CAR_Public/061220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 252

                            Headlines

ADVANCED DIGITAL: Still Faces Stockholder Suit Over Quantum Deal
AT&T INC: Hearing on Wiretapping Proof Disclosure Set Dec. 21
BELO CORP: Settles Overtime, Meal Break Claims in California
BROOKS AUTOMATION: "Shaw" Plaintiffs File Consolidation Motion
CABOT CORP: Continues to Face Carbon Black Antitrust Lawsuit

CABOT CORP: Faces Suit Over Beryllium Emissions in Penn. Plant
CABOT CORP: Named Defendant in Suit Over Beryllium Exposure
CYBERONICS INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. Securities Suit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Hundreds Join Ill. Suit Over "Temp" Status
GOLD KIST: Faces Suits in Del., Ga. Over Pilgrim's Pride Merger

HARRAH'S ATLANTIC: Court Allows Patrons to Sue Over Promotions
HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Kleenex Subject of $10M Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
MCLEODUSA INC: Iowa Judge Mulls Fairness of $30M Suit Settlement
MOTHERS WORK: Settles Overtime Suit Filed by Workers in Conn.
MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over 2003 La. Miraux Fire

MURPHY OIL: Cut-Off to Rejoin Oil Spill Suit Settlement Extended
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA: Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Line Fees
NETWORK ENGINES: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
NETWORK ENGINES: Settles Mass. Suit Over EMC Agreement for $2.9M
NEW MEXICO: Judge Refuses to Ban Albuquerque's Traffic Cameras

NIAGARA CORP: March 1 Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Wrist Straps Replacement Program Launched
NUTRO PRODUCTS: Sued Over Odor from Victorville, Calif. Plant
PILLOWTEX CORP: Nonunion Workers Offered Settlement in N.C. Case
PNC FINANCIAL: Final Okay for Pa. Stock Suit Settlement Appealed

PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Pa.
QUANTUM CORP: Calif. Court Approves DLT IV Tape Suit Settlement
ROCK HILL: Parties Reach $2.1M Settlement for S.C. Litigation
TARGET CORP: Manager Files Age Discrimination Suit in Okla.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces N.J. Suit Over Inflated IPO Share Price

WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Christmas Beagles for Choking Hazard
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Settles Ariz. Securities Lawsuit for $5.7M

* PLI Publishes Securities Class Action Guide


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in Va.
TOP TANKERS: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ADVANCED DIGITAL: Still Faces Stockholder Suit Over Quantum Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Digital Information Corp. and its directors remain
defendants in a purported shareholder class action filed in King
County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington, in relation to the
proposed acquisition of the company by Quantum Corp.

Richard Carrigan on behalf of an alleged class of the company's
shareholders filed the suit on May 18, 2006.  Plaintiff alleges,
among others, that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the proposed acquisition, which
was publicly announced on May 2, 2006.

The suit seeks to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed acquisition and other relief.

Though the acquisition has since been consummated, the lawsuit
remains pending and defendants have continued discussions with
the plaintiff to reach a resolution, according to Quantum Corp's
Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


AT&T INC: Hearing on Wiretapping Proof Disclosure Set Dec. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in San Francisco will consider on Dec. 21 at 2
p.m. requests from media groups to unseal critical evidence in
the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action against AT&T
Inc.  The hearing is at 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 6
San Francisco, CA 94102.

EFF's suit accuses the telecom giant of collaborating with the
National Security Agency in illegal spying on millions of
ordinary Americans.  

The sealed evidence includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a
retired AT&T telecommunications technician, as well as several
internal AT&T documents and portions of a declaration from EFF's
expert witness.  

Some of the evidence was previously released in redacted form,
while other evidence is still completely unavailable to the
media and the public.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will also consider
whether two state court lawsuits against AT&T and Verizon
Communications over NSA access to phone records, which were
recently transferred to his courtroom, should be transferred
back to state court.

The suit is "Hepting v. AT&T and other NSA telecommunications
records lawsuits."

Judge Walker had allowed the class action to proceed against
AT&T Inc. and other telecommunications carriers (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006).  A motion to dismiss the case is on
appeal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

                        Case Background   

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T
Inc., are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a
massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks
the domestic and foreign communications and communication
records of millions of Americans.   

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that    
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:   

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution    
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by    
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or    
        using plaintiffs' communications;   

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence   
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by    
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of    
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;   

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control    
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101    
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act    
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and    
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using    
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;   

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of   
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized    
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'    
        communications;   

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored    
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)    
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of    
        plaintiffs' communications;   

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended    
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18    
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records    
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental    
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal    
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,    
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.   

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.   

Since the filing of this complaint, 20 additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.    

All 21 pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court, namely the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California, before the judge
presiding over the Hepting case.   The case is consolidated as:  
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records  
Litigation, MDL-1791."

To date, a small number of plaintiffs have objected to this
consolidation and their objections are pending before the joint
panel on multidistrict litigation.  

Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. and two of its affiliates
moved the panel, pursuant to section 1407 of the U.S. Judicial
Code, for an order centralizing the MDL-1791 actions in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.    

One of these 21 cases -- "Terkel v. AT&T Corp. and Illinois   
Bell," filed with the U.S. District Court in the Northern   
District of Illinois -- was dismissed in July.

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications  
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.  
Walker.  Representing the plaintiffs are:          

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454    
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-   
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:    
         cindy@eff.org; and    

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman 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: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.         

Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.         
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont         
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:         
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:         
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


BELO CORP: Settles Overtime, Meal Break Claims in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California class action attorneys David A. Huch and
Derek J. Emge recently settled overtime and meal break claims
against Belo Corp. on behalf of numerous newspaper distribution
"supervisors" and "managers."

In their class action complaint, the circulation employees of
The Press-Enterprise claimed that they were misclassified as
exempt from California's overtime and meal break/rest period
requirements, as well as other wage requirements under the
California Labor Code.  

These "District Supervisors" and "Zone Managers," who worked
significant overtime hours, were responsible for scheduling and
servicing daily delivery routes.

Before the matter went to trial, Belo Corp. re-classified these
employment positions and settled all claims with the current and
former employees who worked during the applicable four-year
statutory period under California law.  The specific terms of
the settlement are to remain confidential.

Under California law, all employees are presumed to be entitled
to overtime pay and 30-minute meal breaks unless the employee in
question falls "plainly and unmistakably" within narrowly
defined exemption categories.  

Employees with some management and supervisory duties in
California are often misclassified by employers as exempt from
overtime pay and meal breaks due to the employers' failure to
comply with the exemption categories' strict requirements.

Under California law, misclassified employees are entitled to
overtime compensation (at "time and a half" and "double time"
rates) for up to four years of employment plus various other
remedies, including attorneys' fees, litigation costs and
interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.


BROOKS AUTOMATION: "Shaw" Plaintiffs File Consolidation Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation,
Inc." have filed a motion to consolidate the suit with a similar
case, "Charles E. G. Leech Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et
al." pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

                       Leech Class Action

On June 19, 2006, a putative class action, "Charles E. G. Leech
Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court, District of Massachusetts.  The defendants in
this action are:

     -- the company;

     -- former chairman and chief executive Robert Therrien;

     -- Ellen Richstone, former chief financial officer;

     -- Roger D. Emerick, former director;

     -- Amin D. Khoury, former director;

     -- Robert W. Woodbury, Jr. chief financial officer; and

     -- Edward C. Grady, director, president and chief
        executive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against us and the individual
defendants; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants; Section 11 of the Securities Act against
the company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and
Therrien; Section 12 of the Securities Act against the company
and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien; and
Section 15 of the Securities Act against Messrs. Grady,
Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien.

The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest,
and plaintiff's costs.  The defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the Leech complaint.

                       Shaw Class Action

On July 19, 2006, a putative class action, "James R. Shaw v.
Brooks Automation, Inc. et al., No. 06-11239-RWZ," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The defendants in the case are the company, Mr. Therrien, Ms
Richstone, Mr. Emerick, Mr. Khoury, Mr. Woodbury, and Mr. Grady.  
The company has not been served with the complaint at the time
the company prepared its report for the fiscal year ended Sept.
30.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all
individual defendants.  It thus, seeks, inter alia, damages,
including interest, and plaintiff's costs.

Competing plaintiffs and their counsel have moved for
consolidation with the Leech action, and for appointment as lead
counsel.

                       Levy Class Action

On Aug. 22, 2006, an action "Mark Levy v. Robert J. Therrien and
Brooks Automation, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, seeking recovery, on behalf of the
company, from Mr. Therrien under Section 16(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged "short-swing" profits earned by
Mr. Therrien due the loan and stock option exercise in November
1999 referenced above, and a sale by Mr. Therrien of Brooks
stock in March 2000.  

The complaint seeks disgorgement of all profits earned by Mr.
Therrien on the transactions, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.  Defendants have filed motions to dismiss.


CABOT CORP: Continues to Face Carbon Black Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. remains a defendant in lawsuits accusing it and
other defendants of conspiring to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for carbon black sold in the United States in
2003.  California actions against the defendants have been
consolidated in the Superior Court in the State of California.

During fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the company and Phelps Dodge
Corp., Columbian Chemicals Co., Degussa Engineered Carbons, LP,
Degussa AG, and Degussa Corp. were named in nine actions filed
in Superior Court of the State of California on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers of carbon black in the
state of California from as early as November 1998 to the
present.

During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the company and the above
Defendants were named in actions filed in state courts in the
states of Florida, Kansas, Tennessee, South Dakota, North
Carolina and New Jersey on behalf of all indirect purchasers of
carbon black in these respective states.  

Each of these complaints asserts violations under the applicable
state laws for conduct that is similar to what is alleged in the
federal cases described above.

The plaintiffs in the state actions also seek treble damages in
an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.  All nine pending
California actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court
in the State of California at the city and county of San
Francisco.


CABOT CORP: Faces Suit Over Beryllium Emissions in Penn. Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. is one of several named defendants in "Sheridan et
al. v. NGK North America, Inc., et al.," a class action
complaint filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County on behalf of persons who resided within a
one mile radius of the company's former Reading facility for a
period of at least six months between 1950 and 2000.

In 1986, Cabot sold a manufacturing facility in Reading,
Pennsylvania to NGK Metals, Inc.

The class action alleges that these persons were exposed to
emissions of beryllium from the Reading plant and are,
therefore, entitled to receive medical monitoring.  

Cabot has not yet responded to the complaint and discovery in
the case has not yet begun, according to the company's Dec. 14
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.


CABOT CORP: Named Defendant in Suit Over Beryllium Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. is facing a class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over health
hazards posed by beryllium-containing products it manufactured.

In September 2006, Cabot was one of several named defendants in
"Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. et al.," a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain present
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge Inc. facility in
Sellersville, Pennsylvania.

U.S. Gauge is a company alleged to have purchased the beryllium-
containing products from Cabot.  The class action alleges that
the present and former employees were exposed to beryllium dust
and fumes during the machining of beryllium-containing products
purchased from Cabot and that they are therefore entitled to
receive medical monitoring.  

Also named in the case are:

     -- Ametek, Inc. (third-party defendant);
     -- Admiral Metals Inc.;
     -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and
     -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp.
     
Cabot has filed an answer, cross-claims and third-party
counterclaims.  Discovery in the case has not yet begun,
according to the company's Dec. 14 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-04419-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James Knoll
Gardner.

Representing plaintiff Gary Anthony are:

     (1) Ruben Honik at Golomb & Honik, PC, 121 South Broad
         Street, 9th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-985-
         9177, E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com; and

     (2) Stephan Matanovic at Golomb & Honik PC, 121 S. Broad
         Street, 9th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-      
         985-9177; E-mail: smatanovic@golombhonik.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (i) [Ametek, Inc.] Kevin M. Donovan at Morgan Lewis &
         Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-
         2921, Phone: 215-963-5420, Fax: 215-963-5001, E-mail:
         kdonovan@morganlewis.com.

    (ii) [Admiral Metals, Inc.] is Rochelle M. Fedullo at Wilson
         Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, The Curtis Ctr.,
         Ste. 1130 East Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: 215-627-
         6900, Fax: 215-627-2665.

   (iii) [Cabot Corp.] is Neil S. Witkes at Manko, Gold, Katcher
         & Fox, LLP, 401 City Avenue, Suite 500, Bala Cynwyd, PA
         19004, Phone: (610) 660-5700, Fax: 484-430-5711.


CYBERONICS INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Court-appointed lead plaintiffs in "In re: Cyberonics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. H-0502121," filed a first
amended class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of
Cyberonics, Inc. securities during from Feb. 5, 2004, to Aug. 1,
2006, inclusive.

Investors who purchased Cyberonics securities during the
expanded class period and suffered damages may move the court
for consideration to be appointed as a lead plaintiff no later
than 60 days from Dec. 18.  

Any purported class member who wishes to do so may move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, including current court-appointed co-lead counsel, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The First Amended Complaint charges Cyberonics and certain of
its current and former officers and directors with violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The amended complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented material information known to defendants
regarding U.S. Food and Drug Administration review and approval
of a new use for the company's Vagus Nerve Stimulation device to
treat depression, the marketability of the VNS device and
medical insurance "Payers" coverage decisions for the device.

The amended complaint also alleges improper conduct related to
the award of stock option grants to certain senior Cyberonics
officers, including that the options were fraudulently backdated
and that the company had flawed and defective internal controls
over accounting and for the options.  

This resulted in the improper reporting of executive
compensation and expenses and violated generally accepted
accounting practices.

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case  
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc et al.,  
Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," filed in the U.S. District Court for  
the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Elizabeth A. Abbott, John G. Emerson and Scott E.  
         Poynter, all of Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale  
         Lane, Suite 100, Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, E-mail:  
         john@emersonpoynter.com;
   
     (2) Mark A. Golovach, Mark L. Knutson and Jeffrey R.  
         Krinsk, all of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, 501 West  
         Broadway, Ste 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         238-1333, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail:  
         mlk@classactionlaw.com or fk@classactionlaw.com;

     (3) Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler  
         III all of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B Street, Ste 1500,  
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-233-4565.

Representing the defendants is N. Scott Fletcher of Vinson &  
Elkins LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-3234, Fax: 713-615-5168, E-mail:  
sfletcher@velaw.com.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Hundreds Join Ill. Suit Over "Temp" Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 150 individuals have signed up to be part in a purported
class action against DaimlerChrysler Corp. over allegations that
newly hired workers were deceived and forced into an illegal
contract.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and also names as defendants the
International United Auto Workers Union, and Local 1268.

Filed on Nov. 28, 2006 by Kathy Hungness, the suit claims that
the company "intentionally and deceptively led" workers to
believe they'd receive the same type of benefits and pay other
full-time union workers get, only to find out after that the pay
was only 70 percent of what union workers earned and the jobs
were temporary (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006).  

Additionally, the suit alleges that Local 1268 "failed to
perform its own duty of fair representation."

The suit was a result of the company hiring practices at its
Belvidere plant wherein, it informed new workers upon their
hiring that they were being hired as "Enhanced Temporary
Employee" or ETE.

An ETE is paid two-thirds the wage of a permanent hourly
production worker and gets no raises, has no dental or vision
coverage, no pension credits and no sick pay.  

Additionally, an ETE has no health insurance for eight months.  
In essence an ETE is not the same as that of a permanent, UAW-
represented employee.

If an ETE is laid off:

      -- he or she cannot receive supplemental unemployment
         benefits or be placed in the jobs bank;

      -- he or she has no recall rights;

      -- if he or she works fewer than 40 hours they do not
         receive short work pay.  

He or she also has no seniority rights and almost no access to
the grievance procedure-and they can be fired for the slightest
infraction.
Ms. Hungness, one of the 800 or so who were actually hired as
ETEs, was hired in June and kept in the dark about her temporary
status until the last minute.  She was later terminated in
October.

The influx in potential class members joining her suit, was a
result of her organizing rank-and-file ETEs into the group
Enhanced Fight.

In its first organizing meeting, Enhanced Fight was a huge
success, with many volunteering for fundraising, membership,
phone tree, and community-action committees.  The group hopes to
have a public protest sometime in the future.

The suit is "Hungness v. Daimler-Chrysler Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-06491," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas Howard Geoghegan of
Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan, 77 West Washington Street, Suite
711, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2511, Fax: (312) 372-
7391, E-mail: dsg77@aim.com.


GOLD KIST: Faces Suits in Del., Ga. Over Pilgrim's Pride Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Kist, Inc. was named a defendant in three lawsuits filed in
Delaware and in Georgia over its merger with Pilgrim's Pride
Corp.

The company and the members of the company's board of directors
have been named as defendants in three substantially identical
purported shareholder class actions.  

Two of the suits have been consolidated in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County as "In re
Gold Kist Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2492-N."  While one
has been filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia,
as "Ponds Edge Capital, LLC v. John Bekkers, et al., Civil
Action File No. 2006CV124898."

The lawsuits allege that the defendants are breaching their
fiduciary duties in responding to the Pilgrim's tender offer,
including by failing to inform themselves regarding potential
strategic alternatives and the value of the company in a fully
negotiated transaction.  

They seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  The
company and the other defendants deny that they have breached
their fiduciary duties and further deny that they are liable to
the plaintiffs or the purported plaintiff class in any amount.


HARRAH'S ATLANTIC: Court Allows Patrons to Sue Over Promotions
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge appellate panel revived a class action brought by
three women against Harrah's Atlantic City regarding two of its
promotions, according to Donald Wittkowski of The Press of
Atlantic City.

Essentially, the panel ruled that casino patrons who believe
that they were duped by false or misleading promotional offers
by the gaming industry could sue under New Jersey consumer fraud
laws.

The ruling rejects an earlier decision by Judge Ann G. McCormick
of the Middlesex County Superior Court, which stated that the
Casino Control Commission, not the courts, has exclusive
jurisdiction over the gaming halls.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed in state Superior Court
against Harrah's Atlantic City, which is accused of making phony
offers in promotional materials that the casino sent the women
who sued.

Commenting on the decision, William J. Pinilis, a Morristown
attorney who represented the women, said that the appellate
court made it clear that they (Harrah's) are not free to ignore
the consumer protection laws of New Jersey.

Mr. Pinilis added that the ruling ensures that casinos will be
held accountable for promotional offers "just like any other
hotel, restaurant or merchandiser."  

With the ruling, the women will be able to argue that Harrah's
violated New Jersey consumer fraud laws when the case returns to
Superior Court.  "We go back to court and litigate the merits of
the lawsuit," explains Mr. Pinilis.

In her original ruling, Judge Ann G. McCormick found that the
Casino Control Commission is the exclusive authority to regulate
promotional or advertising materials used by casinos and that it
would be "inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources" for
courts to get involved.

However, in an 18-page opinion that overturned Judge McCormick's
decision, the three-judge appeals panel stated that the women
who sued Harrah's would have had no legal recourse before the
Casino Control Commission (CCC), since the Casino Control Act
clearly does not empower the CCC to award damages in private
matters.

                        Case Background

The women suing were identified in court papers as Debra S.
Smerling, Sheila Smerling and Magda Claude, who are all New
Jersey residents.

According to the suit, the women visited Harrah's in 2003 and
2004 to try to redeem promotional coupons that offered cash
incentives.  However, they were thwarted in efforts to collect
the money and are thus accusing the casino of false and
misleading advertising.

After those incidents, the women, feeling that they were
victimized, filed a three-count class action against Harrah's.  
They alleged that the casino was in violation of the state
Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act.  

Judge McCormick dismissed the first two counts, but the appeals
court overruled her and ordered the case back for her
consideration.

For more details, contact William J. Pinilis of Pinilis Halpern,
LLP, 237 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960, Phone: (973) 401-
1111, E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com.


HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Kleenex Subject of $10M Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd. said that a petition was filed
against Hogla-Kimberly Ltd., an affiliated company (49.9%), for
the approval of a class action.

According to the petition, three and a half years ago, Hogla-
Kimberly has reduced the quantity of paper in the toilet
packages of its "Kleenex(R) Premium" brand and thus misled the
public, according to the Israeli Consumer Protection Act.  The
plaintiff estimates the scope of the class action to be
approximately NIS43 million ($10.26 million).  

Hogla-Kimberly rejects the claims and intends to defend itself
against the action.  At this early stage Hogla-Kimberly is not
able to assess the chances of the class action and its
influences.

American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd.: Phone: +1-908 -686-7500, Fax:
+1-908-686- 4757, E-mail: glmcn@aol.corn, on the Net:
http://www.green-lind-mcnulty.com. Contact:  
Philip Y. Sardoff.


MCLEODUSA INC: Iowa Judge Mulls Fairness of $30M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Mark Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa is expected to rule soon on the
fairness of a $30 million offer to settle a shareholder class
action against four former McLeodUSA Inc. officers, WQAD
reports.  A hearing on the settlement was held Nov. 29.

The settlement covers:  

      -- all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
         McLeodUSA common stock during the period from and  
         including January 3, 2001 through and including Dec. 3,  
         2001, and were damaged thereby; and  

      -- all persons who acquired McLeodUSA common stock  
         pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus  
         issued in connection with McLeodUSA's June 1, 2001  
         stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc., and  
         were damaged thereby.

                          Case Background

At the beginning of the class period, McLeodUSA was an ambitious
competitive local exchange carrier, which competed with
traditional phone companies by leasing lines, switches and
capacity.

According to McLeodUSA, it provided "selected telecommunications
services to customers nationwide."  In addition, McLeodUSA
planned to establish a national voice and data network and had
begun its national expansion through the acquisition of
Splitrock Services, Inc., CapRock Communications Corp., and
Intelispan, Inc., when this lawsuit was commenced.

The lawsuit asserted that defendants intentionally or recklessly
misled investors regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and
financial condition.

Specifically, the lawsuit asserted that the defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements and
omissions including, among other things:

      -- that McLeodUSA failed to timely and properly recognize  
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in  
         connection with certain acquisitions;  

      -- that McLeodUSA did not have the funds necessary to  
         complete its national network and would soon have to  
         abandon its plans;  

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to service its substantial  
         debt and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to  
         avoid bankruptcy; and  

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to successfully integrate the  
         Splitrock and CapRock acquisitions.  

The lawsuit further alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
caused the price of McLeodUSA securities to be artificially
inflated, causing damage to the class members when McLeodUSA
began to disclose its true financial condition.

It seeks money damages against the defendants for violations of
the federal securities laws. The defendants deny ead Plaintiffs'
allegations.

On and after Jan. 11, 2002, thirteen class action complaints
were filed against McLeodUSA and/or certain of McLeodUSA's
present or former officers and directors - Clark E. McLeod,
Stephen C. Gray, J. Lyle Patrick and Chris A. Davis, on behalf
of a class of public investors who either:

      -- purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock  
         (between Jan. 3, 2001 and Dec. 3, 2001 inclusive); or
        
      -- acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the  
         Registration and Prospectus issued in connection with  
         McLeodUSA's stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan,  
         Inc. By order dated April 16, 2002, the court  
         consolidated all thirteen cases, selected lead  
         plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of  
         counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on June 17, 2002.  McLeodUSA was not named as a
defendant in the Complaint due to its filing for bankruptcy in
January 2002.

As stated above, the complaint alleged that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial
condition including, among other things, McLeodUSA's plan to
build a national network, the purported successful integration
of Splitrock Services, Inc. and CapRock Communications Corp.,
McLeodUSA's financial forecasts and results, whether McLeodUSA's
financial statements had been prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and whether or
not McLeodUSA expected to file for bankruptcy.

The complaint also alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
artificially inflated the value of McLeodUSA securities,
injuring McLeodUSA shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock at inflated prices during the class
period when the true state of affairs became known.

On Aug. 30, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum on Nov. 4,
2002, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on Nov. 22,
2002.

The court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants'
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2003.  Both Parties submitted
responses to the report, and on March 31, 2004 the court
accepted the findings of the report and denied defendants'
motion in full.  On May 3, 2004, defendants filed their answers
to the complaint.

Thereafter, in the spring of 2004, lead plaintiffs initiated
merits discovery.  This discovery was extremely complicated and
contentious, involving many motions to compel and numerous
hearings before the court.

The lead plaintiffs conducted extensive written discovery,
serving multiple sets of formal document requests and
interrogatories, and many subpoenas on third-parties.

As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, Lead
Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 2.4 million pages of
documents produced by McLeodUSA, the Defendants and third
parties.  The parties also deposed ten witnesses in locations
throughout the U.S.

As discovery was ongoing, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, and the Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to loss causation, based
on the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v.
Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005).  Each of these motions was fully
briefed by the parties.  

In the interim, on Oct. 28, 2005, McLeodUSA filed its second
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, and the Action was stayed pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision.

The court lifted the stay on March 16, 2006 pursuant to a motion
filed with the court.  Lead plaintiffs filed a new motion for
class certification, and defendants filed a new motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  These motions were fully briefed and
pending at the time the parties reached the tentative agreement
to resolve the action.

The Parties first discussed the possibility of settling the
Action in June 2002.  However, it was obvious at that time that
they were too far apart to reach agreement, and it was not until
Nov. 17, 2003 that the Parties again met to discuss a
resolution.  

Thereafter, the parties participated in three formal mediation
sessions - on July 28, 2004 and Sept. 22, 2005 with the
assistance of the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.) and on
May 3, 2006 with the assistance of the Honorable Herbert
Stettin.  It was shortly after this third mediation session that
the parties reached the basic terms of the settlement.

In September, the judge set the fairness hearing in the matter,
"In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No.
C02-0001-MWB," on Nov. 29 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2006).

Deadline for objections and exclusions to and from the
settlement was on Nov. 15, 2006.  Deadline for submission of
claims is on Jan. 16, 2007.

For more details, contact:  

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
         Schulman, LLP, One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,  
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;

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

     (3) Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., and Joseph D. Cohen, Esq., Weiss  
         & Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY  
         10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Web site:  
         http://www.infony@weisslurie;and    

     (4) McLeodUSA Securities Litigation Exclusions c/o  
         Analytics, Inc., Claims AdministratorP.O. Box 2006  
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006, Phone: 1-888-212-3057, Web  
         site: http://www.mcleodusasecuritieslitigation.com/.


MOTHERS WORK: Settles Overtime Suit Filed by Workers in Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut approved
a settlement reached in a labor suit filed against Mothers Work,
Inc.

On Jan. 12, 2005, a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleged that, under applicable federal and state
law, certain former and current employees should have received
overtime compensation.  The plaintiffs in this case sought
unspecified actual damages, penalties and attorneys' fees.

Similar proceedings have been brought against other retail
companies.

In July 2006, the parties settled the outstanding claims and
entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and on Aug. 1,
2006, the court approved the settlement and dismissed the case.

The suit is "Gillmore v. Mothers Work Inc. et al., case no.
3:03-cv-01900-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, under Judge Janet C. Hall.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Anthony J. Pantuso, III of Hayber
& Pantuso, 221 Main St., Ste. 400 Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
860-522-8888, Fax: 860-240-7945, E-mail:
apantuso@hayberandpantuso.com.

Representing the defendants are Howard K. Levine and Ann H.
Rubin of Carmody & Torrance, 195 Church St., P.O. Box 1950, 18th
Floor, New Haven, CT 06509-1950, Phone: 203-784-3102, Fax: 203-
784-3199, E-mail: hlevine@carmodylaw.com or
arubin@carmodylaw.com.


MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over 2003 La. Miraux Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated class
action filed in a Louisiana federal court over the June 10, 2003
fire that severely damaged the Residual Oil Supercritical
Extraction (ROSE) unit at the company's Meraux, Louisiana
refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.  Subsequent to the
fire, numerous class actions have been filed seeking damages for
area residents.  

All the lawsuits have been administratively consolidated into a
single legal action in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for
one such action, which was filed in federal court.  

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the company's liability insurers.  

All the lawsuits have been administratively consolidated into a
single legal action in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for
one such action, which was filed in federal court.  In addition,
individual residents of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, have filed an
action in that venue.

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the company's liability insurers.  

The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal
court, 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.

Murphy Oil Corp. on the Net: http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/.


MURPHY OIL: Cut-Off to Rejoin Oil Spill Suit Settlement Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of St. Bernard Parish that opted out of a class action
against Murphy Oil Corp. over an oil spill that occurred in the
aftermath Hurricane Katrina were given until were given until
Jan. 4, 2007 to rejoin a proposed $330 million settlement, The
Associated Press reports.

Judge Eldon Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana extended the deadline, which had been
originally on Dec. 8, 2006.  

According to plaintiff attorney Daniel Becnel, the deadline is
the same day that Judge Fallon is scheduled to hold a fairness
hearing on the settlement proposal, which covers about 6,200
claims.

Mr. Becnel added that the judge has also set Jan. 31, 2007 as
the deadline for submission of claims in the proposed settlement
of the class action.

The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the
Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish.  Objections to the
settlement must be made to the court by Dec. 15, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006).

The suit, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.," stems from the spill
of about 1 million gallons of oil from a storage tank that was
moved off its base by massive flooding during Hurricane Katrina.

Recently, Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana gave preliminary approval to
the proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 12, 2006).

Under the terms of the deal, all residential and commercial
properties in the class area will receive a cash payment
pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to court
approval following recommendations by a court-appointed Special
Master.  

The entire class area will have the benefit of a comprehensive
remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory
bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.  

About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and
business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed
liaison for the committee that would help disburse the
settlement.   

Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying
property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million
would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said.

Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty  
Arpent Canal.   

                        Case Background

The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of
residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation
for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux,  
Louisiana.  Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that
was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2006).  

Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at
approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed
the suit.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  The court certified the class on
Jan. 30, 2006.  

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-  
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:     

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common     
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-     
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;  

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,     
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,     
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and   

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.     
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.     
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:     
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and    
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:    
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and  
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA: Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Line Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clement Gascon of the Superior Court of Quebec authorized
on Nov. 1, a class action brought against National Bank of
Canada over the management and user fees charged by the bank to
its customers for suing a line of credit.  

The court has designated Union Des Consommateurs as
representative of plaintiff Marie-Claude Bibaud, a resident of
Longueuil in the District of Longueuil, Quebec.

The proposed class includes:

      -- All natural persons who were granted a line of credit
         by the National Bank of Canada in Quebec for purposes
         other than the operation of a business, namely lines of
         credit commonly referred to as "Marge Manoeuvre
         Protection" or "Marge Manoeuvre Personnelle," and who
         paid the Bank, after July 27, 2000, management or user
         fees which the Bank failed to withhold in order to
         calculate the credit rate and the percentage value of
         same; as well as

      -- any natural person who, because of the foregoing, has
         seen his credit rate increase since July 27, 2000
         without receiving adequate notice to that effect.

This class action is intended to recover illegal and abusive
fees and interest payments, as well as to obtain exemplary
damages.  It will be instituted in the District of Montreal.

The Petitioners have instituted this class action in order to
stop the National Bank of Canada from engaging in this practice
and to obtain for each of the members of the group:

      -- the reimbursement of all fees and interest paid on said
         fees;

      -- the payment of $50 in damages for trouble and
         inconvenience;

      -- the payment of $100 in exemplary damages by virtue of
         the Consumer Protection Act and the Charter of Human
         Rights and Freedoms;

      -- the payment of all other losses or damages which the
         members of the group may have sustained in addition to
         those specified herein because of the aforementioned
         fees; and

      -- interest and the additional indemnity provided by law.
     
Deadline for inclusion is Jan. 16, 2007.  The Clerk of the
Superior Court, District of Montreal is at 1, Notre-Dame Street
East, Suite 1.01, Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 1B6.  

Union Des Consommateurs: http://www.consommateur.qc.ca.

Representing the plaintiff are:
  
     (1) Me Paul G. Unterberg at Unterberg, Labelle, Lebeau
         1980, Sherbrooke Street, West, Suite 700, Montreal
         (Quebec) H3H 1E8, E-mail: contact@ullnet.com, Fax:
         (514) 937-6547; and

     (2) Union Des Consommateurs, 6226, St-Hubert Street,
         Montreal (Quebec), H2S 2M2, E-mail:
         union@consommateur.qc.ca, Phone: (514) 521-6820, Fax:
         (514) 521-0736.


NETWORK ENGINES: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue a final ruling regarding a settlement of the
Initial Public Offering Lawsuit filed against Network Engines,
Inc.

On or about Dec. 3, 2001, a putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against:

     -- the company,

     -- Lawrence A. Genovesi chairman and former chief executive
        officer;

     -- Douglas G. Bryant, chief financial officer and vice
        president of finance and administration; and

     -- the following underwriters of the company's initial       
        public offering:

        * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
        * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
        * Goldman Sachs & Co.,
        * Lehman Brothers Inc., and
        * Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

An amended class action complaint, "In re Network Engines, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10894
(SAS)," was filed on April 20, 2002.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling securities pursuant to
our initial public offering in July 2000, or IPO, without
disclosing to investors that the underwriter defendants had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

It also alleges that the underwriter defendants entered into
agreements with certain customers whereby the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate to those customers shares of our
common stock in the offering, in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional shares of our common
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The suit alleges that such tie-in arrangements were designed to
and did maintain, distort and/or inflate the price of our common
stock in the aftermarket.  

The suit further alleges that the underwriter defendants
received undisclosed and excessive brokerage commissions and
that, as a consequence, the underwriter defendants successfully
increased investor interest in the manipulated IPO securities
and increased the underwriter defendants' individual and
collective underwritings, compensation and revenues.

Plaintiffs seek damages and certification of a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons who acquired shares of our common
stock between July 13, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.

In July 2002, Network Engines, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas
G. Bryant joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss challenging the
legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  

The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.  Plaintiffs
opposed the motion, and the court heard oral argument on the
motion in November 2002.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order denying
the motion as to Network Engines.  In addition, in October 2002,
Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.

On July 9, 2003, a Special Committee of our Board of Directors
authorized Network Engines to negotiate a settlement of the
pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers.

The company has negotiated the settlement, which provides, among
other things, for a release of Network Engines and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended
complaint to be wrongful.  

The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the settlement, including agreeing to assign, or not
assert, certain potential claims that the company may have
against the underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is to be borne by the company's insurers.

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

The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the scope of the
bar order, and on Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public
hearing on its fairness, which took place on April 24, 2006.  
The court's final approval of the settlement remains pending.

The suit is "In re Network Engines, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10894 (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:

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

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

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

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

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

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


NETWORK ENGINES: Settles Mass. Suit Over EMC Agreement for $2.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. settled in March a consolidated class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts over its agreement with EMC Corp. in relation to
the Fibre Channel HBAs.

On March 17, 2004, the court consolidated a number of purported
class actions filed against the company and certain individual
Network Engines defendants.  

These suits generally concern the timing of the announcement of
an amendment to the company's agreement with EMC regarding the
resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel HBAs.

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on June 4,
2004.  The defendants on Aug. 13, 2004 filed a motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint.

On Oct. 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss and the defendants filed a reply
to the plaintiff's opposition on Nov. 12, 2004.  

The court on Nov. 22, 2004 denied the defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On Dec. 9, 2004,
the defendants filed an answer to the amended consolidated
complaint.

Since that time the parties engaged in some informal discovery,
have exchanged formal discovery requests, and then pursued
active settlement discussions.  

On March 31, 2006, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.  On April 4, 2006, the
court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
and scheduled deadlines for the settlement approval process,
including scheduling a settlement conference for July 25, 2006.

The settlement is subject to a notice and comment period, during
which class members may object, opt out of the settlement, or
file claims under the settlement.

The terms of the settlement require the company's insurance
provider to pay $2,875,000 in full settlement of the claims
asserted by the class.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 14
10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Morgan v. Network Engines Inc. et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-12529-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Representing the plaintiffs is Rachel S. Fleishman and Carlos F.
Ramirez of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-
5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and

     (2) Daniel W. Halston and John A. Litwinski, Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com or
         john.litwinski@wilmerhale.com.


NEW MEXICO: Judge Refuses to Ban Albuquerque's Traffic Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Valerie Huling denied a motion asking for a
temporary restraining order against Albuquerque's red light
camera program, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

The City of Albuquerque was named as a defendant in a class
action filed in November in state District Court, alleging that
its camera-based traffic enforcement program is breaking the law
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006).  The suit contends that
the program violates state constitutional guarantees of due
process, trial by jury and other protections.

There are three named plaintiffs in the suit.  They include a
social worker and a single mother that were both cited under the
red light camera program.

Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Sandoval sought the court order to
halt the program until legal issues are settled.

In 2004, traffic cameras first appeared in Albuquerque under a
pilot program that grew into the present system.  Under the
program, violators are declared a "nuisance" and thus subject to
civil penalty.

However, the lawsuit contends the city is overreaching.  It
pointed out that a vehicle might not be declared a nuisance
based on a single traffic violation without knowledge or
evidence of the actual driver in the vehicle.

Under the system, owners of vehicles photographed while running
red lights or speeding are fined under a civil administrative
system overseen by City Hall.  

A request for a temporary injunction was denied because the city
has no way of tracking which vehicles are subject to seizures,
has never seized a vehicle before and therefore Sandoval's
clients are not in any danger of having their vehicles seized,
the report said.

The Metropolitan Court, which generally handles traffic
citations issued by law officers, is not involved with the
traffic cameras.

An administrative hearing run by the city is afforded to
motorists who deny wrongdoing, and fines are considered a civil
-- not criminal -- matter.

For more details, contact Richard A. Sandoval, 2025 Rio Grande
Blvd., NW Albuquerque, NM 87104, Phone: (505) 243-3500 or (800)
562-3456 or 1-800-828-4LAW, Fax: (505) 243-3534, Web site:
http://www.branchlawfirm.com/.


NIAGARA CORP: March 1 Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bernard J. Fried will hold a fairness hearing on March 1,
2007 at 2:15 p.m. for the settlement of securities fraud suits
filed against Niagara Corp.

The suits are:  

      -- "In re Berger v. Scharf, et al. Index No. 600935/05,"
         and

      -- "In re Spring Partners, LLC v Scharf, et al. Index No.
         601004/05."

It concerns all persons or entities who beneficially owned
shares of Niagara Corp. common stock as of August 1, 2006; and
all persons or entities who beneficially owned shares of niagara
stock on April 27, 2004 and either:

      -- sold such shares between April 28, 2004 and August 1,
         2006, inclusive; or

      -- whose fractional interests in Niagara common stock were
         eliminated in connection with the reverse stock splits
         (Spring Partners Class).

The hearing will be at the New York Supreme Court, New York
County, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007.

The suit "Berger v. Scharf," names as defendants Niagara Corp.,
Michael J. Scharf, Gilbert D. Scharf, Frank Archer, Gerald L.
Cohn, Andrew R. Heyer and Douglas T. Tansill.

Filing for exclusion and objection is until Feb. 14, 2007.  
Claims filing deadline is Feb. 15, 2007.  

Settlement Administrator      Gilardi & Co. LLC
                              P.O. Box 8040
                              San Rafael, CA 94901-8040
                              (800) 447-7657
                              http://www.Gilardi.com

Berger Class Lead Counsel     The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C.
                              60 East 42nd St.--46th Floor
                              New York, New York 10165
                              Phone: (212)685-0969 1156
                              Fax: (212)685 2306
                              Attn: Laurence D. Paskowtiz, Esq.

                              Roy Jacobs & Associates
                              60 East 42nd Street -- 46th Floor
                              New York, New York 10165
                              Phone: (212) 867-1156
                              Fax:  (212) 504-8343
                              Attn: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.

Spring Partners
Class Lead Counsel      Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
                         460 Park Avenue -- 21st Floor
                         New York, NY 10022
                         Phone:  (212) 838-3221
                         Fax:  (212 937-3139
                         Attn: Christopher J. Gray, Esq.


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Wrist Straps Replacement Program Launched
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo of America, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, launched a voluntary replacement
program for about 2 million wrist straps used with controllers
for the Nintendo Wii Video Game System.

The company said if consumers swing the hand-held "Wii Remote"
game controllers using excessive force and accidentally let go,
the cord connecting the controller to the wrist strap can break,
potentially causing the controller to strike bystanders or
objects.

Nintendo has received reports of cords on wrist straps breaking,
including three reports of minor injuries not requiring medical
attention.  All of these incidents occurred when consumers were
playing the game, "Wii Sports."

The wrist straps are sold with Nintendo's Wii video game system
(pronounced "we"). Its controller, called the Wii Remote, is
shaped like a TV remote. Sensors determine the Wii Remote's
position in 3-D space, which means that a tennis swing, for
example, is done through movement of a consumer's hand rather
than by just fingers and thumbs. The cords on the wrist straps
included in this program are 0.6mm in diameter. The replacement
cords are 1.0 mm in diameter.

These wrist straps were manufactured in Japan and China and are
being sold by the Wii video game systems have been sold since
November 19, 2006 for approximately $249.  The Wii Remote has
separately been sold from November 19, 2006 for approximately
$39.  All Wii video game systems purchased after December 11,
2006 should have the new 1.0 mm cord.  All individually sold Wii
Remotes purchased after December 18, 2006, should have the new
1.0 mm cord.

Picture of the wrist strap:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07061.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact the firm for a replacement
wrist strap.

For more information, contact Nintendo toll-free at (800) 859-
4519 between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. PT, or visit their Web site:
http://www.support.nintendo.com.


NUTRO PRODUCTS: Sued Over Odor from Victorville, Calif. Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
The homeowners' association at Spring Valley Lake, California is
considering filing a class action against Nutro Products Inc.
over the nauseating odor coming from the plant in nearby
Victorville, the Victorville Daily Press reports.  A resident,
Leroy Allen, is also preparing his own class action, the report
said.

The company has been working for more than a year with a target
of solving the problem by March 20, 2007.  If its current plan
to extend the length of its ventilation stack to dissipate the
odor higher into the atmosphere doesn't work, the plant will be
shut down, according to Alan DeSalvio, supervising engineer.

Residents are complaining of losses, including falling property
values.  Many of them say they want the plant closed, the report
said.


PILLOWTEX CORP: Nonunion Workers Offered Settlement in N.C. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement of employment-related class action claims
was sent to about 1,220 non-union workers at now-defunct
Pillowtex Corp. of Kannapolis, North Carolina, The Charlotte
Observer reports.

Settlements average $2,100, but the former nonunion workers will
net an average of $727, after legal fees, Social Security,
Medicare and taxes are taken into account.  Those fees and taxes
cover about 65 percent of the settlement.

Total cost of the settlement with nonunion workers is $2.9
million with about $300,000 covering payroll taxes and Social
Security.  

Two law firms and a nonprofit legal advocacy group that handled
the class action for workers will split about $700,000 in fees,
or more than one-fourth of the $2.6 million for employees.

The workers had filed a class action against the company, which
closed abruptly in July 2003 and resulted in the laying off of
7,650 people nationwide.  Those class action claims dealt with
vacation pay, and plant shutdown notification issues.

Once 80 percent of the class-action group approves the
settlement, checks can start to be processed, according to Mark
Indelicato, who worked on the settlement for Hahn and Hessen, a
New York law firm representing Pillowtex creditors.  He urged
workers to return forms before the next court hearing on the
settlement issue on Jan. 31, 2007.

However, Mr. Indelicato warns that if that threshold is not met,
workers may wind up with nothing, or it might take much longer
to get a settlement.

Commenting on their share of the settlement, John Lankenau of
Lankenau & Miller, LLP, one of the firms that represented
workers, explains that the fees were consistent with similar
cases they have handled.  The firm would not have received
compensation without a settlement, he added.

For more details, contact John Lankenau of Lankenau & Miller,
LLP, 1775 Broadway, Suite 610, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)
581-5005, Fax: (212) 581-2122 and (212) 581-2266.


PNC FINANCIAL: Final Okay for Pa. Stock Suit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a securities fraud class action against PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. that are not participating in the
settlement of the matter have appealed the decision by the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to give
final approval to the deal.

The settlement relates to certain lawsuits and other claims
related to three 2001 transactions (PAGIC transactions) that
gave rise to a financial statement restatement the company
announced on Jan. 29, 2002 and that were the subject of a July
2002 consent order between the company and the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution
Agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and PNC ICLC
Corp., one of its indirect non-bank subsidiaries.

The several putative class action complaints filed during 2002
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania arising out of the PAGIC transactions have been
consolidated in a consolidated class action complaint brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between July
19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.  

The consolidated class action complaint names the Company, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial
Officer, its Controller, and its independent auditors for 2001
as defendants and seeks unquantified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other expenses.  

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws related to disclosures regarding the
PAGIC transactions and related matters.

In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Labor began a formal
investigation of the Administrative Committee of the company's
Incentive Savings Plan in connection with the Administrative
Committee's conduct relating to the Company's common stock held
by the Plan.  Both the Administrative Committee and PNC are
cooperating fully with the investigation.  

In June 2003, the Administrative Committee retained Independent
Fiduciary Services, Inc. (IFS) to serve as an independent
fiduciary charged with the exclusive authority and
responsibility to act on behalf of the Plan in connection with
the pending securities litigation referred to above and to
evaluate any legal rights the Plan might have against any
parties relating to the PAGIC transactions.  

This authority includes representing the Plan's interests in
connection with the Restitution Fund set up under the Deferred
Prosecution Agreement.  The Department of Labor has communicated
with IFS in connection with the engagement.

On Dec. 17, 2004, the company entered into a tentative
settlement of the consolidated class action.  On March 25, 2005,
the parties filed a stipulation of settlement of this lawsuit
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  

This settlement also covered claims by the plaintiffs against
AIG Financial Products and others related to the PAGIC
transactions.

The tentative settlement of the consolidated class action
remains subject to court approval.  The court held a hearing on
Aug. 4, 2005 to determine whether to approve the proposed
settlement agreement of the consolidated class action.

The defendant in that class action not participating in this
settlement had objected to it and on Aug. 10, 2006 appealed the
decision of the district court approving the settlement to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Ketterman v. PNC Financial, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-00629-DSC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania under Judge David S. Cercone.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory G. Paul of Peirce Law
Offices, 707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower, Pittsburgh, PA
15219, Phone: (412) 281-7229, Fax: (412) 281-4229, E-mail:
gpaul@peircelaw.com.  

Representing the company is Mark R. Hornak of Buchanan
Ingersoll, 301 Grant Street, One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-562-8859, E-mail:
hornakmr@bipc.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action filed against it, which is
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).  

On April 29, 2005, an amended complaint was filed in the
putative class action against PNC; PNC Bank, N.A.; our Pension
Plan and its Pension Committee in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (originally filed
in December 2004).  

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the Jan.
1, 1999 conversion of the company's Pension Plan from a
traditional defined benefit formula into a "cash balance"
formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and
other related matters.

The suit seeks to represent a class of all current and former
employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
Dec. 31, 1998 and thereafter.  

It also seeks to represent a subclass of all current and former
employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
Dec. 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become
eligible for an early retirement subsidy under the former Plan
at some time prior to the date of the amended complaint.  

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable relief available
under ERISA, including interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 21, 2005, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is styled "Register, et al. v. PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael S. Tarringer, Miller
Faucher and Caferty, LLP, One Logan Sq., 18th and Cherry
Streets, Ste 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800,
E-mail: mtarringer@millerfaucher.com.  

Representing the Company is William A. Slaughter, Ballard Spahr
Andrews and Ingersoll, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor,
Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-8500, E-mail:
slaughter@ballardspahr.com.


QUANTUM CORP: Calif. Court Approves DLT IV Tape Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco gave final approval to a proposed settlement in the
matter, "Franx Inc. v. Quantum, Corp., Case No. CGC-03-423301."

The settlement resolves the class action about DLT IV tapes,
which are a type of magnetic tape storage used to backup data
for business and computer users.

The suit was filed against:

     -- Quantum Corp.,
     -- Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,
     -- Maxell Corp. of America (collectively Maxell),
     -- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.,
     -- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. (collectively Fuji)

It claims that defendants agreed to keep Imation Corp. from
entering the market to sell DLT IV tapes, causing the prices for
those tapes to be higher than they should have been.  Defendants
deny the claims made in the lawsuit, deny that anyone was harmed
in relation to the claims, and have asserted a number of
defenses.

The settlement will provide free DLT IV tapes to California
residents and businesses that purchased DLT IV tapes, excluding
Imation-certified Black Watch Digital Linear Tape IV brand, at
any time from Aug. 5, 1999 to May 30, 2002 for home or office
use (i.e., not for resale) from within the state of California.

In November 2005, the parties agreed to settle the litigation
for a combination of cash and product contributions.  The court
approved the settlement terms on July 10, 2006, according to
Quantum Corp.'s Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

For more details, contact DLT IV Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 1816, Faribault, MN 55021-1864, Phone: 1-866-216-0278, Web
site: http://www.tapedrivesettlement.com;and Aaron Darsky, Esq.  
or Robert C. Schubert, Esq. of Schubert & Reed, LLP, Three
Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:  
(415) 788-4220, Fax: (415) 788-0161, E-mail: adarsky@schubert-
reed.com and rak@katriellaw.com, Web site: http://www.schubert-
reed.com.


ROCK HILL: Parties Reach $2.1M Settlement for S.C. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $2.1 million preliminary settlement was reached for two class
actions brought by shareholders of the now-defunct Rock Hill
Bank and Trust (RHB&T) against its directors, bank officers and
former president for problem loans, Sula Pettibon of The Rock
Hill Herald reports.

Court documents revealed that the agreement essentially gives
members of one of the suits about $2,095,000, or $1.02 per share
after expenses and fees.  

The settlement is almost $8 less per share than shareholders
wanted, however, legal representatives for both sides say it's
time to end the litigation.

Another $100,000 is proposed for settling the second lawsuit,
which was thrown out of court in January and is currently being
appealed.

English McCutchen, an attorney for shareholders, said that they
had to make do with the settlement, since a lawsuit would have
been hard to win:

      -- because of the good reputation of the bank's directors,
         and

      -- because examiners gave the bank a good review prior to
         its trouble.

Mr. McCutchen explains that 1,100 shareholders are to be sent a
letter on Dec. 22, 2006 regarding the settlement. Thereafter,
they will have 45 days to object or opt out.  If more than 1
percent opted out, the proposed settlement is off.

5th Circuit Judge Ernest Kinard Jr. of Camden will conduct a
final hearing at 10 a.m. Feb. 23, 2007 at the York County
Courthouse in South Carolina.

A settlement could end the story of RHB&T, which in July 2002
had to fire its president, Rob Herron, then a Rock Hill City
Council member, for irregularities in the commercial loan
department.

The bank was nearly was taken over by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. when an investigation revealed it needed $20
million to cover problem loans.  Instead, it was sold to South
Financial Group of Greenville.

Officers have attributed all the problem loans to its former
president Robert Herron, who was fired July 3, 2002, for
irregularities in the commercial loan department (Class Action
Reporter, May 13, 2003).

Soon, thereafter, lawsuits were filed against RHB&T.  Named in
the suits are two bank officers and eight directors, former
president Rob Herron, and the accounting firm of Tourville
Simpson and Caskey, which was dissolved and sold.

The class action states that the bank had losses two straight
years because of employee misconduct.  It also claims officers
and directors failed to monitor employees and loan activity.

Rock Hill was subsequently sold to the South Financial Group,
which held 22% of RHB&T's stock at the time, for $8.8 million as
part of a recovery plan.

For more details, contact T. English McCutchen, 1414 Lady Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201, Phone: (803) 799-9791, Fax:
(803) 253-6084, E-mail: emccutchen@mbjb.com, Web site:
http://www.mbjb.com.


TARGET CORP: Manager Files Age Discrimination Suit in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp. was named a defendant in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,
which alleges that the company created a corporate "hit list" to
get rid of long-term employees older than 40 and replace them
with younger, lower-paid workers, The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit alleges Target persistently discriminated against
plaintiff and other members of the prospective class who are
over the age of forty, were long-term Target employees and who
have been terminated or constructively discharged from their
employment with Target.  Such adverse employment actions
targeted older workers protected from such age-based job actions
by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Debra Martinez, the named plaintiff in the case, who is a
manager in Target's Albuquerque store with more than 15 years
seniority, claims that the company instituted its hit list in
late 2001 or early 2002, under the guise of "a false corrective
action plan called an 'upgrade list' also known as a 'succession
planning chart' and commonly referred to as a 'hit list.'"

Ms. Martinez says that the company intended to cut payroll by
whacking "the older, higher-paid employees based on pre-textual
reasons."

Plaintiff further complain of class-wide adverse employment
actions, including but not limited to wrongful terminations,
constructive discharges, and unlawful demotions as being in
violation of the ADEA.

Plaintiff for herself and others, asks the court to:

     -- take jurisdiction of the complaint;

     -- enter a declaratory judgment that the defendant engaged
        in willful age discrimination;

     -- pursuant to the authority of the ADEA permanently enjoin
        the defendant, its officers, agents and representatives
        from future discriminatory acts relative to the
        plaintiff and the members of the class;

     -- award the plaintiff, front pay, and other incidental
        monetary rights and remedies from the last date of
        discriminatory action to the date of trial;

     -- award the plaintiff liquidated damages against the
        defendant;

     -- award pre-judgment interest on all back pay;

     -- award plaintiff's costs and expenses in this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees and authorized by
        law; and

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

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?175e

The suit is "Martinez v. Target Corporation, Case No. 5:06-cv-
01388-F," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot.

Representing plaintiffs is Jana Beth Leonard of Leonard &
Associates, 120 N Robinson Ave., Suite 2300, Oklahoma City, OK
73102, Phone: 405-239-3800, Fax: 405-239-3801, E-mail:
leonardjb@leonardlaw.net.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces N.J. Suit Over Inflated IPO Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. is named defendant in a class-action fraud
complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, accusing it of
inflating its share price during its initial public offering
(IPO).

The suit states that the alleged fraud was done by concealing
information about company finances, technological problems and
competitive threats, and allocating shares so that some
customers did not know how many shares they were buying and
sometimes did not know they were buying shares at all, The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The company is also accused of preventing shareholders from
selling their shares as the price plummeted.  Plaintiffs claim
Vonage and its directors targeted "9,000 to 10,000 of their
unsophisticated phone services customers to purchase as much as
13 percent of the IPO shares through the company's 'Customer
Directed Share Program.'"

Vonage claimed it raised $531.3 million by selling 31.3 million
shares during its May 24 IPO, but plaintiffs claim the stock was
selling for $14.85 by the end of that day and at $13 on May 25.

They say the price plummeted again when "many participants in
the Directed Share Program refused to pay for the shares they
had been allocated," and sank again in June, to $8.50, when
"investors learned that Vonage had been sued by Verizon for
patent infringement" on Internet cell phones.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the
class and predominate over any questions solely affecting
individual members of the class.  Among the questions of law and
fact common to the class are:

      -- whether securities laws were violated by defendants'
         acts as alleged;

      -- whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented material
         facts about the business, operations and management of
         Vonage; and

      -- to what extent the members of the class have sustained
         damages and the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:

      -- determining this action is a proper class action,
         designating plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs, and
         certifying plaintiffs as class representatives under          
         New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiffs'
         counsel as lead counsel;

      -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiffs
         and the other class members against all defendants,
         jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a
         result of defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be
         proven at trial, including interest thereon;

      -- awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable
         costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
         counsel fees and expert fees;

      -- awarding extraordinary, equitable, and/or injunctive
         relief as permitted by law and equity to assure that
         the class has an effective remedy; and

      -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
         just and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1761

The suit is "Pinto, et al. v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al., Case
No. L-5934-06," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul B. Brickfield Esq. of Brickfield & Donahue, 70
         Grand Avenue, River Edge, New jersey 07661, Phone:
         (201) 488-7707;

     (2) Stuart J. Guber, of Motley Rice, LLC, 600 West
         Peachtree Street, Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia 30308,
         Phone: (404) 201-6900;

     (3) Lewis S. Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras
         Street, Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (504)
         455-1400; and

     (4) Michael A. Swick and Kim E. Miller both of Kahn
         Gauthier Swick, LLC, 114 F., 39th St., New York, New
         York 10016, Phone: (212) 920-4310.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Christmas Beagles for Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 56,000 units of Holiday Time Stuffed Christmas Beagles.

The company said the red pompoms on the wreath attached to the
beagle's mouth could detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.  No injuries have been reported.

The stuffed animal is a brown and white beagle with a red scarf
and Santa hat trimmed in red and white stripes.  A green wreath
with red pompoms is attached near the beagle's mouth.  The
stuffed beagle measures 7-inches tall and 5-inches long.  
"Marketed by WAL-MART STORES, INC" and UPC number "8 85271 90780
3" are printed on the dog's sewn-in labels.  "Holiday TimeT" is
printed on the animal's hang tag.

Picture of recalled stuffed Christmas beagle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07058.jpg

These stuffed Christmas beagles were manufactured in China and
are being sold exclusively at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from
September 2006 through December 2006 for about $3.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the stuffed animal
away from young children and return it to the nearest Wal-Mart
store for a full refund.

For more information, contact Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between
7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.walmartstores.com.


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Settles Ariz. Securities Lawsuit for $5.7M
------------------------------------------------------------
White Electronic Designs Corp. reached a $5.7 million settlement
in the consolidated securities fraud suit filed against it in
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  

On July 22, 2004, July 29, 2004, Aug. 6, 2004 and Aug. 20, 2004,
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers.  The suits are:

      -- "McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et  
         al. Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB;"  

      -- "Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et  
         al., Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS;"  

      -- "Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et  
         al., Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT;" and  

      -- "Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et  
         al., Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC.  

The actions were consolidated and the Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on or about Feb. 14, 2005.  

Defendants' motions to dismiss that complaint were granted on  
Feb. 14, 2006.  Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on  
April 17, 2006.  

Like the dismissed complaint, the new complaint alleges, among
others, that between Jan. 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the company
made false and misleading statements concerning its financial
results and business, and issued a misleading registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the company's July
2003 secondary offering.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint in June
2006.  While defendants' motions were pending, the parties
reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit.  

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, our insurance carrier
will pay the entire $5.7 million settlement amount (of which at
least $0.7 million will come from the derivative settlement
agreement described below).

The agreement, which must be approved by the court, has been
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.  The court has
not set a hearing date on the request for preliminary approval,
according to the company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30.

The suit is "McJimsey, et al v. White Electronic Des, et al.,  
Case No. 2:04-cv-01499-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Russell J. Gunyan and Samuel H. Rudman of  
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401  
         B. St., Ste. 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:  
         (619) 231-1058; and  

     (2) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew S. Friedman, Patrick  
         James Van Zanen of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint  
         PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-
         3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail:  
         fbalint@bffb.com, afriedman@bffb.com and
         pvanzanen@bffb.com.   

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Joseph G. Adams and Joel Philip Hoxie of Snell & Wilmer  
         LLP, 1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ  
         85004-2202, Phone: 602-382-6207, Fax: 602-382-6070, E-
         mail: jgadams@swlaw.com and jhoxie@swlaw.com; and  

    (ii) Boris Feldman, Sherry Hartel Haus, Nicole Healy and  
         Rodney G. Strickland Jr. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &  
         Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:  
         650-496-4334, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:  
         nhealy@wsgr.com.


* PLI Publishes Securities Class Action Guide
---------------------------------------------
Practising Law Institute (PLI) releases the new "Securities
Litigation: A Practitioner's Guide," which gives attorneys
comprehensive, up-to-date legal, procedural, tactical, and
strategic guidance for securities class actions.

Useful to both plaintiffs' and defendants' attorneys, Securities
Litigation shows how major changes enacted in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act, and related decisional law have affected
pleadings standards, discovery, loss causation, plaintiffs' use
of state courts in securities class actions, and other
procedural issues.

Securities Litigation also examines how class certification and
summary judgments are determined within various contexts under
the Federal Rules of Procedure and court rulings.

In focusing on the trial itself, Securities Litigation offers
practitioners experienced guidance on how to develop and deliver
compelling trial themes, maximize the value of experts as
witnesses and consultants prepare for the examination of
witnesses, present documentary evidence, exclude harmful
evidence and use jury questionnaires to enhance their ability to
select favorable jurors.

In addition, Securities Litigation covers available class action
defenses, safe harbors from liability, appellate review
standards, effective appellate strategies and the best ways to
indemnify and insure directors and officers, achieve
settlements, and respond to U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission investigations.

Securities Litigation features contributed chapters from veteran
class action litigators and is edited by Jonathan C. Dickey
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, Calif.).  Securities
Litigation is $195 and is available for a 30-day free
examination.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

January 13, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 13, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 13, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 13, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 16, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
PLI California Center, San Francisco CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 16, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
PLI California Center, San Francisco CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 18-19, 2007
Opinion and Expert Testimony in Federal and State Courts CM060
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Florida Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

January 20, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Pasadena Hilton,  Pasadena CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Pasadena Hilton,  Pasadena CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 22-23, 2007
MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP
10 ISSUES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 22-23, 2007
LEXISNEXIS ATTORNEY MARKETING & CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 24-25, 2007
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 25-26, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 27, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown  Santa Monica Room  711 South
Hope Street
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 27, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 27, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown  Santa Monica Room  711 South
Hope Street
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 27, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 29-30, 2007
MEALEY'S THE ART OF NEGOTIATION CONFERENCE: SUCCESSFULLY
NEGOTIATING MASS TORT & CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES FOR MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENTS
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Century Plaza, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 6-7, 2007
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 7, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY?
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 8-9, 2007
MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 8-9, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS CONFERENCE: THE NEW FACE OF ASBESTOS
LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Hotel, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 15-16, 2007
LEXISNEXIS SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION
BACKDATING AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Palo Alto, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27-28, 2007
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 27-28, 2007
E-DISCOVERY & LITIGATION READINESS FOR LIFE SCIENCES
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 27-28, 2007
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING BARIATRIC SURGERY
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 27-28, 2007
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF BREAST CANCER
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

March 7-9, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State
Courts CM090
ALI-ABA
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York City
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 14-15, 2007
LIFE SCIENCES MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 15-16, 2007
MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S MASS TORT INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 20-21, 2007
MANAGING & SETTLING CORPORATE PATENT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 21-22, 2007
ANTI-COUNTERFEITING & BRAND INTEGRITY PROTECTION
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 22-23, 2007
Trial Evidence in the Federal Courts: Problems and Solutions
CM078
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 28-29, 2007
GENERAL COUNSEL FORUM
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 28-29, 2007
RESOLVING MASS TORT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 25-28, 2007
MEALEY'S 14TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
ROUNDTABLE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success

CM098
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 11-13, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State
Courts CN009
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 18-19, 2007
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

December 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 14, 2006
DETERMINING WHAT EXPENSES MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTINGENT FEE
CLIENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 25, 2007
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31, 2007
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 1, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR
PARALEGALS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: TRAYSYLOL LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CULTIVATING AND MAINTAINING DIVERSITY
IN YOUR FIRM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Schatz Nobel Announces 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 Florida on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Technical Olympic USA, Inc. between Aug. 1, 2005 and Nov. 6,
2006.  Also included are those who purchased in the Secondary
Offering on Sept. 7, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Technical Olympic and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants announced that, through a joint
venture, it had completed the acquisition of the homebuilding
assets and operations of Transeastern Properties, Inc.
Defendants stated that the joint venture was funded with debt
and was non-recourse to Technical Olympic.

Unbeknownst to investors:

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

      -- the Transeastern Joint Venture was experiencing a
         severe slowdown that would likely result in the loss of
         the company's investment.

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 12,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schatz Nobel Izard, Phone: (800) 797-
5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against Tier Technologies, Inc., accusing the company
of securities law violations.

The complaint, filed as 06-cv-1412 on Dec. 14, 2006, seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who acquired Tier securities from November 29,
2001, through and including Oct. 25, 2006.  Based in Reston,
Va., Tier is a provider of financial transaction processing
solutions.

The lawsuit claims that Tier and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b) and 78t and
Rules 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange
Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about Tier's financial health and
earnings during the class period, some of which were contained
in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.  

In particular, the complaint says that the defendants:

      -- misrepresented the company's financial position by
         overstating income; and

      -- failed to prepare its financial statements in
         accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles.  

In particular, the defendants engaged in earnings management at
the company that included recording a series of adjustments not
in accordance with GAAP.  

On Oct. 25, 2006, the company restated its financial results for
the fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

On May 23, 2006, Nasdaq notified the company that its stock
would be delisted, the complaint said.  The company's stock
began trading on the over-the-counter market on May 25, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 9,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. and Jay W.
Eng, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222
Lakeview Ave., Suite 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone:
(561) 835-9400, E-mail: Lawfla@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/tiertechnologies-cplt.pdf.


TOP TANKERS: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, announces that a class action has been commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of TOP Tankers Inc. common stock during the
period between Nov. 2, 2004 and Nov. 28, 2006.

The complaint charges TOP Tankers and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

TOP Tankers, together with its subsidiaries, is an international
provider of worldwide seaborne crude oil and petroleum products
transportation services.

The complaint alleges that TOP Tankers went public in 2004 in a
12 million share offering purportedly to raise money to purchase
additional vessels.  

During the class period, defendants made false statements about
the company's finances and business, which concealed important
information about the company's acquisitions.  

As a result of defendants' false statements during the Class
Period, TOP Tankers stock increased to as high as $24.14 per
share.

In June 2006, the company announced a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission inquiry into its acquisitions going back to
2004 and the sale and leaseback of 13 vessels, which the company
announced in March 2006.  

Then, on Nov. 29, 2006, TOP Tankers announced that its
independent auditor, Ernst & Young, had resigned because of
disagreements over the company's accounting treatment of certain
aspects of the sale and leaseback of 13 vessels that closed in
March and April 2006.

After this news, TOP Tankers' stock price dropped to as low as
$4.85 per share before closing at $5.04 per share, some 80%
below the class period high of $24.14 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the class period, were as follows:

     -- TOP Tankers was improperly accounting for the sale and
        leaseback of vessels, including for 13 vessels that
        closed in March and April 2006;

     -- TOP Tankers' acquisitions had been manipulated to
        benefit insiders;

     -- TOP Tankers had inadequate and deficient internal
        controls and systems; and

     -- as a result of the above, TOP Tankers' financial
        statements were grossly inflated and materially
        misleading.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Dec. 11,
2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/toptankers/.  


                            *********


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  * * *