.  

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion.  Pursuant to the scheduling order entered on
Nov. 18, 2005, on Feb. 2, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  

On March 6, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On Oct. 27, 2006, the court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, but the court granted plaintiffs 30 days to re-plead
the complaint.

On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an extension
of time to file an amended complaint and a partial lift of the
stay of discovery.  Defendants have opposed this motion.  

The suit is "In re: Spectrum Brands Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-02494-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge William S.  
Duffey, Jr.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230  
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA  
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;  

     (2) Christopher S. Jones of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
         Schulman, 5200 Town Center Circle, Tower One, Suite  
         600, Boca Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000, Fax:
         561-367-8400, E-mail: cjones@milbergweiss.com; and

     (3) Trevan Borum of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-
         mail: tborum@sbclasslaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is James R. Carroll of Skadden Arps  
Slate Meagher & Flom, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108,  
Phone: 617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:  
jcarroll@skadden.com.  


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Motions to Dismiss Suit Over Hurricane Katrina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Valley Authority has filed a motion to dismiss a
suit accusing it and several oil companies of helping increase
Hurricane Katrina's destructive force.

In April 2006, 14 residents of Mississippi allegedly injured by
Hurricane Katrina added TVA as a defendant to a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.

In general, plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil
company trade association, three large chemical companies and a
chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in
the mining and/or burning of coal, including TVA and other
utilities.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and
direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages among other relief.  
TVA has moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that TVA's
operation of its coal-fired plants is not subject to tort
liability due to the discretionary function doctrine.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H.  
Walker.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald  
         Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,  
         Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com  
         and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;   

     (2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &  
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,  
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and  
         smwiles@smithfawer.com; and

     (3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902  
         Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
         8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.


WAL-MART STORES: Calif. Court Might Dismiss Suit Over Sweatshops
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California is expected to dismiss a
purported class action blaming Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for
alleged sweatshop conditions in five Third World countries that
supply the retailer, The Associated Press reports.

The judge, who recently heard arguments on the case, "Jane Doe
I, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," said that he would issue a
decision soon.  It was allegedly indicated though that he would
dismiss all claims against the company.

Originally, the International Labor Rights Fund initiated a
class action against Wal-Mart in state court in Los Angeles,
which asserts that the Arkansas-based retailer violated its
contractual obligations by not enforcing its code of conduct for
overseas contractors (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2005).

In the suit, the workers from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia,
Nicaragua and Swaziland assert that the codes of conduct were
violated in dozens of ways.  

They alleged they were often paid less than the minimum wage and
did not receive time-and-a-half for overtime, and some are even
claiming that they were beaten by managers and were locked in
their factories.

The suit, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in October 2005, specifically
alleged Wal-Mart broke a promise to enforce its "Standards for
Suppliers" demanding foreign companies obey local labor laws and
treat workers fairly.

It also alleged Wal-Mart misled Californians by promoting the
standards policy as reason to shop at its stores.  Thus it seeks
for injunctions to protect the workers and enforce the
standards.

One allegation in the lawsuit is that Wal-Mart violated the 1789
Alien Tort Claims Act by allowing suppliers to withhold pay from
foreign workers.

In a tentative ruling, Judge Guilford indicated that he "is
sympathetic to the plight of the plaintiffs," however he added
that the alien tort law must be applied narrowly.

The judge explains that the plaintiffs' theory of liability
would have broad applications if accepted and such a rule would
support a federal claim for relief whenever any employee was
denied pay, while living under difficult economic conditions.

The suit seeks damages for thousands of workers that could
amount to "perhaps millions of dollars," according to
plaintiffs' attorney Anne K. Richardson.

The main contention of plaintiffs is they have the right as
"third-party beneficiaries" to enforce the contracts between
Wal-Mart and its global suppliers.

The company requires foreign manufacturers to obey its supplier
standards, which are included in the contracts, however,
according to plaintiffs, the retailer failed to conduct proper
inspections as promised.

If Guilford rules against the plaintiffs, the judge said they
could amend their complaint and try again.  Ms. Richardson said
that she and other plaintiffs' attorneys, including Terry
Collingsworth of the International Labor Rights Fund, will
likely re-file or appeal if the judge tosses the suit.

The suit is "Jane Doe I, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
No. 2:05-cv-07307-AG-MAN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J.
Guilford with referral to Judge Margaret A. Nagle.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Terry Collingsworth of International Labor Rights Fund,
         2001 South Street, NW, Suite 420, Washington, DC 20009,
         Phone: 202-347-4100; and

     (2) Anne K. Richardson of Hadsell & Stormer, 128 N. Fair
         Oaks Avenue, Suite 204, Pasadena, CA 91103-3664, Phone:
         626-585-9600, E-mail: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com.

Representing the defendants are David J. Brown, Joan M. Haratani  
and James N. Penrod of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Phone: 415-442-
1224, 415-442-1000, 415-442-0900, E-mail:
djbrown@morganlewis.com, jharatani@morganlewis.com and
jpenrod@morganlewis.com.


WITTINGSLOW ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Trial on Royal Show Ride Mishap
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial of a suit over an accident in a Royal Show ride operated
by Wittingslow Entertainment Services is continuing before South
Australian District Judge Dean Clayton, according to
NEWS.com.au.

On Sept. 2, 2000, bolts in section of a Spin Dragon broke,
causing the section to break and drop a 4.3-tonne gondola.  No
one was killed but 37 people were injured as a result.

Those injured in the incident are seeking compensation from the
ride's owner, manufacturer and maintenance team in a class
action.

In a hearing on Dec. 4, the court was told that the ride
received no maintenance for almost five years before the
accident.  No one serviced the Spin Dragon ride between 1995 and
2000, even though it was supposed to be checked every six
months, the report said.

Representing the victims is Peter Eriksen.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ATRICURE INC: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., announces that a
lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of AtriCure, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's initial public offering on or about Aug. 4, 2005
through Feb. 16, 2006.

The complaint alleges that AtriCure, 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, and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  

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.  On this
news, the price of AtriCure common stock dropped from $10.36 per
share to $8.04 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 9, 2007
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
          

HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Hansen Natural Corp.
(HANS) between Nov. 12, 2001 and Nov. 9, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against defendant Hansen and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.  

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 29,
2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.  


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Technical Olympic USA, Inc.
between Aug. 1, 2005 and Nov. 6, 2006.  The class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 12,
2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

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.  


                            *********


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  * * *