CAR_Public/061228.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 257

                            Headlines

                            *********

AON CORP: Faces Calif., N.J. Suits Under Various Legal Theories
AON CORP: Ill. Court Gives Final Approval to Suit Settlement
BUSINESS COMPUTER: More Former Students Join Wash. Litigation
CANADA: CAD$20M More Set in Vitamin Price Fixing Suit Settlement
CROMPTON CORP: Jan. 9 Hearing Set for $51M Antitrust Settlement

DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Cut-Out Tools Due to Shock Hazard
FIRESTONE: Faces Suit Over Working Conditions in Liberia Plant
GIANT BIG: Faces Litigation Over Legal Minimum Wage Violation
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: $445M Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 8
INTER-TEL INC: Faces Shareholder Litigation in Del., Ariz.

KEYSTONE CENTRAL: Pa. Court Certifies Class in Doctors' Suit
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
LEGG MASON: Milberg Weiss to Make Inquiries in N.Y. Stock Suits
KPNQWEST NV: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 4
MERCK & CO: Notches Legal Victories in Ala., La. Vioxx Suits

NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Denies Claims in Wii Faulty Straps Suit
PETROLEUM RETAILERS: Consumer Group Files Suits Over "Hot Fuel"
PRAPAS NAVEE: Groups Plan Suits Over Alleged Human Rights Abuses
REGAL LAGER: Recalls 2-Seater Strollers Due to Abrasion Hazard
TELSTRA: Shareholders File $300M Suit Over Secret Govt. Briefing

TEXAS: City Faces Litigation Over Arrests of RRHS Students
THORATEC CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
U-HAUL INT'L: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for "Boyle" Suit Settlement
U.S. FOODSERVICE: Plaintiffs Amend "Waterbury" Food Prices Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Units Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.

WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Christmas Mugs Due to Choking Hazard
WARNER CHILCOTT: Lead Plaintiff Deadline for N.Y. Suit Nears


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
BODISEN BIOTECH: Reinhardt Wendorf Announces Stock Suit Filing
HANSEN NATURAL: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


AON CORP: Faces Calif., N.J. Suits Under Various Legal Theories
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp., and other insurance companies face a number of
putative class actions have been filed by purported clients
under a variety of legal theories, including state tort,
contract, fiduciary duty, and statutory theories, and federal
antitrust and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act theories (RICO).

These actions, which were filed beginning 2004, are currently
pending in state court in California and in federal court in New
Jersey, according to its Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


AON CORP: Ill. Court Gives Final Approval to Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois gave final approval
to the settlement of class action, "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity),"
which was filed against Aon Corp., according to its Nov. 9, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Several suits were initially filed against Aon subsidiaries
Affinity Insurance Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group,
alleging that they entered into "profit-sharing" relationships
with the underwriters without disclosing the income to their
policyholder clients.

The suit seeks to determine whether the company's having
received or being eligible for receipt, without consent of its
clients, undisclosed commissions or 'kickbacks' in connection
with the placement of insurance, violates the fiduciary or
confidential obligations imposed under Illinois law.

The suit was filed on behalf of current or former policyholders
of the Aon Corp., Aon Group, and Aon Services Group as class
members alongside lead Plaintiffs Alan S. Daniel and the
Williamson County (Illinois) Agricultural Association.

On July 28, 2004, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On March 9, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a
nationwide class action settlement within the $40 million
reserve established in the fourth quarter of 2004.

The court granted final ap1proval to the settlement in March
2006.  Parties that objected to the settlement have appealed.

The suit is "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity), Case No. 1999-CH-11893,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge
Julia M. Nowicki.

Representing the plaintiff is Hartunian Futterman & How, 122 S.
Michigan 1850, Chicago IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-3600.

Represented the company is Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 E.
Randolph Dr., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000.

For more details, contact Daniel Settlement Administrator, 2807
Allen St., PMB #801, Dallas, TX, 75204-4094, Phone: 1-800-714-
9815, Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com.


BUSINESS COMPUTER: More Former Students Join Wash. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 400 former students have joined the class action
against Business Computer Training Institute (BCTI), which was
pending in Pierce County Superior Court in Washington.

The case, which has not been scheduled for a trial, accuses
BCTI, which closed in March 2005, of breach of contract, fraud,
and violations of Washington's consumer-protection law.

Generally, the suit claims that students were misled about the
quality of the education that BCTI provided and their prospects
for a job after graduation (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22,
2005).

Many were recruited outside welfare or unemployment offices and
claim that they were promised good-paying technology jobs if
they completed BCTI programs.

Those programs, which taught basic word processing, spreadsheets
and other computer skills, cost about $11,000 for a 30-week
program.  Many students used taxpayer-backed loans to pay for
their education.

But some claim their BCTI education didn't prepare them for even
basic office work, leaving them with few employment prospects,
but thousands of dollars in debt.

Students specifically accuse BCTI of targeting poor, vulnerable
people, promising high-tech training and good-paying jobs.  But
instead, BCTI delivered crushing debts and low-paying jobs with
retailers, fast-food restaurants and temp agencies.
The suit also accuses BCTI's owners, Tom Jonez and Morrie Pigott
of enriching themselves at the students' expense.

In November 2005, Judge Thomas Larkin granted class-action
status to the case, thus opening the lawsuit to students of
BCTI's Washington campuses who attended as far back as 1985.

BCTI had opposed the certification by alleging that students got
out of the program what they put into it.  The school also
argued in court filings that about 28,000 students have
graduated from BCTI's Washington campuses since 1985, and many
have gone on to successful careers at prominent companies.

In addition, the school also claimed that students didn't get
jobs for reasons unrelated to BCTI, including not looking for
work and quitting jobs the school helped them get.

It further claimed that the students have presented no evidence
they were coerced to enroll and even argued that the students'
claims were varied and conflicting and that a class action would
be inappropriate.

BCTI closed its seven campuses in Washington and Oregon on March
14 amid state investigations in Washington and Oregon.

A Washington investigation found evidence that falsified
admissions tests allowed unqualified students to get financial
aid.

A broader Oregon investigation concluded that BCTI misled
students, enrolled students who couldn't benefit from its
programs and reported inaccurate graduation and job-placement
statistics to the state.


CANADA: CAD$20M More Set in Vitamin Price Fixing Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sutts Strosberg LLP (Windsor, Ontario),
Siskinds (London, Ontario) and Camp Fiorante Matthews
(Vancouver, British Columbia) announced that an additional
CAD$20 million will be disbursed to universities and other
organizations involved in vitamins and food education and
research as part of a pan-Canadian class action settlement.

A further CAD$6 million will be distributed to recipients in
Quebec.

These funds are part of the settlement in excess of CAD$132
million approved by the courts of Ontario, British Columbia and
Quebec in 2005 pertaining to the alleged price-fixing of
vitamins in Canada.

In 1999, Hoffmann-Laroche, BASF, Rhone-Poulenc and Lonza were
found guilty of hiking the price of vitamins and various
products including milk, cereals, shampoo and creams.

The suit was brought on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect
purchasers and consumers of vitamins and vitamin products.

Hoffmann-Laroche and BASF paid a combined CAD$725 million to
settle the charges laid by the U.S. Department of Justice
related to the worldwide price-fixing scam.

In 2005, four of the world's leading vitamin manufacturers
settled a CAD$130 million lawsuit by Quebec consumers group over
vitamin price-fixing (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2005).

The money from the settlement was divided between local non-
profit organizations and companies that bought the vitamins for
their products. Individuals though will not get any cash.

The head of federal agency at the time described the case as
"the most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy
ever uncovered."

The law firms' CAD$20 million additional allocation announcement
almost doubles the amount of money distributed under the
settlement to Canadian charitable organizations, universities,
research or consumer services/protection organizations in Canada
to date.

As the settlement amount cannot be economically distributed to
individual consumers or farmers across Canada who purchased
vitamins between 1986 and 1999 in light of their sheer numbers
and the likely small dollar amount per claim, the courts
approved the distribution of monies to the following:

University of British Columbia == CAD$3,458,837.66

University of Alberta == CAD$2,536,480.95

University of Manitoba == CAD$922,356.71

University of Saskatchewan, Western College of Veterinary
Medicine == CAD$768,630.59

University of Toronto == CAD$ 2,435,265.24

University of Guelph == CAD$ 2,435,265.24

University of Guelph, Ontario Veterinary College == CAD$
2,435,265.24

Ontario Agri-Food Education == CAD$2,435,265.24

Dalhousie University == CAD$963,959.16

Memorial University == CAD$ 963,959.16

Sometimes in a class action, claims and/or individual losses are
simply so small that they would be eaten up in the
administration and distribution of the money. It is therefore
difficult to justify going ahead with these payments.

In these cases, the court allows for a settlement where redress
is not given on an individual basis but rather to be applied in
the public interest. In this way, a grant or contribution is
done in a manner that benefits the class and fulfills the goal
of providing relief and redress.

Universities with doctoral programs in food and nutrition were
chosen to receive funds on behalf of consumers of vitamins and
vitamin products.

Universities with veterinary medicine schools were chosen to
receive funds given their connection to the agriculture sector -
a major purchaser of vitamins or vitamin products. These
organizations shall use these funds for activities related to
vitamin products including food and nutritional research and
education.

"A successfully settled class action that results in defendants
paying out millions of dollars against their bottom line will,
no doubt, deter people in the future who are considering price-
fixing," stated Harvey Strosberg, counsel with Sutts Strosberg.
"This is precisely the kind of behaviour modification that the
class proceedings legislation was enacted to achieve."

"In any class action, class counsel works to ensure that any
ill-gotten gains by the defendants are redistributed among those
people who suffered harm. In the vitamins price-fixing case,
there could be millions of Canadian consumers and indirect
purchasers who could be affected," noted J. J. Camp, counsel for
Camp Fiorante Matthews. "Class counsel opted for the fairest
alternative option - to distribute it to the associations,
councils, agencies and institutions who would commit to use the
funds for the well-being of the whole class."

"Siskinds is proud to have been part of the class counsel team
that pursued a vitamins price-fixing cartel and achieved a
CAD$132 million settlement.

With more than CAD$20 million going to universities and other
research organizations to further our knowledge in areas related
to vitamins, it is difficult to imagine a better use of the
settlement funds," added Scott Ritchie, counsel for Siskinds.
"Not only was an historic settlement achieved but an important
message was sent to manufacturers who might be tempted to
illegally fix prices that cause harm to the public."

Over CAD$11 million of settlement funds were previously
distributed for the benefit of indirect purchasers of vitamins
to national associations, agencies and councils active in the
raising of animals and the selling of animal products across
Canada.

Similarly, over CAD$11 million of settlement funds were
previously distributed for the benefit of consumers of vitamins
to consumer services/protection associations and to Canadian
charitable and research organizations across Canada for vitamins
and food-related programs. Direct purchasers of vitamins from
the defendants also recovered substantial damages from the
overall settlement.

The disbursement of these funds was scheduled to begin on Dec.
19, 2006.

For further information, contact Harvey Strosberg, Q.C. of Sutts
Strosberg LLP, Phone: (519) 561-6228; J.J. Camp, Q.C. of Camp
Fiorante Matthews, Phone: (604) 331-9520; and Scott Ritchie,
Q.C. of Siskinds, Phone: (519) 672-2121.


CROMPTON CORP: Jan. 9 Hearing Set for $51M Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 9, 2007 at 9:30 a.m., for
the proposed $51 million settlement by Crompton Corp. (n/k/a
Chemtura Corp.) and Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. (n/k/a
Chemtura USA Corp.) [Collectively referred to as the Crompton
settlement] in the matter, "In Re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust
Litigation, MDL Docket No. C-04-1648."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom
11, 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

Claim forms must be submitted by Jan. 31, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased
rubber chemicals in the U.S. directly from any defendant at any
time from May 1, 1995 through Dec. 31, 2001.

The first complaint in this action was filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2003.
That case and several subsequently filed cases were consolidated
and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 3, 2003.

On or about March 15, 2005, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix or maintain the prices of, and/or
allocate markets for rubber chemicals sold in the U.S. in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.
It also alleges that, as a result of this conspiracy, members of
the class paid more for rubber chemicals than they otherwise
would have and, thus, were injured.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Gilardi & Co., LLC, 3301 Kerner Boulevard, San Rafael,
         CA 94901, Phone: 415-461-0410, Fax: 415-461-0412, E-
         mail: classact@gilardi.com, Web site:
         http://researcharchives.com/t/s?15d5.

     (2) Richard A. Koffman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West,
         Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone:
         202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, Web site:
         http://www.CMHT.com;and

     (3) Steven O. Sidener of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP,
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco,
         California 94105, (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-777-
         2230, Fax: 415-777-5189, Web site:
         http://www.gbcslaw.com.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Cut-Out Tools Due to Shock Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
DEWALT Industrial Tool Co., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 81,000 DEWALT Model DW660 Cut-Out Tools.

The company said the cord wire in these units could be damaged
internally, posing a shock hazard to consumers.

DEWALT has not received any reports of incidents or injuries
related to this issue.

These DEWALT cut-out tools are yellow and black, and have model
number DW660 written on their nameplate, which is located on the
body of the unit.

The recalled tools were manufactured between January 2006 and
September 2006, and have date codes ranging from 200601 to
200639.

The date code also is located on the tool's nameplate.  Units
with a "V" stamped on the nameplate are not included in this
recall.

These recalled cut-out tools were manufactured in Mexico and are
being sold at major home center and hardware stores nationwide
from January 2006 through November 2006 for between $70 and
$130, depending on the kit.

Picture of the recalled cut-out tools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07067.jpg

Consumers should stop using the cut-out tool immediately and
contact DEWALT for the location of the nearest service center to
receive a free inspection and repair, if necessary.

For additional information, consumers can contact DEWALT toll-
free at (888) 263-9051 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the DEWALT Web site:
http://www.DEWALT.com.


FIRESTONE: Faces Suit Over Working Conditions in Liberia Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Firestone and its Japanese parent, Bridgestone Firestone faces a
purported federal class action in Indiana over its treatment of
Liberian workers in its rubber plantation, according the Knight-
Ridder Washington Bureau.

The International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), a Washington-based
advocacy group, filed the class action over what it calls "a
gulag of misery" on the 200-square-mile estate in Harbel, which
is believed to be the largest rubber plantation in the world.

The suit alleges that Firestone's Liberian employees are
overworked, underpaid, exposed to pesticides and other hazardous
chemicals, and risk injury because of inadequate safety
measures, such as a lack of protective gear to guard against
latex dripping into their eyes.

ILRF also describes harsh living conditions for the workers,
known as "tappers," and their families.  The group says that
much of the housing is decades old with extended families
sharing one-room shacks without electricity or toilets.

On the other hand, managers live nearby on a comfortable
compound featuring a golf course, according to the suit.

The company though denies the allegations and has sought the
dismissal of the case.  A ruling is expected in early 2007 on
that motion.


GIANT BIG: Faces Litigation Over Legal Minimum Wage Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schwartz, Lichten & Bright, P.C. lawyer Stuart Lichten lodged a
class action against Giant Big Apple Beer, Ltd. on behalf of all
current and former employees of Giant Big Apple, who are all
Latino immigrants, Infoshop News reports.

The workers claim they work long hours for less than the legal
minimum wage, without overtime pay.  Fed up with this
exploitation, they approached the Industrial Workers of the
World and Make the Road By Walking, a Latino community
organization based in Bushwick, Brooklyn.

With the help of the IWW and Make the Road, they filed a wage &
hour complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in fall
of 2005.

But as far as the workers know, this complaint has not resulted
in any action by the DOL and they allege that their boss
continues to violate State and federal wage laws. As a result,
the workers consulted labor attorney

The Industrial Workers of the World, a democratic, member-run
labor union, is supporting the Giant Big Apple workers, and will
stage a protest rally in front of Giant Big Apple when the suit
papers are served.

A number of Giant Big Apple's workers have joined the union and
organizing efforts at the beer distributorship are continuing.

Giant Big Apple employs approximately 19 workers. Seven current
employees and nine former employees have joined the class-action
lawsuit.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: $445M Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
will hold on January 8, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. an approval hearing
for the $445 million partial settlement of the class action "In
re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation, Consolidated
File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S."

The class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the stock or options of HealthSouth Corp. including
HealthSouth securities received in exchange for the stock or
options of certain other companies acquired by HealthSouth
between April 24, 1997 and March 18, 2003 (stockholder class)
and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired HealthSouth
bonds, notes or other debt instruments during the period between
March 31, 1998 and March 18, 2003 (bondholder class).

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama in the courtroom of the Honorable Karon Owen
Bowdre.

Deadline to file for execution and objection is on Dec. 8, 2006.

                         Case Background

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama consolidated a number of separate securities
lawsuits filed against the company.

The Consolidated Securities Action included two prior
consolidated cases:

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, CV-98-J-
         2634-S," and

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation,
        Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S,"

     -- as well as six other lawsuits filed in 2003.

Including the cases previously consolidated, the Consolidated
Securities Action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the Consolidated Securities Action into two
subclasses:

     (1) complaints based on purchases of the company's common
         stock were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," (the Stockholder Securities
         Action), which was further divided into complaints
         based on:

         (a) purchases of the company's common stock in the open
             market (grouped under the caption, "In re
             HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation,
             Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," and

         (b) claims based on the receipt of the company's common
             stock in mergers (grouped under the caption,
             "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case No.
             CV-98-2777-S)."

         Although the plaintiffs in the HealthSouth Merger Cases
         have separate counsel and have filed separate claims,
         the HealthSouth Merger Cases are otherwise consolidated
         with the Stockholder Securities Action for all
         purposes.

     (2) complaints based on purchases of the company's debt
         securities were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1502-S," (the Bondholder Securities
         Action).

On Jan. 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities
Action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The complaint names the company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that the company misrepresented or failed to disclose
         certain material facts concerning its business and
         financial condition and the impact of the Balanced
         Budget Act of 1997 on its operations in order to
         artificially inflate the price of the company's common
         stock;

    (ii) that from Jan. 14, 2002 through Aug. 27, 2002, the
         company misrepresented or failed to disclose certain
         material facts concerning its business and financial
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on the
         company's operations in order to artificially inflate
         the price of its common stock, and that some of the
         individual defendants sold shares of such stock during
         the purported class period; and

   (iii) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former
         senior officers and accounting personnel to materially
         inflate the company's earnings to match Wall Street
         analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of
         HealthSouth and other members of a self-described
         "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which
         the company's earnings could be inflated and that some
         of the individual defendants sold shares of the common
         stock during the purported class period.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, and
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934
Act.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company reached a global, preliminary
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Securities Action, the Bondholder Securities Action, and the
derivative litigation, as well as with the company's insurance
carriers, to settle claims filed in those actions against the
company and many of its former directors and officers.

In September, a partial settlement has been reached between
HealthSouth Corporation and certain individuals, the Stockholder
Class and the Bondholder Class in a litigation, which alleged
that the Defendants violated federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability relating to any
claims asserted by the Stockholder Class and the Bondholder
Class, but they have agreed to a settlement in the amount of
$445 million in cash, HealthSouth common stock and warrants.

Under the settlement agreements, federal securities and fraud
claims brought in the class action against HealthSouth and
certain of its former directors and officers will be settled for
consideration consisting of HealthSouth common stock and
warrants valued at $215 million and cash payments by
HealthSouth's insurance carriers of $230 million, or aggregate
consideration of $445 million.

In addition, the federal securities class action plaintiffs will
receive 25% of any net recoveries from future judgments obtained
by or on behalf of HealthSouth with respect to certain claims
against Richard Scrushy, the company's former chief executive
officer, Ernst & Young, the company's former auditors, and UBS,
the company's former primary investment bank, each of which
remains a defendant in the derivative actions as well as the
federal securities class actions.

The settlement agreement also requires HealthSouth to indemnify
the settling insurance carriers for any amounts that they are
legally obligated to pay to any non-settling defendants.

The settlement does not contain any admission of wrongdoing by
HealthSouth or any other settling defendant.

Securities to be issued by HealthSouth in connection with the
settlement will consist of an aggregate of 25,118,656 shares of
its common stock and eleven-year warrants to purchase an
aggregate of 40,756,326 additional shares of HealthSouth common
stock at an exercise price of $8.28 per share, in each case, as
the same will be adjusted by the proposed 1-for-5 reverse stock
split of HealthSouth's common stock, which, subject to
stockholder approval, is expected to become effective before the
end of October.

             Settlement Excludes Ernst & Young, UBS

The settlement does not include Ernst & Young, UBS, Mr. Scrushy
or any former HealthSouth officer who entered a guilty plea or
was convicted of a crime in connection with the company's former
financial reporting activities.

HealthSouth Corporation Securities Litigation on the net:
http://www.HealthSouthCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com.

A copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Partial Settlement
is available free of charge at:
                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1496

The suit is "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master Consolidation File No. 2:03-cv-03-BE-1500-S," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard Bemporad of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Selinger, One North Lexington Avenue, Floor 11, White
         Plains, NY 10601-1714, Phone: 1-914-997-0500, E-mail:
         rbemporad@ldbs.com; and

     (2) Max W. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman,
         LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: 1-212-554-1400, Fax: 1-212-554-1444, E-mail:
         mwb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) W. Michael Atchison of Starnes & Atchison, LLP, P.O.
         Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512, Phone: 868-6000,
         E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com; and

    (ii) Patrick J. Ballard of Ballard Law Office, 2214 2nd
         Avenue North, Suite 100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:
         321-9600, Fax: 323-9805, E-mail:
         pjballard@ballardlawoffice.com.


INTER-TEL INC: Faces Shareholder Litigation in Del., Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Tel, Inc., and selected board members face purported
shareholder class actions that were filed in either Delaware or
Arizona state court.

The Delaware action was filed on June 16, 2006.  The Arizona
actions were filed on June 16 and 20, 2006, respectively.

The Delaware action, as amended July 14, 2006, raises claims
related to the re-incorporation filing by Inter-Tel in Delaware
and primarily seeks injunctive relief.

The Arizona actions claim breach of fiduciary duty related to
the 13D filings by the company's former CEO.  Those claims have
been combined and referred to the Complex Litigation section of
the Arizona Superior Courts.

The company is in the process of evaluating these class action
suits, according to its Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


KEYSTONE CENTRAL: Pa. Court Certifies Class in Doctors' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Knoll Gardner of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class-action status,
giving eligibility to thousands of Pennsylvania doctors to join
a lawsuit over a Blue Cross health plan's reimbursement rates,
Kiplinger.com reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Keystone Plan Central, Inc.,
     -- Highmark, Inc.,
     -- Capital Blue Cross,
     -- John S. Brouse,
     -- James M. Mead, and
     -- Joseph Pfister.

The suit charges that Keystone Health Plan Central
systematically lowered its reimbursement rates to doctors by:

     -- bundling or changing procedure codes;
     -- failing to pay legitimate claims on time; and
     -- undercounting the number of patients assigned to doctors
        in the managed-care plan and other practices.

The case involves medical claims dating from January 1996
through November 2001, when the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a
Kutztown doctor and her practice group.

The plaintiffs accuse the health maintenance organization of
fraud and racketeering, paralleling a strategy used in suits
nationwide over managed-care rates, many of which have been
consolidated in a Florida case.

According to the judge's Dec. 21 order, the two sides have since
been locked in an acrimonious battle over discovery and other
pre-trial issues.

He conducted several days of hearings in March on the question
of class certification, taking testimony from former Keystone
officials, an economist and others.

"The evidence does not indicate that these alleged practices
have been applied only to plaintiffs Natalie Grider and Kutztown
Family Practice, P.C. Rather, it appears that defendants'
practices involve all Keystone providers," Judge Gardner wrote
in his order.

Keystone Health Plan Central, which serves central Pennsylvania
and the Lehigh Valley, was co-owned at the time by Highmark
Inc., a Blue Shield affiliate, and Capital Blue Cross.  It had
more than 6,400 participating physicians in 2001, according to
court documents.

The judge upheld class-action status on two racketeering claims
and a third involving the prompt payment for health care
services. He rejected class certification on a breach-of-
contract claim, saying they should be tried individually.

According to the judge's order, Keystone lawyers have
"vacillated" in their arguments on whether their case should be
joined with the Florida suit.

Similar claims involving more than 700,000 physicians and at
least 10 health care companies have been consolidated in a
nationwide class-action suit in Florida. Several of the
insurers, including Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp., have reached
settlements in the case.

The suit is "Grider, et al v. Keystone Central Inc., et al, Case
No. 2:01-cv-05641-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James Knoll
Gardner.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Louis C. Bechtle of Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman & Rohn,
         P.C., 1515 Market Street, 16th Floor, Philadelphia, PA
         19102, Phone: 215-864-9600;

     (2) Francis J. Farina, 577 Gregory Lane, Devon, PA 19333.
         Phone: 610-695-9007;

     (3) Kenneth A. Jacobsen of the Jacobsen Law Offices LLC, 12
         Orchard Lane, Wallingford, PA 19086, Phone: 610-566-
         7930, Fax: 610-566-7940; and

     (4) Joseph A. O'Keefe of O'Keefe & Sher, 15019 Kutztown
         Road, Kutztown, PA 19530-9276, Phone: 610-683-0771,
         Fax: 610-683-0777, E-mail: jokade@aol.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Sandra A. Girifalco, William T. Mandia and Lee A.
         Rosengard all of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP,
         2600 One Commerce SQ, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
         215-564-8000 or 215-564-8083 or 215-564-8032, Fax: 215-
         564-8120, E-mail: sgirifalco@stradley.com or
         mandia@stradley.com or lrosengard@stradley.com;

     (2) Malcolm J. Gross of Gross, McGinley, Labarre & Eaton,
         LLP, 33 South 7th Street, P.O. Box 4060, Allentown, PA
         18105-4060, Phone: 610-820-5450, Fax: 610-820-6006, E-
         mail: mgross@gmle.com;

     (3) Daniel I. Booker, Mary J. Hackett and Jeremy D.
         Feinstein all of Reed, Smith, Shaw & MC Clay, 435 Sixth
         Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886, Phone: 412-288-3250
         or 412-288-7972, E-mail: mhackett@reedsmith.com or
         jfeinstein@reedsmith.com;

     (3) Daniel T. Campbell, Justin P. Murphy, Tracy A. Roman
         and Kathleen Taylor Sooy all of Crowell & Moring LLP,
         1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2595,
         Phone: (202) 624-2500 or 202-624-2651, E-mail:
         troman@crowell.com; and
     (4) Barbara W. Mather of Pepper Hamilton LLP, 3000 Two
         Logan SQ, 16th & Arch Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19103-
         2799, Phone: 215-981-4895, Fax: 215-981-4756, E-mail:
         matherb@pepperlaw.com.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $38.25 million settlement in the matter, "In Re:
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-cv-00077."

The court will hold the hearing before the Honorabe Thomas W.
Philips at the U.S. District Court for the Easetrn District of
Tennessee, Howard H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, 800 Market
St., Knoxville, Tenn.

Any exclusion or objections to and from the settlement must be
made by Dec. 26, 2006.  Proofs of claim must be filed by Feb. 8,
2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., common stock between Feb. 16, 1999
and March 10, 2003.

Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class action complaints
were filed by securities holders against the company, certain of
its directors, former directors, its executive officers, former
executive officers, a subsidiary, and a former director of the
subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2006).

The suits alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933
and/or the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid and other
governmental pricing programs, and certain transactions between
the company and the Benevolent Fund.

The 22 complaints were later consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On Aug. 12, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss.
The court dismissed all claims as to Jones Pharma Inc., a
predecessor to one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries,
King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc., and as to
defendants Dennis Jones and Henry Richards.

The court also dismissed certain claims as to five other
individual defendants.  The court denied the motions to dismiss
in all other respects.

Following the court's ruling, on Sept. 20, 2004, the company and
the other remaining defendants filed answers to plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.  Discovery in this action has
commenced.  The court has set a trial date of April 10, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-00077," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas
W. Phillips with referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) K. Kidwell King, Jr. of King & King, 125 South Main
         Street, Greeneville, TN 37743, Phone: 423-639-6881, E-
         mail: kking2@aol.com; and

     (2) John C. Browne of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10019-6028, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-
         554-1441, E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Andrew L. Colocotronis of Baker, Donelson, Bearman &
         Caldwell, P.O. Box 1792, Knoxville, TN 37901-1792,
         Phone: 865-549-7000, E-mail:
         acolocotronis@bakerdonelson.com; and

    (ii) Scott Dodson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 1050
         Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036-5303,
         Phone: 202-887-3772, Fax: 202-530-9654, E-mail:
         sdodson@gibsondunn.com.


LEGG MASON: Milberg Weiss to Make Inquiries in N.Y. Stock Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, announced
in a December press release that it is investigating possible
illegal conduct as alleged in class actions filed by certain law
firms on behalf of investors in Legg Mason Inc. who purchased
the common stock of Legg Mason between June 24, 2005 and July
24, 2006.

The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Legg Mason and certain of
its officers and directors.

The complaints in the above-referenced actions allege that Legg
Mason and certain of its officers and directors violated the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint in one of the above-referenced actions alleges
that during the class period, Legg Mason issued positive
statement regarding its financial condition and business
prospects.

Specifically, the company represented that its acquisition of
Citigroup Inc.'s worldwide asset management (CAM) business would
transition the company into a "major pure play" global asset
management company.

In addition, the company claimed that the CAM acquisition would
be accretive to earnings, and that, as a result, the Company
would realize cost savings of between $80 million and $115
million.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose the
following materially adverse facts:

      -- Legg Mason had failed to successfully integrate CAM
         because of a lack of compatible corporate structures;

      -- the company's acquisition of CAM assets was
         unsuccessful as a result of integration problems;

      -- former Citigroup customers had withdrawn billions of
         dollars of assets from Legg Mason funds which had a
         materially adverse effect on the company's
         profitability and financial prospects;

      -- the company's flagship equity fund, the Legg Mason
         Value Trust, was generating diminishing returns and
         caused pressure on the company's margins; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, the company's projections
         regarding its financial performance lacked any
         reasonable basis in fact.

On May 1, 2006, Legg Mason announced that it would conduct an
earnings conference and release its fourth quarter 2006
financial results on May 10, 2006.

News of the company's disappointing results leaked into the
market and the price of the company's common stock declined
precipitously on May 1, 2006, falling $6.48, or 5.4%, from its
closing price of $118.48 on the previous trading day to close at
$112.00.

On May 10, 2006, Legg Mason announced its fourth quarter 2006
results, which fell significantly below analysts' estimates.
The company attributed the disappointing results, in part, to a
substantial increase in expenses as a result of the CAM
acquisition.

In reaction to this news, the price of Legg Mason shares fell
another $8.46 per share, or 7.26%, to close at $108.06 per
share.

On July 25, 2006, the last day of the class period, Legg Mason
announced its first quarter 2007 results that, again, fell below
analysts' estimates.

The company reported a 1.3% decline in revenues, a decrease of
$6.5 billion in assets under management as a result of customer
redemption, and increased costs related to the CAM acquisition.

In reaction to this news, the price of Legg Mason stock fell
$8.01 per share, or 8.4%, to close at $86.32 on July 25, 2006.

For more details, contact Lori G. Feldman and Anita B.
Kartalopoulos, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl. New York, NY,
10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
contactus@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


KPNQWEST NV: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold on Jan. 4, 2007 a hearing for the proposed settlement
of the class action, "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in the courtroom of Judge Peter K.
Leisure.

The class consists of all investors who bought shares of Dutch
phone company KPNQWest N.V. between Nov. 9, 1999, and May 31,
2002.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 19, 2006.
Deadline to file claims is Dec. 28, 2006.

KPNQwest filed for creditor protection in May 2002 after banks
declined to extend further credit and after its parents, KPN of
the Netherlands and U.S. operator Qwest, cut funding support,
and a consortium of lenders, which holds most of the group's
assets, refused to advance further cash.

In June of that year, the administrators and management board of
the company were forced to request a court in Netherlands to
convert the company's moratorium into bankruptcy.  At the time
of the filing, the company's total debts amounted to EUR2
billion (US$1.8 billion).  The company's assets were offered for
sale shortly after the filing (Troubled Company Reporter-Europe,
Dec. 18, 2002).

In October 2002, a putative class action was filed against the
company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest.

The suit alleges that Willems Ackermans, former executive vice
president and chief financial officer, engaged in a fraudulent
scheme and deceptive course of business in order to inflate
KPNQwest revenue and securities.  Mr. Ackermans was the only
defendant named in the original complaint.  On Jan. 9, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the
company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest, and others.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and/or rescission as appropriate against
defendants, as well as an award of plaintiffs' fees and costs.

In July 2006, Royal KPN N.V. settled for $4.18 million a
securities class action linked to KPNQWest's bankruptcy (Class
Action Reporter, July 3, 2006).

The suit is "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Peter K. Leisure with referral to Frank Maas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ira M. Press and Mark Booker of Kirby, McInerney &
         Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10TH Floor, New York, NY
         10022 USA, Phone: (212) 317-2300;

     (2) Jacob A. Goldberg, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USA,
         Phone: (610) 667-7706; and

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert M. Zabb, Glancy, Binkow &
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: (310) 201-9150.

Representing the company are Barry Howard Goldstein of O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, USA, Phone:
212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: Bgoldstein@omm.com; and
Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S Hope Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90071, USA, Phone: (213) 430-6000.


MERCK & CO: Notches Legal Victories in Ala., La. Vioxx Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. has won its second Vioxx trial this month when
jurors in Alabama rejected the claims of a man who blamed the
once-popular pain medication for a heart attack in 2001, The
FinancialWire reports.

The jury of eight women and four men deliberated for only 90
minutes before it handed out a decision in favor of the drug
maker.  Gary Albright, 57, of Chelsea filed the suit in 2005.

Jurors essentially rejected Mr. Albright's claims that Vioxx
caused his heart attack and that the company failed to reveal
potential dangers of the drug before pulling it from the market
in 2004.

After the verdict was handed down, jurors pointed out that Mr.
Albright had too many health problems before his heart attack to
blame Vioxx.

The ruling is the second legal victory for the company in a span
of one week.  Previous to this verdict, a federal court jury in
New Orleans, Louisiana ruled in favor of the company in another
case.

The company is continuing to adhere to its legal playbook,
wherein it will defend each of the thousands of claims over
Vioxx rather than settling them.

As of the moment, the company faces about 27,200 Vioxx suits
plus another 265 potential class actions.  Another 14,000
plaintiffs have entered agreements with the company, suspending
the time limit for lawsuits.

So far of the 18 cases that have been set for trial, juries have
ruled in favor of the company nine times and sided with the
plaintiffs in four instances.  The other five cases were
dismissed.


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Denies Claims in Wii Faulty Straps Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo of America, Inc. issued a statement in response to the
class action that has been brought up against them over
defective Wii remote wrist straps, TechSpot.com reports.

According to the statement Nintendo claims that the suit is
completely without merit and that the company has taken pre-
emptive actions before the suit was filed and the somewhat
serious claims it makes.

They said as such in short, "At the time we became aware of the
lawsuit, we had already taken appropriate steps to reinforce
with consumers the proper use of the Wii Remote and had made
stronger replacement wrist straps available. This suit has had
no effect on those efforts."

Earlier, Nintendo of America, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, launched a voluntary
replacement program for about 2 million wrist straps used with
controllers for the Nintendo Wii Video Game System (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 20, 2006).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The suit leaves an open-ended section for further recompensation
to people affected by broken controllers, meaning that a lot
more could be at stake than the cost of the controller, or
perhaps the cost of damaged equipment. We've yet to hear if the
suit will go forward, since it still must be approved, the
company's statement said.

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

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

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

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

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


PETROLEUM RETAILERS: Consumer Group Files Suits Over "Hot Fuel"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, filed a purported
class action in California and six other states against 17
petroleum retailers with breach of sales contract and consumer
fraud, the Central Valley Business Times reports.

Named in the suits are:

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

The lawsuits charge oil companies with cheating motorists out of
billions of dollars.  It contends that gasoline dispensed at
temperatures higher than the federal standard of 60 degrees
Fahrenheit contains less energy but prices are not adjusted
accordingly.

It seeks relief for motor fuel consumers in the states of
California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Jersey, North Carolina
and Virginia.

The suits call for remedies in the form of restitution and the
installation of temperature correction equipment for pumps that
dispense gasoline and diesel fuel.

In the California, suit eleven individual consumers are named as
plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006).  They are:

      -- Charles Parrish,
-- John Taylor,
-- John Telles,
-- Kenneth Becker,
-- Lesley Duke,
-- Mark Rushing,
-- Nathan Butler,
-- Pamela Alwell,
-- Richard Galauski,
-- Roy Edson, and
-- William Younger.

"This lawsuit comes at a particularly appropriate time to expose
a system that has been quietly picking money from the pockets of
citizens throughout the country," says Joan Claybrook, president
of Public Citizen, the group filing the legal action.

The problem was first revealed in August by an investigative
report in the Kansas City Star newspaper.  Federal standards
measure the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline at 60
degrees. As gasoline warms, such as on a summer day, it loses
energy, the report said.

The suits further contend that those who buy fuel in bulk, such
as the U.S. armed forces, have temperature-adjusted purchase
agreements with the oil industry.

But with U.S. retail pumps, motorists never know how much energy
they will receive from a gallon of motor fuel. By some
estimates, retailers are shortchanging drivers 760 million
gallons per year, the suits say.

According to Public Citizen, while the oil industry opposes
temperature compensation in the United States, it is embraced in
Canada, where it stands to lose money from selling "cold fuel"
that has more energy than the standard gallon.

"The industry has voluntarily implemented the use of temperature
control equipment at retail pumps in Canada and supported
legislation there to make the technology mandatory at the point
of sale," the consumer group says.

Gasoline retailers argue that it would cost too much to retrofit
the nation's fuel pumps to automatically adjust prices to the
temperature of the fuel.

The lobbying group American Petroleum Institute also argues that
Americans can't be expected to understand the concept and would
be confused.

According to John Siebert, project manager of the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) Foundation, "Although
the industry claims that the cost of hot fuel amounts to pennies
for individual consumers, it really adds up to a $50 tax on
every car in the country."

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

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


PRAPAS NAVEE: Groups Plan Suits Over Alleged Human Rights Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prapas Navee, a fishing fleet operator, faces a possible class
action in Thailand for allegedly violating the human rights of
its trawler crews, Penchan Charoensutthipan of The Bangkok Post
reports.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Lawyers
Council of Thailand (LCT) said that it would file charges
against fishing fleet.

The decision came at the conclusion of the NHRC's probe into
alleged violations of human rights of more than 100 men on six
trawlers owned by Prapas Navee.

The fleet had received a three-year concession to fish in
Indonesian waters.  During the period, 30 migrant workers and
nine Thai crewmembers died.

According to the NHRC's probe report, two of the bodies were
buried in Indonesian territory while the rest were thrown into
the sea.

Also in its probe, NHRC found that the crew were left to fend
for themselves, being left on board in the open sea for three
months as the operator tried to renew the fishing license.

Human rights commissioner Sunee Chaiyaros said that the agency
and the LCT would lodge class actions -- civil and criminal --
against the operator on behalf of the crew.

According to her, the crew was reluctant to seek legal action as
many of them were illegal migrant workers and feared being
arrested and deported.  She adds, that they just want their
overdue wages.

Nasser Artwarin, of LCT said that besides overdue wages, the
council would demand legal action be taken against the operator
for illegal detention and recklessness causing the deaths of
others.


REGAL LAGER: Recalls 2-Seater Strollers Due to Abrasion Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Georgia, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
14,300 units of Phil & Teds e3 strollers with doubles seats.

The company said children could touch the rear tires when in the
stroller's add-on seat.  This can pose an abrasion hazard to
children.

Regal Lager has received one report of a child who scraped his
arm from touching the tire in motion.

This recall involves the e3 Buggy which is a three-wheeled
stroller with a black steel tubing frame.  It is sold in a
variety of fabric colors.  An additional seat, known as a
"Doubles Kit," can be added directly behind the main stroller's
seat allowing a second child to ride in the stroller.

This seat can either be added on top of the stroller's frame or
attached on top of the rear axle in the lower position.  When
used in the lower position, a seated child can reach the wheels.

These recalled two-seater strollers were manufactured in China
and are being sold by baby furniture and baby products stores
nationwide, and Internet retailers from July 2005 through
November 2006 for about $380.

Picture of the recalled two-seater stroller:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07069.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the additional
rear seat in the lower position on top of the rear axle and
contact Regal Lager for free additional rear wheel guards.

For more information, contact Regal Lager at (800) 593-5522
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, E-mail:
info@regallager.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.regallager.com.


TELSTRA: Shareholders File $300M Suit Over Secret Govt. Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Slater & Gordon launched a $300 million class action,
in Sydney's Federal Court, on behalf of Telstra shareholders
over a secret government briefing that triggered a warning from
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, The Age
reports.

The suit claims that on Aug. 11, 2005, Telstra supplied the
government a document - hours after its annual results briefing
- that stated it had underinvested in its network.

The law firm alleges key aspects of the document were not
revealed until an official earnings downgrade on September 5,
with the actual document released two days later. It believes
shareholders who bought $300 million of shares in that 3-week
period were disadvantaged.

But Telstra argued that the "key elements" of the information
supplied to government were disclosed both in public documents
and in media and analyst briefings on August 11.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
investigated the matter but decided against prosecuting Telstra.

Telstra group general counsel Will Irving said the company had
"no interest" in settling the case, dismissing it as part of a
worldwide trend of "speculative class actions".

"We think the evidence just does not support the allegations
that are being made and we see no reason why we should spend
shareholders' money in order to have the thing 'go away'," he
said.

Telstra has also questioned the involvement of Slater & Gordon
media spokesman Andrew Taylor as a signatory to the action.

Mr. Taylor said Slater & Gordon was one of several companies for
which he handled media inquiries, and that there was "nothing
secret."


TEXAS: City Faces Litigation Over Arrests of RRHS Students
----------------------------------------------------------
The City of Round Rock, Texas, and the Round Rock Independent
School District faces a purported class action filed by 51 Round
Rock High School students over arrests at immigration protests
held last March.

In the suit, parents of those students charge that both the city
and school district conspired to violate their children's
rights, according to a report by News 8 Austin.

Approximately 200 students were arrested during the rallies
mostly for curfew violations.  Most those cases have been
dismissed, however, there are still more than 40 misdemeanor
trials pending in Round Rock.

The students are represented in the case by the Texas Civil
Rights Projects.  Attorneys contend that Round Rock's youth
curfew ordinance cannot be enforced against juveniles
participating in First Amendment activities protected by the
U.S. Constitution.


THORATEC CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action against
Thoratec Corp. and certain of its officers, have reached a
settlement in the case, which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, 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.

On Aug. 3, 2004, a putative federal securities law class action,
"Johnson v. Thoratec Corp., et al." was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004.

Subsequent to the filing of the Johnson complaint, additional
complaints were filed in the same court alleging substantially
similar claims.

On Nov. 24, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating the
various putative class action complaints into a single action,
"In re Thoratec Corp. Securities Litigation," and thereafter
entered an order appointing Craig Toby as lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

On or about Jan. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company, its former
chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer, and
its Cardiovascular Division president based upon, among other
things, alleged false statements about the company's expected
sales and the market for HeartMate as a Destination Therapy
treatment.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover unspecified damages
on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities during the putative class period.

On March 4, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and that motion currently is pending.  On May 11,
2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the parties proceeded
to mediation.  As the result of the mediation, the parties have
executed and delivered stipulations of settlement pursuant to
which they release the named defendants in these actions from
all pending actions in exchange for a total of $3.4 million, in
the securities class action.

These stipulations have been filed with the applicable courts
and the company expects court approval for both settlements to
occur during the fourth quarter of this year.

The suit is "In re Thoratec Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:04-cv-03168-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M.
Whyte.

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and Jeffrey
W. Lawrence of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, 100 Pine, Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111,
Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, Email: patc@mwbhl.com or
jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Michael B. Smith of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-849-5338, Fax: 650-849-5038, Email: mbsmith@gibsondunn.com.


U-HAUL INT'L: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for "Boyle" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will hold
a fairness hearing on Jan. 8, 2007 at 9:30 AM for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Boyle, et al. v. U-Haul
International, Ltd., et al., August Term 1998. No 0840."

The final hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark I.
Bernstein, Courtroom 246, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Deadline for submission of a proof of claim is on Dec. 15, 2006.

The case covers any individual who rented U-Haul moving
equipment from a U-Haul center or independent dealer in the
state of Pennsylvania after Aug. 7, 1992, and were charged for a
second rental term, because he/she returned the equipment after
the scheduled return time but within 24 hours.

The suit was initially filed against U-Haul International, Inc.
and U-Haul Co. of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs sued U-Haul for
refunds of these charges.

The settlement provides monetary benefits in the form of refunds
of some of the additional rental charges to class members who
submit a valid and timely claim.  If an individual submits a
valid and timely claim form, he/she will receive 75% of the
amount they were charged for a second rental term.

If the total amount claimed by class members exceeds
$250,000.00, each class member will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement amount.  Individual's claim will be subject to
research to determine its validity.

If the amount claimed is less than $250,000.00, U-Haul will
donate the difference to charity.  As part of the settlement,
counsel for plaintiffs will not seek to receive any fees or
expenses in connection with this litigation.

For more details, contact:

     (1) "Boyle, et al. v. U-Haul International, Ltd., et al.,"
         c/o Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-877-745-4148,
         Web site: http://www.UHAULPennsylvaniaLitigation.com;

     (2) Ann M. Caldwell of Caldwell Law Office, 108 W. Willow
         Grove Avenue, Suite 300, Willow Grove, PA 19118, Phone:
         (215) 248-2030, Fax: (215) 248-2031, E-mail:
         acaldwell@classactlaw.com;

     (3) Richard D. Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC,
         7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410) 745-
         4149, Fax: (410) 745-4158, E-mail:
         whitehatrdg@earthlink.net; and

     (4) Anthony J. Bolognese and Joanna D. Buchanico of
         Bolognese & Associates, LLC, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK
         Blvd., Suite 650, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215)
         814-6750, Fax: (215) 814-6764, E-mail:
         abolognese@bolognese-law.com and
         jbuchanico@bolognese-law.com.


U.S. FOODSERVICE: Plaintiffs Amend "Waterbury" Food Prices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against U.S.
Foodservice in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut detailing a scheme in which the distributor is
alleged to have marked up the price of goods through the use of
"value-added service providers," (VASPs) Supermarket News
reports.

According to a lawsuit testimony, the VASPs simply served to
mark up the cost of goods upon which U.S. Foodservice based its
pricing to its customers.

The Waterbury Hospital filed the suit on Oct. 19, 2006 accusing
the company of an illegal kickback scheme that inflated the
prices that the hospital and other clients pay for food (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2006).

The suit claims that the scheme accounted for 16 to 20 percent
of the company's total sales between 2000 and 2003.

According to the suit, the Maryland-based company, which is
owned by Dutch corporation Royal Ahold N.V., instructed
suppliers to artificially increase their prices and then passed
along those inflated prices to customers.  The suit explains
that the company demanded kickbacks from companies from which it
purchased the food at inflated prices.

In addition to the hospital, the suit also lists Cason Inc., an
Illinois-based company that runs an Italian restaurant and Erick
M. Sandler as a plaintiff.  It accuses U.S. Foodservice of
breach of contract and racketeering, but it does not seek a
specific amount of damages.

The suit is "Waterbury Hospital et al v. US Food Svc Inc., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01657-CFD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.

Representing the plaintiffs is James E. Hartley, Jr. of Drubner,
Hartley & O'Connor, L.L.C., 500 Chase Pkwy, Waterbury, CT 06708,
Phone: 203-753-9291, Fax: 203-753-6373, E-mail:
diane@dholaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael P. Shea of Day, Berry &
Howard-Htfd-CT, Cityplace I, 185 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103-
3499, Phone: 860-275-0146, Fax: 860-275-0343, E-mail:
mpshea@dbh.com.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Units Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. and some of its subsidiaries are
defendants in a purported class action in Los Angeles Superior
Court, alleging violations of various California Labor Code
sections and applicable wage orders.

On Nov. 1, 2005, the company's management company and several of
its facilities located in California, including Inland Valley
Medical Center, Rancho Springs Medical Center, Del Amo Hospital
and Corona Regional Medical Center were named defendants in a
wage and hour suit, "Lasko-Hoellinger, et al v. UHS of Delaware,
Inc., et al."

While two of the four original plaintiffs in that case
voluntarily requested that they be dismissed as plaintiffs from
the lawsuit, the remaining two plaintiffs are seeking to have
the matter certified as a class action.

The remaining plaintiffs are alleging, among other things, that
they are entitled to recover damages from the Hospitals for
missed breaks and other alleged violations of various California
Labor Code sections and applicable wage orders for a period of
at least one year prior to the filing of the case.

The hospitals denied liability and are defending the case, which
was yet to be certified as a class action by the court,
according to Universal Health's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Christmas Mugs Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 70,300 units of Holiday Time Christmas mug gift sets.

The company said the buttons could detach from the plush
characters sold with the mug gift sets, posing a choking hazard
to young children.  No injuries have been reported.

The gift sets include a decorated ceramic mug and a stuffed
Santa, snowman, or reindeer.  The stuffed characters measure 7-
inches tall and are made of fleece-like material.  Two red and
green buttons are sewn down the front of the characters.
"DanDee COLLECTOR'S CHOICE" and the product's UPC number are
printed on the character's sewn-in labels.  UPC numbers are as
follows: Santa 0 47475 45419 8, Snowman 0 47475 45429 7,
Reindeer 0 47475 45439 6.  "Holiday Time" is printed on the
character's hang tag.

The mug comes in three designs and measures 6-inches tall.  The
designs include a Santa with green background, a snowman with
blue background, and a Christmas tree with green background.

These Christmas mug gift sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold exclusively at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from
October 2006 through December 2006 for about $5.

Pictures of the recalled Christmas mug gift sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07064a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07064b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07064c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the plush character
away from small children and return it to their nearest Wal-Mart
for a full refund.

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


WARNER CHILCOTT: Lead Plaintiff Deadline for N.Y. Suit Nears
------------------------------------------------------------
Baron & Budd, P.C. is reminding interested parties that the
deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the
shareholder class action filed against Warner Chilcott, Ltd. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is
on the Jan. 2, 2007.

The suit covers all persons or entities that purchased the
securities of WCRX between Sept. 20, 2006 and Sept. 26, 2006.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the initial complaint was filed against WCRX
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The complaint
charges that defendants violated the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.

In particular, the complaint alleges the company's registration
statement, in conjunction with its initial public offering
(IPO), contained false statements of material facts and/or
failed to state other facts necessary to make the statements not
misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company's
registration statement neglected to disclose that at the time of
the IPO, WCRX had halted shipments of Ovcon 35, erasing a
valuable revenue stream for the company.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the company announced advancements in a
lawsuit carried out against it by the Federal Trade Commission.
Additionally, the company also filed a supplement to its initial
registration statement, in which it disclosed that it had shut
down shipments of Ovcon 35 in September.

In reaction to this news, shares of Warner Chilcott plummeted
from $15.00 per share to $12.60 per share, a single day decline
of 16% on abnormally heavy volume.

For more details, contact Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: 1-800-222-
2766, E-mail: info@baronbudd.com, Web site:
http://www.baronandbudd.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ATRICURE INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Dec. 11, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against AtriCure, 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 Aug. 4, 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

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

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


BODISEN BIOTECH: Reinhardt Wendorf Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield announces that a class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Bodisen Biotech, Inc.,
publicly traded securities during the period between Aug. 26,
2005 through Nov. 10, 2006.

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei ("Wey" or "Wei"),
         a person with a history of regulatory problems, had a
         significant undisclosed relationship with the company;

      -- that defendants failed to disclose the true owners of
         the company;

      -- that Bodisen failed to adequately disclose its
         relationship with, and payments to, Mr. Wey and New
         York Global Group, Inc., a company that was an analyst
         of Bodisen and of which Mr. Wey was President;

      -- that the company engaged in related-party transactions
         which had the effect of manipulating its financial
         results;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial statements were materially misleading at all
         relevant times and the company's statements about its
         financial well-being and future business prospects were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

Beginning on Sept. 20, 2006, the New York Post and
CBSMarketwatch.com published a series of articles, which
revealed that Mr. Wey had a history of questionable securities
transactions.

The articles also exposed Mr. Wey's previously undisclosed role
as investor advisor for Bodisen while he served as President of
New York Global Group, Inc., an analyst of Bodisen.  On Sept.
29, 2006, Bodisen announced that the company had terminated its
relationship with New York Global Group, Inc.

On Sunday, Nov. 12, 2006, Bodisen stunned investors when the
company announced that it had received a letter of noncompliance
from AMEX.

The company reported that AMEX believed that Bodisen made
insufficient or inadequate disclosures in its public filings
regarding the company's relationship with, and payments to, a
"consultancy firm and its affiliates."

AMEX was also concerned that Bodisen had "internal control
issues related to its accounting and financial reporting
obligations in the context of its relationship with the
company."

On this news, shares of the company's stock plunged $2.23, or
20.8 percent, to close, on Nov. 13, 2006, at $8.51 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the New York Post published an article
regarding Bodisen, which further questioned the ownership of the
company and its relationship with Mr. Wey and New York Global
Group, Inc.

On this news, shares of the company's stock sank an additional
$2.61, or 30.7 percent, to close, on Nov. 14, 2006, at $5.90 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Jan. 16,
2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

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.


HANSEN NATURAL: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Hansen Natural Corp.
between Nov. 12, 2001 and Nov. 9, 2006.

The complaint charges Hansen and certain of the company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.

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

Hansen, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development,
marketing, sale, and distribution of beverages in the U.S. and
Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public and misrepresented or failed to disclose adverse facts,
including that:

      -- defendants engaged in the backdating of stock option
         grants for certain key executives of the company;

      -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate and,
         therefore, the company was unable to ascertain its true
         financial condition; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants issued false
         and misleading financial statements which, among other
         things, violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles.

On Oct. 31, 2006, Hansen shocked the market when it disclosed
that the company had received a letter from the Staff of the
Pacific Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange
Commission requesting that the company voluntarily produce
certain documents and information relating to the filing of SEC
Forms 4 and the company's stock option grant practices from Jan.
1, 1996 to the present.

Then, on Nov. 9, 2006, the company issued a press release
announcing a delay in the filing of its quarterly report for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

As a result of this news, shares of the company's common stock
fell more than 14%, to close at $24.88 on unusually heavy
trading volume of more than 19 million shares traded.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Jan. 29,
2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.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  * * *