CAR_Public/061221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 253

                            Headlines

BARTERCARD PLC: Plans Suit Against Advisor After LSE Delisting
BISYS GROUP: Jan. 18 Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
BRISTOL-MYERS: La. Gets $50T Windfall From Taxol Suit Settlement
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Ill. High Court Decertifies Derailment Suit
CARRIER CORP: Faces Suit Over Furnaces with Inferior Materials

CENTRAL FREIGHT: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
CERIDIAN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
DEVRY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Class Status for Student's Suit
EV3 INC: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction
EXCHANGE BANK: Faces Neb. Suit Over Excessive Interest on Loans

H&R BLOCK: Firm Appeals Dismissal of E-Filing Fees Suit in Ill.
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Tex. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Complaint
IMAGITAS INC: Faces DPPA Suits in Fla., Mo., Ohio, Minn., Mass.
JUPITERMEDIA CORP: No Hearing Date Set for Calif. Antitrust Suit
KELLOGG CO: Recalls Pop-Tarts Over Undeclared Milk Content

MICHICAN HOSPITALS: Accused of Purposely Suppressing Nurses Pay
MICROFINANCIAL INC: Securities Suit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
MONSANTO CANADA: Organic Farmers Pursue Crop Contamination Suit
MONSANTO CO: Appeal on "Tolbert" Attorneys Fee Conflict Denied
NJ AFFORDABLE: Investors Sued by Trustee to Request Class Status

OHIO: Estate of Deceased Landlord Targeted in Voyeurism Lawsuit
OHIO: Two Defendants Added in Litigation Over Toledo Flooding
SEE KAI: Metal Snaps Posing Choking Hazard Prompts Boots Recall
STAMPS.COM INC: Final Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit Deal Mulled
STARBUCKS COFFEE: May 2007 Trial Set for Labor Violations Suit

STARBUCKS CORP: FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Tex. Awaits Trial
STOCK EXCHANGES: N.Y. Court Approves Antitrust Suit Settlement
SWIFT CO: Faces RICO Violations Suit Over Undocumented Workers
UNITED STATES: Labor Union Files Suit Over Swift Co. Plant Raids
UTI WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Suits Over 1991 Gulf War Chemicals

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Customer Directed Share Program
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Product Liability Suit in Okla. Continues
WILLIS GROUP: Ex-VP Files Gender Discrimination Suit in N.Y.
ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Still Faces Suits Over Toy Hauler Trailers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Announces Stock Suit Filing
TOP TANKERS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
XETHANOL CORP: Reinhardt Wendorf Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


BARTERCARD PLC: Plans Suit Against Advisor After LSE Delisting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trade exchange Bartercard plc, which has been delisted from the
London Stock Exchange after the resignation of its "nominated
advisor," Nabarro Wells, is planning to file a class action
against the corporate finance advisory house, The Queensland
Business Review reports.

Bartercard founder and executive chairman Wayne Sharp said in a
letter to shareholders the de-listing was an "automatic process"
after Nabarro Wells' resignation.  According to him, Bartercard
had already issued proceedings against the advisor for breach of
contract and damages.

The resignation and the delisting allegedly damaged the
company's reputation.  As a result, the company is unable to get
a new nominated adviser in the 30 days required.

"The damage to shareholders' value is obvious.  A class action
to recover that value is in the process of being developed
against those who have caused you damage," he stated.  

Bartercard has been in business for almost 16 years, but was
only listed for 18 months.  Mr. Sharp dismissed rumors that the
delisting will have a significant impact on the business.


BISYS GROUP: Jan. 18 Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has preliminarily approved a $66.5 million settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Bisys Group
Inc.  The court has scheduled a final fairness hearing for the
settlement for Jan. 18, 2007.

Following the company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results, seven putative class
action and two derivative lawsuits were filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

By order of the court, all but one of the putative class actions
were consolidated into a single action, and on Oct. 25, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint generally
alleging that during the class period the company, certain of
its officers, and its independent registered public accounting
firm allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the company's financial condition.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the court dismissed certain claims under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to six of the individual
defendants, narrowed certain additional claims against the
company and the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
as to the company's independent registered public accounting
firm.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who acquired BISYS securities from the
company as part of private equity transactions during the class
period.  

The complaint generally asserts that the company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the company's financial condition, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The court subsequently consolidated plaintiff's complaint into
the above complaint, but in August 2006, a magistrate judge
issued a recommendation to the court that it not certify the
proposed class of non-publicly traded company security holders.
Plaintiff subsequently filed objections to the magistrate
judge's recommendation.

                      Settlement Agreement

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action,
including claims relating to the second restatement filed on
April 26, 2006, as well as the remaining putative class action
on an individual basis.  

The parties signed two definitive stipulations of settlement
dated as of Oct. 30, 2006.  Under the proposed settlements, the
company paid an aggregate of $66.5 million in cash into escrow
accounts on Nov. 15 and 16, 2006.  

The consolidated class action settlement received preliminary
court approval on Nov. 6, 2006 but remains subject to, among
other things, final Court approval.  

Following such approval, the funds will be disbursed to certain
purchasers of BISYS securities according to a Court-approved
distribution plan.  The court has scheduled a final fairness
hearing for the consolidated class action settlement for Jan.
18, 2007.  

The settlements include no admission of wrongdoing by the
company or any of the individual defendants, and were funded
through a combination of cash on hand and the company's existing
credit facility.

The company is currently in discussions with its insurance
carriers to determine the amount of available insurance proceeds
remaining under its $25 million directors' and officers'
liability policy.

The first identified complaint is, "Rosen, et al. v. BISYS  
Group, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
  
     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;  

     (3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401  
         East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com;  

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         (Philadelphia), 1845 Walnut St., Suite 945,  
         Philadelphia, CA, 19103, Phone: 215.988.9546, Fax:
         215.988.9885, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;   

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,  
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: E-mail@rabinlaw.com;  

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

     (7) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; and

     (8) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite  
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com.  


BRISTOL-MYERS: La. Gets $50T Windfall From Taxol Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana received its portion of a $55 million settlement in a
class action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. over its cancer
drug Taxol.

State Attorney General Charles Foti Jr. presented a $50,000
check to Partners in Wellness as part of the settlement,
according to Shreveport Times.

The federal antitrust lawsuit, which involves all 50 states,
alleged Bristol-Myers Squibb unlawfully blocked less-expensive
generic drugs from the marketplace.

Bristol-Myers Squibb reached a settlement in April 2003 with all
50 states to distribute $55 million for the states' claims for
damages, penalties and individual consumers redress.

Additionally, the company agreed to strong injunctive relief
over the next ten years that will prevent it from engaging in
anti-competitive conduct.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Ill. High Court Decertifies Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed a certification of a suit
arising from the 2003 derailment of a train operated by the
Illinois Central Railroad Co., doing business as the Canadian
National/Illinois Central Railroad.  

Justice Lloyd Karmeier stated that the common issues of fact and
law do not predominate in the case, and remanded the suit to the
circuit court of Perry County.

On Feb. 9, 2003, 21 cars of a north-bound freight train owned
and operated by the Railroad derailed in Tamaroa, a small rural
community in southern Illinois.  

Tank cars containing hydrochloric acid, vinyl chloride,
methanol, and a methanol/formaldehyde mixture ruptured during
the derailment, spilling a portion of their contents onto the
ground.  

Some of the cars containing methanol also caught fire.  As a
result, more than 1,000 individuals were subjected to a
mandatory evacuation.

The railroad reimbursed numerous individuals and businesses in
and around Tamaroa for a variety of alleged losses relating to
the spill and evacuation.  

But on June 16, 2003, Marvin Smith and 10 other plaintiffs filed
an action in the circuit court of Perry County against the
Illinois Central Railroad Co.

The suit was filed on behalf of themselves and those persons and
businesses that allegedly sustained personal injuries and
property damage as a result of a train derailment in Tamaroa,
Illinois in 2003.  It contains counts for negligence, negligence
based on res ipsa loquitur, nuisance, abnormally dangerous
activity, and trespass.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.  The circuit
court granted class certification, defining the class as:

"All persons, firms, and legal entities residing, maintaining a
place of business, owning property, employed, attending school,
or otherwise present in or in the vicinity of Tamaroa, Illinois,
or its environs on or after Feb. 9, 2003, Feb. 20, 2003, or May
7, 2003, and who or which have sustained legally cognizable
compensatory or punitive damages or may incur or may claim to
have incurred legally cognizable compensatory or punitive
damages as a proximate result of the Canadian National train
derailment which occurred on Feb. 9, 2003, in Tamaroa,
Illinois."

The appellate court affirmed.  The Illinois Supreme Court
granted leave to appeal.  On Nov. 30 the court reversed the
judgments of the appellate and circuit courts, and remand the
cause for further proceedings.

The court said: "Although proof of the cause of the derailment
will be relatively straightforward, this alone will not
establish the Railroad's liability.  Proof of proximate
causation and damages will be highly individualized and will
consume the bulk of the time at trial.  Because the statutory
requirement of predominance cannot be met in this case, the
company holds that the circuit court abused its discretion in
certifying the class.  As a consequence of this holding, we need
not address the Railroad's other arguments.  The judgments of
the appellate court and circuit court are hereby reversed, and
the cause remanded for further proceedings."

Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Freeman, Fitzgerald, Kilbride,
and Garman concurred in the judgment and opinion.  Justice Burke
took no part in the decision.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1766

The suit is "Marvin Smith et al., Appellees, v. Illinois Central
Railroad Company, Appellant, Docket No. 102060."


CARRIER CORP: Faces Suit Over Furnaces with Inferior Materials
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of Carrier and Bryant residential condensing furnaces in
the states of Washington, Wisconsin, and Michigan and Province
of Ontario have filed separate class actions against Carrier
Corp., the manufacturer of Carrier and Bryant condensing
furnaces (also marketed under the brand names "Day & Night" and
"Payne").

The homeowners allege that beginning in the mid-1980s, Carrier
started manufacturing its high-end furnaces out of inferior
material that corrodes and prematurely fails, without disclosing
that fact to consumers.

"When my Bryant furnaces failed, I was told that I would have to
buy new furnaces or pay significant charges for their repair
because the warranty only covered parts and not the labor,"
commented Frank Zinn of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan, one of
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Why should I have to spend
thousands of dollars on new furnaces when mine were supposed to
last 20 years?"

"Michigan homeowners often run their furnaces for at least five
months of the year," stated Lester A. Pines, counsel for
plaintiffs. "It is of great concern that Carrier would sell a
furnace that could potentially malfunction in the dead of winter
well before the end of their warranted life."

High-efficiency condensing (or 90%) furnaces maximize efficiency
by employing a second heat exchanger to extract more heat from
the hot gases through condensation. These furnaces are typically
more expensive than non-condensing (or 80%) furnaces.

Each of the complaints allege that in the mid-1980s Carrier
stopped using stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor
of cheaper polypropylene-laminated mild steel.  

Carrier switched to the cheaper product despite the fact that
the industry standard was (and still is) to use stainless steel
parts to prevent corrosion.  

Plaintiffs allege that the polypropylene separates from the
steel and degrades due to the high temperatures in the furnace,
exposing the underlying mild steel to acidic condensate.  In
some cases the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually
perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger.

In the U.S., Carrier warrants the heat exchanger for the
lifetime of the original purchaser and for 20 years for
subsequent purchasers.  In Canada, Carrier warrants the heat
exchanger for 20 years.

Despite these warranties, plaintiffs allege that Carrier's
condensing furnaces fail prematurely and well before the
warranted and expected life.

Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys Lester A. Pines and
Kira E. Loehr of Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP, Phone: (608)
251-0101; and the law firms:
     
     (1) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
         http://www.lieffcabraser.com

     (2) Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC --  
         http://www.tousley.com/tbs/;and

     (3) Edwards & Hagen PS, 110 W Market St., Suite 202,
         Aberdeen WA 98520, Phone: 360-532-6210.


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 23, 2007, 9:30 a.m. for the
proposed $2.6 million settlement in the class action, "In re
Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-
177."

The hearing will be at the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division, in the courtroom of
the Honorable Walter S. Smith, Jr.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Feb. 4, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is April 15, 2007.

The class consists of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Central Freight Lines,
Inc. pursuant to Central Freight's Dec. 12, 2003 initial public
offering or from Dec. 12, 2003 through and including march 16,
2005.

                        Case Background

In June and July 2004, three stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against the company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging that false and misleading statements were
made in the initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding the initial public
offering and up to the press release dated June 16, 2004 (Class
Action Reporter, May 1, 2006).

The suits were subsequently consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas as, "In re: Central
Freight Lines Securities Litigation."

The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was
named lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on May 9,
2005.  

The consolidated amended class action complaint generally
alleges that false and misleading statements were made in the
company's initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding the initial public
offering and up to March 17, 2005.

On July 8, 2005, the company responded to the complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss.  On Aug. 23, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to this motion to dismiss, and on
Sept. 12, 2005, the company filed a response in which it again
requested dismissal of the complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2006, Central announced that it had entered into an
agreement and plan of merger, with North American Truck Lines,
LLC (NATL) and Green Acquisition Company.  Under the agreement,
Green will merge with and into Central Freight, with Central
Freight continuing as the surviving corporation.  Central
Freight would then cease to be a publicly traded company (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2006).

The agreements are subject to the completion of the usual and
customary documentation for such settlements, and are subject
to, and conditioned upon, final court approval.  

The settlements will be funded from the proceeds of Central's
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy.  It is a
condition to the consummation of the merger that this litigation
be settled within Central Freight's limits of coverage under the
applicable insurance policies.

Further information may be obtained by directing inquiries in
writing to:

     Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation
     c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
     Claims Administrator
     P.O. Box 9000 #6450
     Merrick, NY  11566-9000
     (866) 825-7954
     http://www.gardencitygroup.com

The suit is, "In re Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-177," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Waco) under Judge Walter S. Smith.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Michael Klein of Smith Robertson Elliott Glen Klein &  
         Bell, LLP, 221 West 6th Street, Suite 1100, Austin, TX  
         78701, Phone: (512) 225-5808; and  

     (2) Michelle N. Peterson and Michael K. Yarnoff of  
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,  
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.  

Representing the Company are:  

     (1) John L. Malesovas of Malesovas & Martin, L.L.P., P.O.  
         Box 1709, Waco, TX 76703-1709, Phone: (254) 753-1777;  
         and  

     (2) Nicole M. Healy, Kent W. Easter, Randolph Gaw and Lloyd  
         Winawer of Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill  
         Road, Palo Alto, CA 84306, Phone: (415) 493-9300.


CERIDIAN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ceridian Corp. filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action pending against the company in the U.S.
District Court for District of Minnesota

Since Aug. 6, 2004, six shareholder lawsuits were filed against
the company and certain executive officers.  These suits were
consolidated into a single case as, "In re Ceridian Corp.  
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-03704 MJD-JGL."
  
The consolidated suit purports to be a class action filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of the company between April 17, 2003 and March 17, 2005,
inclusive.  

It alleges claims against the company and certain of its
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures
made by Ceridian regarding its financial performance, and in
particular Ceridian's accounting for revenue and expenses,
accounting for capitalization, accounting for derivatives,
accounting for long-term leases, and accounting for trademarks.

Plaintiffs allege, in essence, that the company's series of
restatements constituted a violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 25, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and gave leave
to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  An amended
complaint was filed on July 14, 2006.  

Ceridian has made a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action, according to the company's Nov. 8 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "In Re: Ceridian Corp Securities Litigation, Case  
No. 0:97-cv-02044-MJD-JGL," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Minnesota under Judge Michael J. Davis.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Acevedo of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP - SF, 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-676-4495, E-mail:
         eacevedo@lerachlaw.com;  

     (2) Frances E. Baillon of Halunen & Associates, 220 South
         Sixth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:  
         612-605-4098, Fax: 612-605-4099, E-mail:
         baillon@halunenlaw.com; and

     (3) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &  
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul,  
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com.   

Representing the company are:

     (i) Craig W. Gagnon, Michael E. Keyes, Oppenheimer Wolff &  
         Donnelly LLP, 3300 Plz VII Bldg, 45 S 7th St Ste 3300,  
         Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 607-7000, Fax: 612-607-
         7100, E-mail: cgagnon@oppenheimer.com or  
         mkeyes@oppenheimer.com;   

    (ii) Gregory Paul Joseph, Joseph Law Office, 805 3rd Ave  
         31st Fl, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-407-1200, Fax:  
         1-212-407-1280 (fax), E-mail: gjoseph@josephnyc.com;  
  
   (iii) Amy J. Longo, O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dt  
         17th Fl, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-760-9600,  
         Fax: 1-949-823-6994; and  

    (iv) Ann Curme Shaw, Ceridian Corp, 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd  
         Mpls, MN 55425, Phone: 952-853-4210, Fax: 952-853-3413,  
         E-mail: ann.c.shaw@ceridian.com.


DEVRY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Class Status for Student's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has ye to rule on a motion seeking class certification for the
lawsuit against against DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc.,
which alleges violations of the state education laws.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, brought a putative class action in the California state
district court for the County of Los Angeles.  

Plaintiff alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students
did not comply with California state statutes including a
California Education Code requirement to provide a specified
statement to prospective students concerning the transferability
of credits.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, and a motion to dismiss was filed.  The
motion to dismiss was denied, and discovery is proceeding.  

The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification.  The
company intends to vigorously defend itself against this motion,
and a response to the motion was due on Nov. 15, 2006, according
to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Janet Lindner Spielberg of Janet L. Spielberg Law
         Offices, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400, Los
         Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: 310-392-8801, E-mail:
         jlspielberg@jlslp.com.  

Representing the defendants is Van T. Lam of Reed Smith, 355
South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514,
Phone: 213-457-8000.


EV3 INC: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
ev3, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder class
action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in
relation to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro
Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action filed
purportedly on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority
shareholders was filed against Micro Therapeutics, Micro
Therapeutics' directors and the company challenging the
previously announced exchange offer.

The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted
a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.  It sought an
injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics, the company reported at its Nov. 8, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

ev3 Inc. on the Net: http://www.ev3.net/.


EXCHANGE BANK: Faces Neb. Suit Over Excessive Interest on Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange Bank of Gibbon and 26 of its current and former
directors, officers and employees, were named as defendants in a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska, alleging that the bank charged excessive
interest on loans, The Omaha World-Herald reports.

The suit was filed by a group of Buffalo County, Nebraska
residents and local business on Dec. 15, 2006.  In particular,
the named plaintiffs in the suit, include:

      -- Mamot Feed Lot and Trucking,
      -- Teresa R. Smith,
      -- Ed Boltz,
      -- Dale Brabander,
      -- Delores Brabander,
      -- Eldon Dubas,
      -- Ray Doggett,
      -- John Bartling,
      -- Kathy Bartling,
      -- Robert E. Smith,
      -- Dave Vest,
      -- Mary Vest,
      -- John Richter,
      -- Rosemary Richter,
      -- Dennis Land,
      -- Rita Land, and
      -- Eugene P. Sonnenfeld.

Generally, the suit seeks at least $50 million in damages,
asserting a novel argument that money stolen by a former bank
president should be considered interest charged by the bank and
should trigger penalties under a federal law against excess
interest, or usury.

Besides borrowers listed by name, the suit also asks the federal
court to include others who were harmed in a similar manner.  In
essence, it is seeking class-action status, which would increase
the amount of potential damages against the bank.

One of those named in the lawsuit is the bank's former
president, Scott Hobson of Lincoln, who was charged in a federal
indictment last week with 13 counts of bank fraud and related
crimes committed between July 2001 and June 30, 2004.

According to the suit, between 2001 and 2005 Mr. Hobson diverted
money that borrowers had given him to make payments on their
loans and took other actions that cost the borrowers money.  It
argues that those funds are considered interest for taxation and
accounting purposes.
The suit goes on to allege that Mr. Hobson, acting on behalf of
the bank, rapidly expanded its loan business by making high-risk
loans and then manipulated customers' accounts when some loans
went bad.

In addition to Mr. Hobson other defendants in the suit are:

      -- Exchange Bank,
      -- Exchange Co.,
      -- Dennis Schardt,
      -- Susan Schardt,
      -- Brian Schardt,
      -- Tom Baxter,
      -- Sue Bolin,
      -- Allissa Kroll Bombeck,
      -- Janet Carr,
      -- Linda Clevenger,
      -- Craig Dewalt,
      -- Vaughn Duncan,
      -- Stephen England,
      -- Kim Hannon,
      -- Roger Heffelfinger,
      -- Michelle High,
      -- Tim Horacek,
      -- Kevin Hynes,
      -- Heather Jurgens,
      -- Jeff Konen,
      -- Dee Krolikowski,
      -- Sheri Lyons,
      -- Pat Manfull,
      -- Patrick McGuire,
      -- Pat Meyer,
      -- Rebecca Rathjen, and
      -- Deb Slack.

The suit is " Mamot Feed Lot and Trucking et al v. Hobson, et
al., Case No. 4:06-cv-03297-RGK-DLP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska under Judge Richard G. Kopf
with referral to Judge David L. Piester.

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert M. Cook, 1440 East
Missouri Avenue, Suite 185, Phoenix, AZ 85014, Phone: (602) 285-
0288, Fax: (602) 285-0388, E-mail: robertmcook@yahoo.com.


H&R BLOCK: Firm Appeals Dismissal of E-Filing Fees Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakin Law Firm filed an appeal with the Fifth Appellate
District, asking the appellate court to reverse and remand the
case back to Madison County for trial on all issues and for any
relief previously prayed for in the circuit court, The Madison
County Record reports.

Earlier, Judge Don Weber of the Madison County Circuit Court in
Illinois dismissed a class action filed against H&R Block over
allegations it unfairly charged a fee for electronically filing
customers' tax returns (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006).

The Lakin firm claimed H&R Block unfairly charged a fee for
electronically filing customers' tax returns.

In a dismissal order dated Nov. 9, 2006, Judge Don Weber wrote,
"Caveat Emptor--Let the buyer beware."  He explains that each
plaintiff could have accepted the requirement of electronic
filing or rejected it.

Judge Weber pointed out that as long as the fee was disclosed
and as long as it was not clearly unreasonable, there can be no
claim of deception or unfairness in the transaction.
  
Madison County resident Lori Marshall filed the suit in 2003,
claiming that she was "victimized" by the company's deceptive
practice because she placed her trust in H&R Block's superior
knowledge of tax preparation.

According to the suit, the electronic filing fee ranged from $10
to more than $30.  It alleges that H&R Block fails to inform
customers that tax returns could be filed for free using an IRS
program, or for the mere price of a stamp.

Instead, the suit alleges that H&R Block deceptively sells this
free service under the guise that it is an exclusive and unique
service that it offers.

It also alleges that the company likewise attempts to increase
profits by cramming charges for electronic filing fees onto the
bills of unsuspecting clients.

In essence, Ms. Marshall alleged the acts and omissions of H&R
Block constituted breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach
of fiduciary duty, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Act.

The suit had sought to rescind plaintiffs' contracts and to be
reimbursed from the profits and proceeds generated from the
charges.

The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Freed & Weiss of Chicago and
Macey Chern & Diab of Chicago are representing Ms. Marshall in
the case.

For more details, contact The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans  
Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison  
Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Tex. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
denied a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the
consolidated securities fraud class action against
HealthMarkets, Inc. (formerly known as UICI).

In May and June 2004, the company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the company were named as defendants
in four separate class action suits filed in federal court in
Texas arising out of the company's announcement in July 2003 of
a shortfall in the type and amount of collateral supporting
securitized student loan financing facilities of Academic
Management Services Corp., (AMS) formerly a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company until its disposition in November
2003.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the four separate cases were consolidated as a
single action under, "In re HealthMarkets Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3-04-CV-1149-P," which was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On May 27, 2005, plaintiffs on behalf of the purported class of
similarly situated individuals who purchased the company's
common stock during the period commencing Feb. 7, 2002 and
ending on July 21, 2003, filed a first amended consolidated
complaint alleging among other things that the company, AMS, the
company's former chief financial officer, the company's former
chief executive officer and AMS' former president failed to
disclose all material facts relating to the condition of AMS, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On July 11, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Sept. 29, 2006, the court denied the
motion to dismiss the complaint, according to the company's Nov.
8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re HealthMarkets Securities Litigation, Case No.
3-04-CV-1149-P," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Jorge A.
Solis.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Douglas R. Britton of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         DougB@Lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Eric G. Calhoun of Travis & Calhoun, 1000 Providence
         Towers East, 5001 Spring Valley Rd., Dallas, TX 75244,
         Phone: 972/934-4100, Fax: 972/934-4101, E-mail:
         eric@travislaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Ralph I. Miller and Robert R.
Summerhays of Weil Gotshal & Manges, 200 Crescent Court, Suite
300, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/746-7756 and 214/746-7727,
Fax: 214/746-7700 and 214/746-7777, E-mail:
ralph.miller@weil.com and bob.summerhays@weil.com.


IMAGITAS INC: Faces DPPA Suits in Fla., Mo., Ohio, Minn., Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc.,
faces several purported class actions, alleging violations of
the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), according to Pitney
Bowes' Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

During the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth
quarter, the company was sued in six purported class actions
filed in five different states as follows:

      -- "Rine v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the
         Middle District of Florida, filed Aug. 14, 2006;
         asserting class of allegedly affected residents of both
         the U.S. and of Florida only);

      -- "Mathias v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the Northern District of Ohio, filed Sept. 8, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Ohio);

      -- "Kracum v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the
         District of Minnesota, filed Sept. 22, 2006; asserting
         a class of allegedly affected residents of Minnesota);    
      
      -- "Ressler v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the Western District of Missouri, filed Oct. 5, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Missouri);

      -- "Landree v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for
         the District of Minnesota, filed Oct. 6, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         Minnesota); and

      -- "Kendron v. Imagitas" (U.S. District Court for the
         District of Massachusetts, filed Oct. 17, 2006;
         asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of
         the U.S.).

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource
program violates the DPPA.  Under the DriverSource program,
Imagitas enters into contracts with state governments to mail
out automobile registration renewal materials along with third
party advertisements, without revealing the personal information
of any state resident to any advertiser.  

The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its
function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of
them.  

Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages
under the DPPA and an injunction against the continuation of the
program.


JUPITERMEDIA CORP: No Hearing Date Set for Calif. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing date has yet to be slated for various motions in the
putative antitrust class action pending against Jupitermedia
Corp. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco.  

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed a class
action on behalf of themselves and all others situated and/or
the general public against the company and 12 co-defendant
companies that operate Internet search engines.

The suit alleges that defendants posting of paid advertising
providing links to Internet gambling Web sites constitute unfair
competition and unlawful business acts and practices under
California law.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits and restitution.

On Sept. 3, 2004, Jupitermedia blocked all advertisements from
being published on its Web properties from third-party search
engines for the gambling-related terms specified in the
complaint.

Moreover, Jupitermedia refused to accept advertisements for
gambling-related Web sites directly from companies that operate
them.  

Jupitermedia has demanded contractual indemnity from two
companies that supplied advertisements that are the subject
matter of the lawsuit.  Neither of these two companies, however,
has stated a final position as whether it will provide
indemnity.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.  Jupitermedia is not named or implicated in this
motion.

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint to add a new named plaintiff.  No hearing
date on either motion has been set and the litigation is
ongoing, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Mario Cisneros et al., v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Case
No. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court in
San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ira P. Rothken of The Rothken Law
Firm, 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520, San Rafael, CA 94903,
Phone: (415) 924-4250, E-mail: feedback@techfirm.com, Web site:
http://www.techfirm.com/.

Representing the company are David T. Biderman, Robert Harvey
Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert Gidari,
Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer, Thomas P.
Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C. Rawls,
David O. Stewart.


KELLOGG CO: Recalls Pop-Tarts Over Undeclared Milk Content
----------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Company of Battle Creek, Michigan is recalling a limited
number of cartons of Kellogg's Pop-Tarts Frosted Blueberry
toaster pastries because they may contain undeclared milk.

People that have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

The product was distributed to grocery retailers in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

The product is packaged in a 14.7 oz - 8-count carton with a bar
code of 38000 31010.  Only 8-count cartons with a manufacturing
code beginning with AUG 27 07 CPC printed on the top of the
carton are included in this alert.

No allergic reactions have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that a limited
number of Kellogg's Pop-Tarts Hot Fudge Sundae toaster pastries
containing milk were mistakenly packed in Kellogg's Pop-Tarts
Frosted Blueberry toaster pastries cartons that did not reveal
the presence of milk on the label.

Consumers who have a Kellogg's Pop-Tarts Frosted Blueberry
toaster pastries 8-ct carton with a bar code of 38000 31010 and
a manufacturing code AUG 27 07 CPC printed on the top should
call the Kellogg Consumer Response center at 1-800-237-1132.


MICHICAN HOSPITALS: Accused of Purposely Suppressing Nurses Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll and James &
Hoffman have filed a federal class action on behalf of nurses
against six Detroit, Mich.-area hospitals for alleged conspiracy
to suppress wages, reports say.

The hospital systems are:

      -- Bon Secours/Cottage Health Services,
      -- Detroit Medical Center,
      -- Henry Ford Health System,
      -- McLaren Health Care Corp,
      -- Oakwood Healthcare, and
      -- Saint John Health Partners.

Defendants are accused of deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanging information about the wages they pay
their nurses, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs named in the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, are Pat Cason-Merendo, who
works at the Detroit Medical Center's Rehabilitation Institute
of Michigan in Detroit, and Jeffrey Suhre of the St. John
system's Providence Hospital and Medical Center in Southfield.

They seek compensation for lost wages and damages.  An estimated
$340 million is allegedly owed for 16,800 registered nurses
working full-time since 2002 at the six hospitals.

The suit is "Cason-Merendo et al. v. Detroit Medical Center et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-MKM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E.
Rosen with referral to Judge Mona K. Majzoub.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen F. Wasinger at Stephen F.
Wasinger (Royal Oak), 26862 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
Royal Oak, MI 48067-0958, U.S., Phone: 248-414-9942, E-mail:
sfw@sfwlaw.com.


MICROFINANCIAL INC: Securities Suit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a purported securities fraud class action against
MicroFinancial, Inc., filed an agreement of dismissal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit whereby the
plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to dismiss their appeal with
prejudice.

In October 2003, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  
The purported class consists of all persons who purchased
company securities between Feb. 5, and Oct. 30, 2002.

The complaint asserts that during this period the company made a
series of materially false or misleading statements about the
company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the company's reserves for
credit losses.

In April 2004, an amended class action complaint was filed which
added additional defendants and expanded upon the prior
allegations with respect to the company.  The company has filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 13, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.  On July 12, 2006
the plaintiffs appealed the decision to dismiss the suit to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the parties filed an agreement of dismissal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The suit is "Wilson v. Microfinancial Inc., et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-11883-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro  
         Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108,  
         Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com and tshapiro@shulaw.com;

     (2) David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley,  
         Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman, LLP, 200 Broadhollow  
         Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-369-
         7100; and

     (3) Richard Maniskas of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of  
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706.

Representing the defendants are, Richard J. McCarthy and Barbara  
L. Moore of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal Street, Boston,  
MA 02110, Phone: 617-439-4444, Fax: 617-439-4170, E-mail:  
rmccarthy@edwardsangell.com and bmoore@ealaw.com.


MONSANTO CANADA: Organic Farmers Pursue Crop Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal heard on Dec. 11 an appeal by
farmers on a ruling that refused class status to their suit
against Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer CropScience Inc. over
genetically modified canola, StarPhoenix reports.

Organic farmers sued the companies claiming damages for losses
they say they suffered due to the introduction of genetically
modified canola and the contamination of organic crops.  The
suit was denied class certification in 2005.

In the recent hearing to determine whether the case meets the
criteria of Saskatchewan Class Actions Act, the plaintiffs said
the Court of Queen's Bench applied an "overly rigorous" test to
the issue of class certification.

The matter was adjourned on the first day of the scheduled two-
day hearing.  The court gave Saskatoon lawyer Terry Zakreski
until early January to provide a written statement dealing with
certain issues.

Representing Monsanto is Gordon Kuski, Managing Partner at
McDougall Gauley, 1500-1881 Scarth St., Regina, Saskatchewan S4P
4K9 (Regina Jud. Centre), Phone: 306-757-1641, Fax: 306-359-
0785.


MONSANTO CO: Appeal on "Tolbert" Attorneys Fee Conflict Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a ruling
that denied two lawyers a portion of attorney's fees awarded in
connection with the settlement of the mass tort litigation,
"Tolbert v. Monsanto Co."

The Tolbert litigation, Case No. 2:01-CV-1407-UWC, was commenced
by Burr & Forman, LLP, in May 2001 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of 3,000
plaintiffs.  

It was consolidated with another case against the Monsanto
Company filed in April 2002, "Oliver v. Monsanto Co., No. 2:02-
CV-836-UWC (N.D. Ala. 2002)."  The parties refer to these cases
collectively under the Tolbert name.

Plaintiffs sought compensation for personal injuries and
property damage arising out of the Monsanto Co.'s release of
contaminants into waterways in the vicinity of Anniston,
Alabama.  

"Tolbert" came to an end on Sept. 9, 2003 with the entry of a
final judgment incorporating the parties' settlement agreement.

As part of the settlement, Burr & Forman were awarded attorney's
fees, which were to be paid out of a qualified settlement fund
into which the settlement proceeds and attorney's fee were
deposited, to be administered by a settlement administrator
under the district court's jurisdiction.

It appears that on Sept. 21, 1994, lawyers A. Dwight Blair and
William Trussell entered into a letter agreement with D. Frank
Davis obligating their then respective law firms to share any
attorney's fees they might be awarded for representing the
plaintiffs in two class actions brought against the Monsanto
Company in Alabama state court in 1993 and 1994.

Mr. Blair signed on behalf of Blair, Holladay and Parsons, P.C.,
Mr. Trussell signed on behalf of Trussell & Funderburg, P.C.,
and, Mr. Davis signed on behalf of Burr & Forman, LLP.

Mr. Blair and Mr. Trussell contend that this letter agreement
covers the Tolbert litigation and that they are entitled to
share in the fees paid to Burr & Forman in that case.  Burr &
Forman disagreed, so Mr. Blair and Mr. Trussell sued Burr &
Forman for breach of contract in an Alabama circuit court.  Burr
& Forman removed the case to the district court (where it was
consolidated with Tolbert).  

Following a series of procedural maneuvers, which included the
district court's remanding the case to the state court for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court assumed
supplemental jurisdiction of Messrs. Blair and Trussell's
attorney's fees claim, determined that the Letter Agreement did
not cover the Tolbert litigation and denied the claim, and,
invoking the All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act,
preliminarily enjoined Mr. Blair and Mr. Trussell from
prosecuting their contract action against Burr & Forman in state
court.

In these consolidated appeals, Mr. Blair and Mr. Trussell
challenge the district court's assumption of subject matter
jurisdiction over their claim against Burr & Forman, and the
court's authority to enjoin them from prosecuting that claim in
state court.  

On Nov. 27, the 11th Circuit Court concluded in an order that
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate Messrs. Blair and Trussell's claim against Burr &
Forman and to enter the injunction.  It therefore reversed the
district court's ruling.

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1764  


NJ AFFORDABLE: Investors Sued by Trustee to Request Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
NJ Affordable Homes Corp. (NJAH) investors who are facing suits
by the trustee of the bankrupt company in a bid to have their
mortgage liens transferred to the company's estate, are asking a
bankruptcy judge to certify the sued investors as a class,
according to The Star-Ledger.

The investors want to consolidate all the lawsuits into a class
action so that they can defend themselves as a group, the report
said.

The bankruptcy trustee and institutional lenders opposes the
request, however, saying in court papers that investors haven't
met the requirements for a class certification.

Harry Gutfleish, an attorney for trustee Charles M. Forman,
finds a class treatment inappropriate in the case because the
interests of the class members are in conflict.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
sought and obtained from the district court a temporary
restraining order that, among other things, froze the assets of
NJAH and Wayne Puff and appointed a temporary receiver over the
assets of NJAH.

The SEC alleged that from at least 1999 to the present, the
defendants sold, in unregistered offerings, at least $40 million
in notes to more than 490 investors located throughout the U.S.
in connection with their participation in a Ponzi scheme.

The district court appointed Nicholas H. Politan, a former
federal judge, as the receiver for NJAH.  On Nov. 17, 2005, the
court authorized the receiver to file a chapter 7 petition under
the Bankruptcy Code on behalf of NJAH.  

Mr. Forman was then appointed by the U.S. Trustees Office, a
branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, as the chapter 7
Trustee for NJAH's bankruptcy estate.  The U.S. Bankruptcy Court
granted the Trustee's motion to sell all 340 properties owned
and controlled by NJAH in a real estate auction to be conduced
by Sheldon Good & Company Auctions NorthEast in conjunction with
DJM Realty.

Headquartered in Woodbridge, New Jersey, NJ Affordable Homes
Corp. is a real estate investment company that purports to use
investors' monies to purchase residential and commercial
property, renovate the property, and sell the property at a
profit (Troubled Company Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006).


OHIO: Estate of Deceased Landlord Targeted in Voyeurism Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment in a case of a deceased
Gibsonburg, Ohio landlord accused of illegally taking videos of
his tenants was filed in court, according to CentralOhio.com.

Samuel Bolotin, a Toledo attorney representing several of the
plaintiffs in the case, said the motion is essentially asking
the court to rule that James Rogers' estate is liable in the
case, according to the report.

The motion argues that plaintiffs' privacy was violated by the
defendant's act.  It stated that the accused installed
surveillance equipment in a property he owned at 114 and 118 W.
Madison St., and at two apartments at 401 E. Stevenson St.  

The taping "breached the covenants of quiet enjoyment that were
implied into the leases entered into between James Rogers and
each plaintiff," according to the motion.

The documents allege Mr. Rogers was taping people using those
properties as early as May 1993.  Mr. Rogers shot himself when
police investigated his properties in early 2002.  

According to the motion, Gibsonburg police confiscated 237
videotapes and 83 pieces of electronic surveillance equipment
after the search.

Mr. Bolotin said that the motion is not asking the court to
determine any monetary damages at this stage.

Meanwhile, Fremont attorney Joe Albrechta is representing
several other complainants in class action, according to the
report.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Samuel G. Bolotin of Bolotin Co., LPA, 4349 Talmadge
         Road, Toledo, OH 43623-3527, Phone: (419) 472-1900; and

     (2) Joseph F. Albrechta of Albrechta and Coble, 2255
         Christy Road, Freemont, OH 43420, Phone: (419) 332-
         9999, Fax: (419) 332-4404.


OHIO: Two Defendants Added in Litigation Over Toledo Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing homeowners in a class action over a
summer flooding on Toledo has filed an amended complaint, adding
two additional defendants, according to 13abc.com.

Phillip Bazzo, co-counsel in the suit, said his team filed a
amended complaint on Dec. 8.  It added two additional
defendants, namely, Norfolk Southern Corp. and BP Pipelines
North America Inc.  

The suit now identifies seven defendants in total:

      -- the City of Toledo;
      
      -- Finkbeiner Pettis & Strout Inc., now known as Arcadis
         G&M;
      
      -- Florida-based CSX Transportation;
   
      -- Lucas County;

      -- Lucas County Engineer Keith Earley; and

      -- Finkbeiner Pettis & Strout Inc.

Filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, the suit was assigned
to Judge Gary Cook.  Brian and Kerry Bolander and Rebecca Hall
filed it on behalf of themselves and others whose homes were
similarly damaged by floodwaters in June and July.  

The suit alleges that the defendants were responsible for
problems in the drainage of Shantee Creek and defects in the
design, construction, maintenance, and management of sanitary
and storm sewer systems, factors the plaintiffs alleged caused
extensive flooding on June 21, July 4-5, July 10, and July 12.

CSX Transportation, which operates the railroad tracks that run
parallel to Laskey Road just north of the plaintiffs'
neighborhood, is accused of failing to maintain and redesign a
culvert to prevent obstructions of the Shantee Creek drain.

Norfolk Southern is accused of failing redesign culverts causing
drainage problems.

Plaintiffs are represented by Williams, Jilek, Lafferty,
Gallagher & Scott.  Robert Scott of Toledo is co-counsel.

In addition to asking that the complaint receive certification
as a class action, plaintiffs want the defendants to adopt an
emergency plan of action to improve sewer systems to prevent
future flooding and "expeditiously" repair damage to the
property of the homeowners.

They also seek for undetermined compensatory damages as well as
payment for costs and attorney fees in bringing the lawsuit.

A group of attorneys has reportedly sued the city on behalf of
at least 100 residents in the flood ravaged Crawford Avenue
area.

For more details, contact Williams, Jilek, Lafferty, Gallagher &
Scott Co., L.P.A., 500 Toledo Legal Building, 416 North Erie
Street, Toledo, Ohio 43604-6301, (Lucas Co.), Phone: 419-241-
2122, Fax: 419-245-3849, Web site: http://www.WJLGS.com.


SEE KAI: Metal Snaps Posing Choking Hazard Prompts Boots Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
See Kai Run, of Woodinville, Washington, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
6,500 units of children's boots.

The company said metals snaps on the side closure of the boot
could detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

See Kai Run has received one report of a child starting to choke
on a detached snap from the boot.

This recall involves the "Ellis" children's boot sold in pre-
walk and toddler sizes 3 through 9.  The boots are black with
white stitching and were sold with either leather or faux fur
lining.  "See Kai Run" is written on the sole and insole of the
boots.  "Ellis - FF" or "Ellis - L" is written on the side of
the shoe box under the Style heading. No other styles or models
are included in this recall.

These children's boots were manufactured in China and are being
sold at children's shoe stores, department stores, boutiques and
Web retailers nationwide from November 2004 through November
2006 for about $40.

Pictures of the recalled children's boots:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07050a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07050b.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled shoes away from young
children immediately and return them to the store where
purchased.  Consumers will receive a refund or replacement pair
of shoes.

For more information, contact See Kai Run at (888) 524-7463
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or go to the
firm's Web site: http://www.seekairun.com.


STAMPS.COM INC: Final Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit Deal Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to finally approve the proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities class action against Stamps.com Inc.,
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.

In May and June 2001, the company was named, together with
certain of its current and former board members and/or officers,
as a defendant in 11 purported class actions, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The lawsuits allege violations of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with our initial public offering and secondary offering of our
common stock.

They also name as defendants the principal underwriters in
connection with our initial and secondary public offerings,
including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (in some of the lawsuits sued as
The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.) and BancBoston Robertson Stephens,
Inc.  

The lawsuits allege that the underwriters engaged in improper
commission practices and stock price manipulations in connection
with the sale of our common stock.

They also allege that the company and/or certain of its officers
or directors knew of or recklessly disregarded these practices
by the underwriter defendants, and failed to disclose them in
their public filings.  

Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses
(including attorneys' fees), and rescissory damages.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint against the company and certain of its current
and former board members and/or officers.  

The consolidated amended class action complaint includes similar
allegations to those described above and seeks similar relief.
In July 2002, the company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

In October 2002, pursuant to a stipulation and tolling agreement
with plaintiffs, the company's current and former board members
and/or officers were dismissed without prejudice.  

In February 2003, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint.  In
June 2003, the company approved a proposed memorandum of
understanding among the plaintiffs, issuers and insurers as to
terms for a settlement of the litigation against us which was
further documented in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
filed with the court.

The proposed settlement terms would not require Stamps.com to
make any payments.  The proposed settlement was preliminarily
approved by the court in February 2005 and was the subject of a
fairness hearing in April 2006, but remains subject to final
approval by the court, which has not yet occurred.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: May 2007 Trial Set for Labor Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court scheduled a May 2007 trial
for the class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co."

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.  

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.  

On March 30, 2006, the court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.  

The size of the class has yet to be determined.  Trial is
currently set for May 2007.

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

Starbucks Corp. on the Net: http://www.starbucks.com/.


STARBUCKS CORP: FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Tex. Awaits Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial has yet to be set for the purported class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
against Starbucks Corp. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the company filed the
lawsuit, "James Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. and Does 1 through
100."

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the company
misclassified its retail assistant store managers as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that each assistant
manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation for any
week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during the
three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for as
long as they remain an assistant manager thereafter.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include
allegations that he and other retail assistant store managers
were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they were re-classified
as non-exempt employees in September 2002.

In both claims, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all current and former assistant store managers employed by the
company in the U.S. from March 11, 2002 until the present.

Plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class,
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs.

On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to all
putative class members under the opt-in procedures in section
16(b) of the FLSA.

On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order authorizing notice
to the class of the existence of the lawsuit and their
opportunity to join as plaintiffs.  No trial date has been set
for the case.

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

The suit is "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp., et al., Case No. 4:05-
cv-00792," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Robert R. Debes, Jr. of The Debes Law Firm, 1900 W.
         Loop, Ste. 1910, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: 713-623-
         0900, Fax: 713-623-0951, E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com;
         and

     (2) Martin A. Shellist of Shellist Lazarz, LLP,
         3D/International Tower, 1900 West Loop South, Suite
         1910, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: 713-621-2277, Fax: 713-
         621-0993, E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net.

Representing the defendant is Fraser A. McAlpine of Akin Gump,
et al., 1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-220-8129, Fax: 713-236-0822, E-mail:
fmcalpine@akingump.com.


STOCK EXCHANGES: N.Y. Court Approves Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has given final approval in a Dec. 4 memorandum to a settlement
of claims asserted in the class action, "In re Stock Exchanges
Options Trading Antitrust Litigation, 99-0962 (RCC) and all
other consolidated actions, MDL No. 1283 Master Docket No. M-21-
79 (RCC)."

The settlement provides for a cash payment of $43,899,798 plus
interest exceeding $3 million as of March 31, 2006.

A supplemental summary notice is being issued relating to all
those who bought or sold Class Option Contracts from Jan. 22,
1990 through April 30, 2003 and whose rights may be affected by
the settlement.

In the Dec. 4, 2006 Memorandum and Order, the court also
extended the deadline to file a Proof of Claim to participate in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (i.e., gross
settlement fund, plus interest, less administrative costs,
expenses, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards approved by the
Court) to Feb. 28, 2007.

The settling defendants are:

      -- Pacific Exchange Inc.;

      -- American Stock Exchange LLC;

      -- Chicago Board Options Exchange;

      -- Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;

      -- Aribitrate Holdings, LLC;

      -- Beartooth Trading, Inc.;

      -- Bear Hunter LLC;

      -- GHM, Inc.;

      -- Group One Trading L.P.;

      -- Hull Trading Co., LLC;

      -- Oppenheimer Noonan & Weiss LP;

      -- Refco Securities, Inc. (n/k/a Refco Securities, LLC);

      -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg L.P. (n/k/a Goldman Sachs
         Executiion & Clearing L.P.);

      -- Wolverine Trading, L.P.;

      -- AGS Specialist Partners;

      -- Crammer & Crammer, Inc.;

      -- Kalb Voorhis & Co., LLC;

      -- LETCO;

      -- Omega Options, LLC; and

      -- intervening third-party Susquehanna International
         Group, LLP.

A copy of the judge's order is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1675

Claims Administrator:

     Options Trading Antitrust Litigation
     c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
     P.O. Box 9007
     Jericho, NY 11753-8917
     On the Net: http://ww.berdonllp.com/claims,
     Phone: 866-208-0188 (toll-free)


SWIFT CO: Faces RICO Violations Suit Over Undocumented Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Co. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas over alleged violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),
the Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit alleges:

     -- defendants made material false representations regarding
        immigration status of the persons they employed;

     -- defendants have engaged and participated with agents,
        brokers and other individuals in an effort to  
        intentionally violate the immigration laws of the United
        States and employ illegal immigrants for the specific
        purpose of lessening its labor costs and increasing its
        profits;

     -- defendants have knowingly, willfully and unlawfully
        engaged in a pattern of fraudulent and illegal conduct
        to defraud and artificially depress the labor market,
        including repeated violation of The Illegal Immigration
        Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996; and

     -- that by manipulating and controlling the labor market,
        defendants have acquired or maintained and interest in,
        or control of, an enterprise affecting interstate
        commerce through their pattern of racketeering activity
        in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(b).

Swift employees claim the highly publicized raids at its meat-
packing plants on Dec. 12 show that the company illegally
suppressed wages by conspiring to hire large numbers of
undocumented workers, and concealing it from federal officials.

The raids followed a 10-month investigation into illegal
immigrants suspected of buying or stealing other people's
identities to secure U.S. jobs.

Plaintiffs request, that upon trial, judgment as follows:

     A. that the court enter a judgment against the defendants
        that they have:

         -- committed fraud upon plaintiffs, and did so
            knowingly, intentionally and with malice;

         -- conspired to wrongfully  and illegally manipulate
            and depress the labor market, and did so knowingly,
            intentionally and with malice; and

         -- violated RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., and
            did so knowingly, intentionally and with malice;

     B. that the court orders the defendants to pay, jointly and
        severally, the following:

         -- actual economic damages in an amount within the
            jurisdictional limits of the court;

         -- threefold the economic damages as allowed by 18
            U.S.C. Section 1964;

         -- the amount equal to all profits unlawfully earned by
            defendants as a result of their unlawful conduct;

         -- exemplary damages in the amount of $23 million;

         -- pre-judgment interest as provided by law;

         -- attorney's fees;

         -- costs of suit;

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

         -- such other and further relief to which plaintiffs
            may be justly entitled.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1762

The suit is "Valenzuela et al v. Chavez et al., Case No. 3:06-
cv-02322," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael E. Heygood, Claudia M. Cano and Angel L. Reyes,
         III all of Heygood Orr Reyes & Bartolomei, 2331 W
         Northwest Highway, 2nd Floor, Dallas, TX 75220, Phone:
         214/526-7900 or 817/633-2800, Fax: 214/526-7910 or
         817/633-3988, E-mail: michael@reyeslaw.com; and

     (2) Domingo A. Garcia and Paul R. Hornung both of Law
         Office of Domingo Garcia, 1107 W Jefferson Blvd.,
         Dallas, TX 75208-5145, Phone: 214/941-8300, Fax:
         214/943-7536, E-mail: garciadtx@aol.com or
         paullaw@swbell.net.


UNITED STATES: Labor Union Files Suit Over Swift Co. Plant Raids
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 540
(UFCW Local 540) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Division (ICE) of the Department of Homeland
Security, over alleged violation of union members'
constitutional rights during and after the raid at the Swift Co.
packing plant in Cactus, Texas, The Courthouse News Service
reports.

UFCW Local 540 is a labor union representing detainees as
members of the bargaining union detained by ICE pending removal
to their home country.

Labor unions for years have accused the ICE and its predecessor,
INS, of refusing to enforce immigration laws away from the U.S.
southern border, as a de facto gift to corporate employers.
Unions claim that raids such as those against Swift, which the
government announces with press releases and photo ops, are just
public relations gimmicks.

The detainees petitioners-class consists of all persons who are
detained by the ICE in the Amarillo District, who signed or will
sign stipulated removal orders, and whose orders of removal are
signed by an immigration judge without a determination that the
waiver of rights in the stipulated removal order was voluntary,
knowing and intelligent.

Plaintiffs are originally from Mexico and Guatemala and were all
detained in the raid on Dec. 12, 2006.  The raids followed a 10-
month investigation into illegal immigrants suspected of buying
or stealing other people's identities to secure U.S. jobs.

Questions of law and fact common to the named petitioners,
detainees and class members include:

     -- whether defendants may deny the petitioner's members and
        detainees and class members the opportunity to be
        presented and/or represented before an immigration judge
        for a determination waiver of rights was voluntary,
        knowing and intelligent;

     -- whether defendants are failing to determine whether the  
        waiver of rights is voluntary, knowing and intelligent;

     -- whether the Department of Labor is attempting to
        intercept detainees' earned paychecks for use as
        evidence in future criminal proceedings;

     -- whether defendants are refusing to present class members
        to an immigration judge for a determination that the
        waiver of rights was voluntary, knowing and intelligent;
        and

     -- whether defendants are failing to have failed to conduct
        a hearing to determine whether petitioners and class
        members have voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
        waived their rights.

Petitioner in all capacities prays that the court grant the
following relief:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this matter;

     -- declare unlawful defendants' practice of failing to hold
        hearings to determine whether unrepresented aliens
        properly waived their rights by signing stipulated order
        of removals;

     -- order respondents to re-open any stipulated removal
        order that was signed and where an immigration judge
        failed to hold a hearing to determine whether the waiver
        of rights in the stipulated removal order was voluntary,
        knowing and intelligent;

     -- order respondents to conduct a hearing to determine
        whether petitioners waived their rights voluntarily,
        knowingly and intelligently when they signed a
        stipulated order of removal;

     -- order respondents to allow counsel and the union access
        to detainees and provide them legal advice;

     -- enjoin the Department of Labor and Elaine Chao from
        intercepting the detainees earned paychecks and/or
        delivering them to ICE or any other federal agency;
     -- award petitioners reasonable costs and attorneys' fees;
        and

     -- grant any other relief which the court deems just and
        proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1765

The suit is "United Food & Commercial Workers International
Union Local 540 v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division
of the Department of Homeland Security et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00350," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Mary Lou Robinson.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jerry Dan McLaughlin of the Law Office of Jerry Dan
         McLaughlin, 600 S Tyler, Suite 1302, Amarillo, TX
         79101, Phone: 806/371-9110, Fax: 806/373-9029, E-mail:
         jmclaw@wtxcoxmail.com; and

     (2) Philip R. Russ of the Law Office of Philip R Russ, 2700
         S Western, Suite 1200, Amarillo, TX 79109, Phone:
         806/358-9293, Fax: 806/358-9296, E-mail:
         philiprruss@russlawfirm.com.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Suits Over 1991 Gulf War Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide, Inc., remains a defendant in two class actions,
which were originally filed on Sept. 19, 1995 and subsequently
consolidated in the District Court of Brazaria County, Texas
(23rd Judicial District), according to its Dec. 18, 2006 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the period ended Jan. 31, 2006.

The suit alleged that about 83 defendants, including the
company, sold chemicals that were utilized in the 1991 Gulf War
by the Iraqi army, which caused personal injuries to U.S. armed
services personnel and their families, including birth defects.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of military personnel who
served in the 1991 Gulf War and their families and the
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $1 billion in damages.  To
date, the plaintiffs have not obtained class certification.

The company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an
entity that sold the company assets in 1993 is a defendant.  It
also believes it will prevail in this matter because the alleged
actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the
company's purchase of the assets.

The company further believes that it will ultimately prevail in
this matter since it never manufactured chemicals and the
plaintiffs were unable thus far to produce evidence that the
company acted as a freight forwarder for cargo that included
chemicals used by the Iraqi army.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Customer Directed Share Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. faces lawsuits filed in district courts in
New York and New Jersey in relation to Customer Directed Share
Program in the company's initial public offering (IPO).

During June 2006 and July 2006, Vonage, several of the company's
officers and directors, and the firms who served as the
underwriters in the company's IPO were named as defendants in
"Lang v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.," a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Subsequently, several similar purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, one was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and another was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York and subsequently removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with the company's IPO.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's
Customer Directed Share Program.  

Some complaints also allege the IPO prospectus contained
misrepresentations or omissions concerning certain of the
company's products and/or the prior experience of some of the
company's management.

One complaint, "Inouye v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and subsequently voluntarily dismissed, included an
allegation of open market securities fraud during a purported
class period of May 24, 2006 to June 19, 2006 in addition to
claims arising out of the IPO.

Although Lang, Inouye and one other complaint were voluntarily
dismissed, the company expects the remaining complaints to be
consolidated at some time in the future.

On July 14, 2006, Vonage and the firms who served as the
underwriters in the company's IPO were named as defendants in a
separate lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, under the caption, "Norsworthy v. Vonage
Holdings Corp. et al."  

That purported class action asserts state law breach of contract
and negligence claims relating to the alleged inability of
participants in the company's Customer Directed Share Program to
trade their shares after the IPO.


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Product Liability Suit in Okla. Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc. remains a co-defendant in the product
liability case, "Cuesta v. Ford, et al.," filed in the District
Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.

The company was named co-defendant in Oct. 1, 2004.  The suit is
seeking class-action status, and an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the class.   

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Company, CJ-04-
00511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.   

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

For more details, contact The Burrage Law Firm, First United  
Center - Suite 100, 115 N. Washington, P.O. Box 1727, Durant, OK  
74702-1727, Phone: 580-920-0700, E-mail:
dburrage@burragelaw.com, Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/.


WILLIS GROUP: Ex-VP Files Gender Discrimination Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Ltd. is facing a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York over
alleged gender bias practices, Bloomberg reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Willis Group Holdings, Ltd.
     -- Willis of Masachusetts
     -- Willis of New Jersey
     -- Willis of New York, Inc. and
     -- Willis of North America, Inc.

The suit, filed by former Willis vice-president Adrianne Cronas,
accuses London-based Willis of a "pattern and practice of sex
discrimination."  Ms. Cronas claims women were paid less than
men and denied high-profile assignments and promotions.

The suit seeks class action, or group, status on behalf of women
who worked at or above the level of assistant vice-president.

The suit is "Cronas v. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-15295-UA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs is Robert Lloyd Herbst of Beldock Levine
& Hoffman LLP, 99 Park Ave (16 Fl.), New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212 490-0400, Fax: 212 557 0565, E-mail: rherbst@blhny.com.


ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Still Faces Suits Over Toy Hauler Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zieman Manufacturing Co. faces two purported class actions in
California over the alleged faulty design and manufacture of toy
hauler trailers, according to Drew Industries, Inc.'s Nov. 9,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On or about Oct. 11, and 12, 2005, these actions were commenced
in California court:

      -- "Arlen Williams, Jr. vs. Weekend Warrior Trailers,
         Inc., Zieman Manufacturing Company, et al. (Case No.
         CV027691);" and

      -- "Joseph Giordano and Dennis Gish, vs. Weekend Warrior
         Trailers, Inc, and Zieman Manufacturing Company, et al.
         (Case No. 05AS04523)."

Each case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.  The complaints in
both cases are substantially identical and the cases were
consolidated.  Defendant Zieman Manufacturing Co. is a
subsidiary of Lippert Components, Inc., which in turn is a unit
of Drew Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Weekend Warrior sold certain
toy hauler trailers during the model years 1999 - 2005, equipped
with frames manufactured by Zieman that are defective in design
and manufacture.

They also allege that the defects cause the trailer to place
excessive weight on the trailer coach tongue and the towing
vehicle's trailer hitch, causing damage to the trailers and the
towing vehicles, and that the tires on the trailers do not
support the advertised maximum towing capacity of the trailers.

The suit seeks to certify a class of residents of California who
purchased such new or used models.  In addition, monetary
damages in an unspecified amount (including compensatory,
incidental and consequential damages), punitive damages,
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees
and costs are also being sought.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, announces that a lawsuit has been filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Tier Technologies, Inc. between
Nov. 29, 2001 and Oct. 25, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against
Tier and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tier issued a series of
false and misleading financial statements by overstating company
earnings and underreporting company losses.

On Dec. 14, 2005, Tier announced that its financial statements
for the fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through September 30,
2004 and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005 should no
longer be relied upon as a restatement of these financial
results would be necessary.  

On Oct. 25, 2006, the company finally restated its financial
statements indicating that the company had over reported its net
income and underreported losses for approximately five years.

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

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


TOP TANKERS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Dec. 5, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Top Tankers, Inc.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from June 28, 2005 through Nov. 28, 2006.

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

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


XETHANOL CORP: Reinhardt Wendorf Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Xethanol Corp.
common stock during the period between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8,
2006.

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

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Xethanol's financial performance and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Xethanol engaged in the production and marketing of ethanol and
its co-products in the United States. Ethanol, a clean burning
renewable fuel, is used as a primary gasoline additive.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the recent rise in
gasoline prices, alternative energy companies such as Xethanol
became a favored investment.  

Xethanol distinguished itself from other ethanol producers by
claiming it had the ability to develop and optimize "biomass,"
post-industrial food or paper production waste which has no or
even negative cost, rather than corn, as the substantial raw
material for ethanol production.

Xethanol repeatedly stated that the company would first sustain
itself on revenues produced from traditional corn ethanol
production, then enter its second phase of development, which
was to commercialize biomass ethanol production in the immediate
near-term.

In fact, however, Xethanol was suffering from a host of
undisclosed adverse factors that were negatively impacting
Xethanol's business, and it appears that the Company does not
have the ability to commercialize biomass production in the
foreseeable near term.

It was only at the end of the class period that investors
learned the truth about the company.  Upon release of this
information, the company's share price fell from a Class Period
high of $15.00 per share in April 2006, to less than $4.00 per
share at the end of the class period.  

The dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
to the public during the class period allowed the company to
prop up the company's share price long enough for company
insiders to sell millions of their personally held Xethanol
shares to unsuspecting investors at prices that were
artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading
statements.  

Interested parties may move the court no later than Dec. 26,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield of Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield, Phone: (800) 465-1592 and (651) 287-2100,
Fax: (651) 287-2103, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com, Web
site: http://www.rwblawfirm.com.  


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *