CAR_Public/070102.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 256

                            Headlines

ARCELOR MITTAL: Kazakh Subsidiary Faces Over Coalmine Accident
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Calif. Consolidated Consumer Fraud Suit
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Pa.
BABYSWEDE LLC: Recalls Feeding Spoons Due to Choking Hazard
COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS: Faces Possible Legal Action Over Black Soot

DYNCORP INT'L: Continues to Face D.C. Suit Over "Plan Colombia"
HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Christmas Lights for Shock, Fire Hazards
HSBC FINANCE: Final Discovery in Ill. Stock Set for Jan. 2007
ILLINOIS: Stone Park Prostitution Sting Triggers Amended Suit
IOWA: Arguments Heard in Suit Over Davenport's Traffic Cameras

KERR-MCGEE CORP: Continues to Face Contamination Suit in Tex.
LEEGIN CREATIVE: Still Faces Brighton Price-Fixing Suit in Kans.
LIFETIME BRANDS: Recalls Slicers, Corers for Laceration Hazard
LOUISIANA: Hospital Mulls Settlement for Suit v. Cardiologist
MICROSOFT CORP: Tenn. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement

NEW YORK: City, State Agree to Pay Withheld SSI Benefits
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Graniteville Personal Injury Claims
NORTEL NETWORKS: $2.45B Settlement Pact with Shareholders Okayed
NORTH CAROLINA: Review Urged for Predatory Lending Case Opinion
OHIO: Prisoner-Release Request in Overcrowding Suit Challenged

PRESTIGE BRANDS: Court Sets 2007 Conference for Shareholder Suit
SERVICE CORP: Faces Pa. Suit Over Workers' Back Wages, Overtime
SQUARE D: Recalls Switches for Shock, Electrocution Hazard
TALK AMERICA: Faces Del., Pa. Suits Over Cavalier Telephone Deal
TALK AMERICA: Faces Identical Shareholder Litigation in Pa.

TEMASEK HOLDING: FSP-BUMN to File Constitution Violation Suit
VIXEL CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Christmas Mugs Due to Choking Hazard


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Brower Piven Announces Fla. Stock Suit Filing
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Files Stock Fraud Suit in Va.
TOP TANKERS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ARCELOR MITTAL: Kazakh Subsidiary Faces Over Coalmine Accident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arcelor Mittal was named as a defendant in a purported class
action filed in Kazakhstan over the deaths of several miners due
to an explosion at the company's Lenin coalmine, The Interfax-
Kazakhstan news agency reported, citing a lawyer for the
victims.

Yevgeny Tankov, a lawyer for the relatives of the deceased was
quoted as saying, "A class action has been filed in Karaganda.  
The plaintiffs demand compensation for moral damage."

According to Mr. Tankov, the widows and mothers of seven of the
41 men killed in September mine blast were each seeking $55,000
(7 million tenge).

As per reports, this amount would be in addition to $20,000 that
Arcelor Mittal promised in late November to pay the families of
victims of all accidents between 2005 and 2006 on mines owned on
sites owned by the company's Kazakh subsidiary, Mittal Steel
Temirtau.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Calif. Consolidated Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Technologies, Inc., an acquisition of Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., (AMD) is a defendant in the consolidated consumer
fraud class action, "In Re: ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

In February and March 2006, two consumer class actions were
filed against ATI and three of its subsidiaries.  The complaints
allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics cards as being
"HDCP ready" when they were not, and on that basis alleged
violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of
express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and
unjust enrichment.

On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.  On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint, alleging violations of California's consumer
protection laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment.

On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class action that was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
in May 2006 alleging claims that are substantially the same was
transferred to the Northern District of California, and on July
31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the consolidated
action pending in the Northern District of California.  

ATI filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on Aug. 7,
2006, according to AMD, Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Oct. 1, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-01303-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with
referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alexander E. Barnett of Attorney at Law, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-362-5770, Fax: 917-591-5227, E-mail:
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com;

     (2) David C. Parisi of Parisi & Havens, LLP, 15233
         Valleyheart Drive, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403, Phone: 818-
         990-1299, Fax: 818-501-7852, E-mail: dcparisi@msn.com;

     (3) Alan Himmelfarb of Law Offices of Himmelfarb &
         Himmelfarb, 2757 Leonis Blvd., Vernon, CA 90058, Phone:
         323-585-8696, E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net; and

     (4) Scott A. Kamber, 19 Fulton Street, Suite 400, New York,
         NY 10038, USA, Phone: 877-773-5469, Fax: 212-202-6364,
         E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Jeffrey S. Facter of Shearman &
Sterling, LLP, 525 Market Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA
94105, Phone: 415-616-1100, Fax: 415-616-1199, E-mail: E-mail:
jfacter@shearman.com.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Technologies, Inc., an acquisition of Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., was named as a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to AMD, Inc.'s Nov.
9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Oct. 1, 2006.

In August and September 2005, five class actions were filed
against ATI and certain of its directors and officers on behalf
of shareholders who purchased ATI common shares between Oct. 7,
2004 and on or about June 23, 2005.  

The claims allege that ATI and certain of its directors and
officers violated U.S. securities laws by failing to disclose
material facts and making statements that contained
misrepresentations about its business and future outlook.  

It is alleged that as a result of the failure to disclose
material facts and the alleged misrepresentations, ATI's common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices until the stock
price dropped on the news of ATI's third quarter results in June
2005.  

The claims further allege that while in possession of material
undisclosed information, certain of ATI's directors and officers
sold a portion of their common shares at inflated prices.  

On May 23, 2006, the court dismissed one of the five actions
because the plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint.
The remaining four lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, and on Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated suit is "Glass v. ATI Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04414-TON," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Thomas N. Oneill, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert P. Frutkin of The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross.
         P.C., 450 John Wanamaker Bldg., Juniper & Market Sts.,
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-561-3600, Fax: 215-
         561-3000, E-mail: rpf@bernardmgross.com; and

     (2) Trig Randall Smith of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         TrigS@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel Segal of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, One
         Logan Square, 27TH FL., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933,
         Phone: 215-568-6200, E-mail: dsegal@hangley.com; and

    (ii) Brian H. Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Ave., New York, NY 10022-6069, Phone: 212-848-4000, E-
         mail:, E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com.


BABYSWEDE LLC: Recalls Feeding Spoons Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
BabySwede LLC, of Cleveland, Ohio, in cooperation with U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 33,000
units of BABYBJTRN feeding spoons.

The company said after extended use, the soft plastic tip on the
feeding spoon can loosen and break off, posing a choking hazard
to young children.

No incidents have been reported in the United States.  BabySwede
has received 11 reports of the plastic loosening on the spoons
in other countries.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled feeding spoons were sold under the brand name
"BABYBJTRN," which is printed along the front side of the
spoon's handle.  The spoons were sold in one package containing
two spoons.  The spoons are about 6-1/2 inches in length, with a
soft, flexible plastic tip sold in two color combinations:
blue/red or green/yellow.

These feeding spoons were manufactured in Sweden and are being
sold at specialty juvenile product stores, catalogs and Internet
sites from January 2001 through November 2006 for about $9.

Picture of the recalled feeding spoons:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07066.html

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
feeding spoons and contact BabySwede LLC to receive a refund or
replacement spoons.

For more information, contact BabySwede LLC toll-free at (866)
424-0200 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.babyswede.com.


COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS: Faces Possible Legal Action Over Black Soot
----------------------------------------------------------------
A local councilor in the east end of Hamilton is urging any
resident affected by the black soot to take part in a class
action/mass tort against Columbian Chemicals Canada Ltd.

According to Sam Merulla, representing Ward 4, evidence is
mounting against the company, which points to it being the
source of the black soot that has fallen onto residents' homes
over the last four months.

A report by The Stoney Creek News says that Mr. Merulla is
claiming that a "superior means" of chemical testing has
revealed the black soot that has repeatedly fallen onto local
houses in the Parkdale area is carbon black.

Mr. Merulla pointed out that the only company in the area that
produces carbon black is Columbian Chemicals on Parkdale Avenue.  
The company specifically produces carbon black additives for
rubber, plastic and liquid products.

However, company officials have repeatedly stated it is not the
source of the black soot.

The legal action has been taken by Will Barristers from Toronto
and a law firm from Alabama.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sam Merulla, Phone: (905) 546-4512, E-mail:
         smerulla@hamilton.ca; and

     (2) Will Barristers, Box 96, 3005-401 Bay St., Toronto, ON
         M5H 2Y4, Phone: 416-360-1194 and 800-661-7606, Fax:
         416-360-8469, E-mail: info@willbarristers.com, Web
         site: http://www.willbarristers.com.


DYNCORP INT'L: Continues to Face D.C. Suit Over "Plan Colombia"
--------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International, LLC, continues to be named defendant in a
class action, filed by about 10,000 citizens of Ecuador seeking
$100 million in damages and penalties, alleging that the
company's drug-crop eradication in neighboring Colombia damaged
the plaintiffs' health and property, the Dallas Morning News
reports.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Ecuadorian Indians filed the suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging personal
injury, property damage and wrongful death as a consequence of
the spraying of narcotic crops along the Colombian border
adjacent to Ecuador, which is also known as "Plan Colombia,"
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006).

They allege that the Virginia-based company was contracted to
carry out fumigation of illicit crops in neighboring Colombia,
recklessly sprayed their homes and farms, causing illnesses and
deaths, and destroying food crops.

The terms of the contract with the U.S. State Department,
provide that the State Department will indemnify the company
against all third-party claims and liabilities arising out of
the contract that are not otherwise covered by insurance,
subject to certain specified funding ceilings.

The company is also entitled to indemnification by CSC in
connection with this lawsuit, subject to certain limitations.  
In addition, the company expects to be protected by the
government contractor immunity defense.

In addition to charging the company with violating the Alien
Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign citizens to sue U.S.
companies in courts here over acts committed abroad, the
complaint also alleges the company breached the U.S. Torture
Victim Protection Act, among others.

The complaint also calls into question Plan Colombia, the U.S.-
funded strategy to combat narcotics launched in 2005 by
Colombian President Andres Pastrana.

Plan Colombia involves $7.5 billion for social and economic
development and $1.3 billion, pledged by the United States,
mostly for military equipment and training, and aerial
fumigation of illicit coca, marijuana, and poppy crops.

Colombian politicians and officials have said that although they
favor eradicating narcotics crops, a new strategy is needed
because fumigation with the herbicide glyphosate is causing
illness, destroying pastures and food crops, poisoning
livestock, and displacing thousands of small farmers (Inter
Press Service, September 21, 2002).

In March and July 2002, Colombian legislators and governors went
to Washington and told reporters that fumigation was not hurting
the narcotics industry but severely harming poor farming
families. They said planes spraying the crops blanket entire
communities with the herbicide and cause poor farmers to suffer
illnesses and skin problems.

Indigenous leaders in Colombia have also voiced opposition to
the spraying.  Emperatriz Cahuache, president of the
Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon,
showed reporters a map illustrating how the areas of coca and
marijuana cultivation overlaps with indigenous territories and
the areas that have been fumigated.

Proponents of Plan Colombia said glyphosate, marketed by the
U.S.-based Monsanto company under the trade name Roundup, is as
safe as salt.  Critics countered that directions on glyphosate
labels warn users not to allow the product to come into contact
with people or water sources.

Cristobal Bonifaz, a Massachusetts-based attorney originally
from Ecuador, is representing his fellow Ecuadorians in the
case.  Mr. Bonifaz said he became aware of the alleged
fumigation in Ecuador after communication with his clients in
the lawsuit against the oil company.

The suit is "Wood v. Dyncorp et. al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01616-
CKK, " filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Representing defendants are Kevin Patrick Farrell, Yoora Pak and
Robert Bruce Wallace all of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP, 1341 G Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-
3105, Phone: (202) 626-7660 or (202) 626-7667, Fax: (202) 628-
3606, E-mail: kevin.farrell@wilsonelser.com or
yoora.pak@wilsonelser.com or wallacer@wemed.com.

Representing plaintiffs are Nathan I. Finkelstein and Robert Jay
Goldman both of Finkelstein & Horvitz PC, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue,
Suite 400 East, Bethesda, MD 20814, Phone: (301) 951-8400, Fax:
(301) 951-8401, E-mail: natf@fandhlaw.com or
rgoldman@fandhlaw.com.


HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Christmas Lights for Shock, Fire Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 2.3 million Hobby Lobby Christmas light sets.

The company said the lights have undersized wires, which can
separate from the plugs and/or the light sockets, posing an
electric shock and fire hazard to consumers.

CPSC has received one report of a minor shock when a consumer
touched a light string. Hobby Lobby has received one report of
melting wires.

The light sets listed in the chart below are included in the
recall:

Bulb Color       Wire Color    Item #      E #        Retail
    
     100 Count Indoor/Outdoor Super Bright Mini Light Set

Multi            Green         CUL11001    E-214285   $2.47
Clear            Green         CUL11000    E-124315   $2.47
Clear            Green         CUL11000    E-65692    $2.47
Clear            White         CUL1100A    E-214285   $2.47
Red              Green         CUL11003    E-214285   $2.47
Blue             Green         CUL11004    E-214285   $2.47
Green            White         CUL1100J    E-214285   $2.47
Multi            White         CUL1100J    E-214285   $2.47
Blue             White         CUL1100J    E-214285   $2.47
Red              White         CUL1100J    E-214285   $2.47
Green            Green         CUL11005    E-214285   $2.47
  
50 Count Classic Colors Indoor Super Bright Mini Light Set

Frost White      Green         CUL05200    E-124315   $2.99
Royal Purple     Green         CUL05203    E-124315   $2.99
Angelic Gold     Green         CUL05204    E-124315   $2.99
Pink             Green         CUL05205    E-124315   $2.99
Red/Green/White  Green         CUL05206    E-124315   $2.99
  
     150 Count Indoor/Outdoor Ribbon Style Net Light Set

Multi            Green         CUL15519    E-214285    $6.99
Clear            Green         CUL15519    E-214285    $6.99
  
   100 Count Outdoor/Indoor Miniature Trunk Net Light Set

Clear            Green         CUL15530    E-214285     $5.99
Multi            Green         CUL15531    E-214285     $5.99
Red              Green         CUL15533    E-214285     $5.99
Green            Green         CUL15535    E-214285     $5.99
  
   300 Count Indoor/Outdoor Hang-Straight Icicle Light Set

Multi            White         CUL3003B    E-214285     $9.99
Blue             White         CUL3003E    E-214285     $9.99
Clear            White         CUL3103A    E-214285     $9.99
Clear            Green         CUL31030    E-214285     $9.99

These Christmas light sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Hobby Lobby stores nationwide from June 2006
through early December 2006 for between $2.50 and $10.

Pictures of the recalled Christmas light sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07055a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07055b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the lights immediately and
return them to the nearest Hobby Lobby store to receive a Hobby
Lobby exchange card.

For more information, contact the Hobby Lobby Call Center at
(800) 326-7931 anytime, or log on to the firm's Web site:
http://www.hobbylobby.com.


HSBC FINANCE: Final Discovery in Ill. Stock Set for Jan. 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final discovery cut-off in the consolidated securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against HSBC Finance Corp. and other
defendants has been set for Jan. 31, 2007.

In August 2002, the company restated previously reported
consolidated financial statements.  The restatement related to
certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card
relationships and a third party marketing agreement, which were
entered into between 1992 and 1999.  All were part of the
company's Credit Card Services segment.

In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP,
the company treated payments made in connection with these
agreements as prepaid assets and amortized them in accordance
with the underlying economics of the agreements.

Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its
view, these payments should have either been charged against
earnings at the time they were made or amortized over a shorter
period of time.

The restatement resulted in a $155.8 million, after-tax,
retroactive reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998.  As
a result of the restatement, and other corporate events,
including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 50 states and the
District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices,
HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and
former auditors, have been involved in various legal
proceedings, some of which purport to be class actions.

A number of these actions allege violations of federal
securities laws, were filed between August and October 2002, and
seek to recover damages in respect of allegedly false and
misleading statements about the company's common stock.

These legal actions have been consolidated into a single
purported class action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc.,
et al., No. 02 C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)."  A
consolidated and amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2003.

On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
10 and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The parties stipulated that plaintiffs will not seek to certify
a class with respect to the claims brought under Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in this action or
otherwise.

The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 23,
1997 and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the company's sales and
lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement referred
to above, the restatement and the HSBC merger.

The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., fails to specify the amount of damages
sought.

In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.  On March 19, 2004, the court granted
in part, and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.  The court also
dismissed certain claims alleging strict liability for alleged
misrepresentation of material facts based on statute of
limitations grounds.

The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants
essentially allege the defendants knowingly made a false
statement of a material fact in conjunction with the purchase or
sale of securities, that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on
such statement, the false statement(s) caused the plaintiffs'
damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable
for those alleged statements.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court also dismissed all alleged Section
10 claims that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the
class period by 22 months.  

The final discovery cut-off has been set for Jan. 31, 2007,
according to the company's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

Separately, one of the defendants, Arthur Andersen, entered into
a settlement of the claims against Andersen.  This settlement
received court approval in April 2006.

The suit is "Jaffe v. Household Intl Inc, et al., case no. 1:02-
cv-05893," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Gary L. Specks, Kaplan, Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100, Chicago,
IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-1584.


ILLINOIS: Stone Park Prostitution Sting Triggers Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
As many as 900 men have been wrongly arrested in prostitution
stings by Stone Park police, according to a amended federal
class action against the City of Stone Park, Illinois, The
Chicago Tribune reports.

The amended lawsuit, which is now seeking class-action status,
alleges that the city and its police department have trapped
innocent men for solicitation of a prostitute in a "money-making
scheme" that and has generated more than half a million dollars
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006).

The alleged scheme involved an undercover officer, attempting to
solicit and ensnare customers who come to use the Blue Dolphin
Car Wash, which is the site of the alleged fraudulent sting
operation.  

According to police misconduct attorney Blake Horwitz, who
represents 12 plaintiffs, typically, a man would pull into the
car wash and an undercover female officer would approach, saying
"I'll do anything" and "how much would you give me for," after
an exchange lasting no more than 30 seconds the innocent car
wash customers rebuff the Stone Park officer and then drive off.  

Afterwards, Mr. Horwitz recounts, the car wash customer is then
pulled over by police officers that impound the cars to the tune
of $500 plus storage fees.  Later the car wash customer gets a
ticket for solicitation and is summoned to a quasi-criminal
hearing.

Mr. Horwitz said that hopefully the class action would get the
Stone Park police to stop their "corrupt tactics" and persuade
more victims to come forward.  

Currently, the class action names 12 plaintiffs who purport to
file the suit on behalf of themselves and hundreds of other men
who may have been falsely accused in the last four years,
according to Mr. Horwitz.  

In general, the suit alleges that despite the criminal
connotations of the charges, the cases were handled as
administrative hearings, in violation of the men's rights.

The suit also alleges the defendants were not provided lawyers
and only had to be proved guilty by a preponderance of the
evidence, rather than the tougher criminal court standard of
"beyond a reasonable doubt."  It states police collected $600 in
penalties and auto-impound fees in each case.

Responding to the allegations, William Kurnik, an attorney for
the village police denied any misconduct.  He maintains that the
operations were part of a crime fighting effort. "This has been
an operation that has been successful in reducing prostitution
on Mannheim Road," Mr. Kurnik said.

Mr. Horwitz though claims that police officers told the men it
would be their word against the undercover officer's.  According
to the complaint, several of them were found not guilty, others
fought the charges but were found guilty, while several others
pleaded guilty under pressure that their names would be
published in a local paper if they were found guilty after
fighting the charges.

However, Mr. Kurnik insists there was no entrapment, that the
undercover officer never raised the issue of sex first, and the
men arrested always were the ones who offered to pay.  He
contends that the men were provided due process and many pleaded
guilty.

Mr. Horwitz hopes that the class action would get the Stone Park
police to stop their "corrupt tactics" and persuade more victims
to come forward.  

For more details, contact Blake Horwitz or Jasmyn Smith of the
Law Offices of Blake Horwitz, Phone: 312-616-4433 or (cell) 773-
527-9674, E-mail: lobh@att.net.


IOWA: Arguments Heard in Suit Over Davenport's Traffic Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling is expected early next year from the Scott County
District Court in Iowa with regards to a purported class action
over whether the city of Davenport's automated camera-ticketing
system has violated the rights of thousands of motorists, The
Associated Press reports.

Last Dec. 15, 2006, Judge Gary McKenrick heard arguments from
two attorneys claiming that the system contradicts state traffic
laws and serves as an unlawful moneymaking machine for the city.

Dick Davidson, a Davenport-based attorney, told the judge that
state law governs motor vehicles.  He pointed out that cities
are not permitted, with a few listed exceptions, to adopt a city
ordinance that changes or does something different than that
authorized by the state vehicle code.

Mr. Davidson and Cathy Cartee are representing Monique Rhoden of
Rock Island, Illinois, in what they would like to become a class
action for thousands of drivers who have received tickets
courtesy of Davenport's traffic cameras.  

Ms. Rhoden received a ticket from a camera while driving through
Davenport, specifically at the intersection of Kimberly Road and
Harrison Ford.

The suit claims that the cameras violate state laws.  It, thus
seeks class-action status on behalf of thousands of people who
have received similar citations.  The suit also seeks for the
return of speeding fines previously collected (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 7, 2006).

The city has installed four red light cameras and four speed
cameras at various spots around Davenport.  The cameras have
netted the city a significant amount of money, including about
$250,000 in the last fiscal year.

Mr. Davidson though contends that the program has also created a
"morass" of non-uniform local traffic laws that the state has
long since prohibited cities from enacting.

Unlike a speeding or red light ticket issued by a law
enforcement officer, the camera-generated citations are
considered a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.  

Mr. Davidson contends that the system contradicting, since state
law requires criminal citations be issued to people who speed or
run a red light.  He along Ms. Cartee also contends that the
city is violating state law by issuing the tickets to the
vehicles' owners instead of the drivers.

Despite their assertions, Assistant City Attorney Chris Jackson
told Judge McKenrick that state statutes allow the city to adopt
additional traffic regulations if those regulations do not
contradict state law.  

Mr. Jackson countered that the camera system and city code do
not conflict with the state vehicle code and thus he asked for
the dismissal of the case.  

After hearing both sides' positions on the matter, the judge has
about 60 days to issue his opinion.

For more details, contact Dick Davidson, 224 18th Street, Suite
500, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (Rock Island Co.), Phone: 309-
786-1600, Fax: 309-786-1794.


KERR-MCGEE CORP: Continues to Face Contamination Suit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerr-McGee Corp., now Tronox, Inc., is a defendant in a
purported federal class action over toxic chemicals from a wood
treatment plant that have allegedly caused deaths, cancers and
birth defects in local residents living in nearby houses.

One of those involved in the suit, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is June Pryor Avance,
who believes that pollution from the company's plant is
responsible for her husband's death from cancer, according to a
report by The Texarkana Gazette.

Ms. Avance has lived close to the site since 1971, according to
the suit, which was filed in September 2004.  Attorney Glenn
McGovern represents her in the class action.

A 500-acre piece of land at 2513 Buchanan Road, owned by Kerr-
McGee and its predecessors, was the site of a large wood
treatment plant from 1902 to 2003.  

It produced items like telephone poles and railroad crossties,
which are pressure treated with creosote, known to contain
carcinogenic substances.

Tronox, formerly Kerr-McGee until March 2006, denies the
allegations, saying most of the chemical in the now closed plant
exist in levels deemed acceptable by governmental agencies,
according to company attorney Jennifer Doan.

Other potentially hazardous chemicals were used off and on
during the plant's operation and the suit claims pollution of
air, soil and water from these chemicals and those in creosote
might have made people sick.

The suit alleges Kerr-McGee was well aware of the potential
dangers of the chemicals as it improperly managed poisonous
waste to save time and money.

It also alleges floods often washed contaminated soil and water
from the plant on the lawns of houses within close proximity of
it in addition to dust settling on the ground on dry, windy
days.

The suit is "Avance et al v. Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC, Case No.
5:04-cv-00209-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with referral
to Judge Caroline Craven.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Glenn C. McGovern, Suite 102, 826 Focis St., Metairie,
         LA 70005, Phone: 1-800-721-3992, (504) 831-1615, and
         (504) 908-1404, Fax: (504) 832-2375, E-mail:
         gcmcg@bellsouth.net, Web site:
         http://www.glennmcgovern.com;and

     (2) John Maurice Futrell of Lee Futrell & Perles, 201 St.,
         Charles Ave., Suite 2409, New Orleans, LA 70170, Phone:
         504-569-1725, Fax: 15045691726, E-mail:
         jfutrell@leefutrell.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Lana K. Alcorn of Lightfoot Franklin & White, 400 20th
         Street North, Birmingham, Al 35203, Phone: 205-581-
         1514, Fax: 205-581-0799, E-mail: lalcorn@lfwlaw.com;
         and

    (ii) Kristie Ann Wright of Haltom and Doan, LLP, 6500 North
         Summerhill Road, Crown Executive Center, Suite 1 A,
         P.O. Box 6227, Texarkana, Tx 75505, Phone: 903/255-
         1000, Fax: 903/255-0800, E-mail:
         kwright@haltomdoan.com.


LEEGIN CREATIVE: Still Faces Brighton Price-Fixing Suit in Kans.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. remains a defendant in a
class action filed in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court in
Sedgwick County, Kansas over alleged price-fixing for Brighton
brand fashion accessories, The Wichita Eagle reports.

The lawsuit, filed by Wichita resident Lindsay Hall, contends
that thousands of Kansas women who bought Brighton products in
the past three years claim they have paid the same prices for
Brighton brand purses, bracelets and watches, no matter where
they shop, which is an illegal form of price-fixing.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who have in the period from Jan. 1, 1997, or to the date of
trial, purchased any Birghton product from any Brighton
retailer.

Brighton bracelets typically range from about $30 to $60,
necklaces from about $40 to $80, and leather handbags from about
$150 to $350.

Wichita lawyer Robert Coykendall said Brighton's deal with
boutique stores to sell products at a set price oversteps the
law.

"The rules have been very clear since 1911...about how far a
manufacturer can go," Mr. Coykendall said. "Most manufacturers
are willing to stay on the right side of the line. But Brighton
ran over the line into written price-fixing contracts, and
that's so clearly over the line under existing law."

Leegin, Brighton's manufacturer, hopes to change existing law.
It says setting strict prices doesn't stifle competition or
restrain trade, which was the aim of antitrust laws passed in
the 19th century.

"You can go to Wal-Mart, you can go to Neiman Marcus and Saks,
anywhere, and buy a purse in any kind of price range," said Jeff
Jordan, a Wichita lawyer defending Brighton. "The consumer
doesn't have to buy a Brighton purse."

Leegin argues that not every case of "minimum pricing
maintenance" slows trade or thwarts competition.

"The consumer can go buy a purse for less," Mr. Jordan said.
"It's the market, and in this market Brighton is a very small
player in women's accessories."

The case heading to the U.S. Supreme Court this spring is
expected to impact more than the price of some purses, according
to the report.  

Organizations of manufacturers, securities brokers and the
wireless communications industry all are standing behind
Brighton. Each group intends on providing legal briefs to the
Supreme Court.

In ruling for the Colgate Co. in 1919, the court said
manufacturers could choose which retailers they did business
with, as part of a unilateral policy. But it can't be a mutual
agreement -- that would be something akin to conspiracy.

"It doesn't make much sense, and hopefully that's something the
Supreme Court will clarify when they look at this case," Jordan
said.

But the suit contends that Leegin went beyond just making
policy.  Court documents show Leegin asked retailers to "agree"
to its pricing policy and to cooperate in holding the prices,
not advertising prices, and not putting Brighton items on sale.
Some received special treatment and merchandise by "pledging" to
sell Brighton at the manufacturer's suggested retail price
(MSRP) "every day, 365 days a year."

The Sherman Act, passed in 1890, prohibits manufacturers and
distributors from engaging in "contract, combination or
conspiracy" to set prices.

On the other side, Federal Trade Commission leaders have
publicly opposed tinkering with minimum pricing laws.

Plaintiff prays that the court:

     -- enter an order certifying this action as a class action;
     -- enter judgment against the defendant and in favor of the
        class in the amount of their damages, which award should
        equal three times the full consideration paid by the
        plaintiff class for the price-fixed goods, with  
        prejudgment interest at the legal rate of interest; and
     -- establish, and administer the distribution of, the
        judgment fund for the benefit of the plaintiff and class
        members.

Copies of the Memorandum in Support of Defendant and the
complaint are available free of charge at:
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?17a3

The suit is "Hall et al. v. Leegin Creative Leather Products,
Inc., Case No. 04 CV 1668," filed in the Eighteenth Judicial
District Court for Sedgwick County, Kansas.

Representing plaintiffs are Robert W. Coykendall and Tim J.
Moore both of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, 200 West
Douglas, 4th Floor, Wichita, Kansas 67202-3084, Phone: (316)
262-2671.

Representing defendant is Jeffery A. Jordan of Foulston Siefkin
LLP, 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100, Wichita, KS 67206-
4466, Phone: (316) 291-9513, Fax: (866) 450-2992.


LIFETIME BRANDS: Recalls Slicers, Corers for Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Brands Inc., of Westbury, New York, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
207,000 units of Farberware Classic Series Fruit Slicers and
Corers.

The company said the metal blade can separate from the plastic
handle during use, resulting in cuts to consumer's hands and
fingers.

Lifetime Brands has received 34 reports of the blade separating
from the handle, including nine reports of cuts to consumers'
hands and fingers.

The recalled product is the Farberware Classic Series Fruit
Slicer and Corer with model number 78350.  The model number is
written on the packaging.  The fruit slicer/corer is an eight-
section round metal blade encircled in hard black plastic with
two handles.  "FARBERWARE" is printed on the top of the handle.

The recalled fruit slicers and corers were manufactured in China
and are being sold at grocery, hardware, discount and other
retail stores nationwide from January1999 through October 2006
for about $4.

Picture of the recalled slicer and corer:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07065.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these fruit slicer/corers
immediately and return them to Lifetime Brands Inc. for a
refund.

For additional information, contact Lifetime Brands Inc. at
toll-free (888) 568-1533 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or E-mail: fruitslicer@lifetimebrands.com.


LOUISIANA: Hospital Mulls Settlement for Suit v. Cardiologist
-------------------------------------------------------------
Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center in Louisiana is
considering a multi-million dollar payout in a bid to settle a
purported class action involving Dr. Mehmood Patel, a local
cardiologist, KLFY reports.

Dr. Patel, who has had his medical license restricted by the
state Board of Medical Examiners and lost practice privileges,
is accused of performing unnecessary heart procedures at the
hospital.

The hospital is mulling over the possibility of making a $7.3
million payment to Dr. Patel's patients who filed claims against
the doctor and the facilities where he worked.

Attorney Jim Ryan on behalf of Lafayette resident John Touchet
filed one of those lawsuits against Dr. Patel, which also names
the hospital as a defendant (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3,
2004).

Mr. Touchet alleges that Dr. Patel performed unnecessary
cardiovascular work on him in 1999 and 2000.  The work included
angioplasty, a technique used to widen narrow arteries, and the
placement of stents, mesh tubes used to keep arteries open.

According Mr. Ryan, who works with one of two law firms that
have formed what they dub the Patel Litigation Group, there will
be other lawsuits, but at this point they are uncertain and they
don't know how many or whether they will seek a class action.  

Mr. Ryan along with fellow lawyers in the suit are alleging that
Dr. Patel is the subject of a federal investigation by the U.S.
Attorneys Office for performing and charging for unnecessary
medical procedures.

The suit also names Lafayette General Medical Center and Our
Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center as defendants, alleging
the hospitals were negligent for allowing Dr. Patel to perform
medical work in their facilities.

For more details, contact James G. Ryan of Ryan Law Firm, 820
IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
Phone: (612) 338-3872, Fax: (612) 338-3874, Web site:
http://www.ryanlawfirm.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Tenn. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Department of Education will distribute a total of
$15,315,586.25 in software vouchers to local school systems as a
result of a settlement in an antitrust class action against
Microsoft Corp., The WBIR.com reports.

The class action suit alleged the company used unlawful trade
practices to maintain a monopoly and overcharge Tennessee
consumers.

In essence, Tennessee school systems will get vouchers for
Microsoft software, which according to the districts average
daily membership (ADM) at the end of the 2005-06 school year,
will amount to about $16.40 for each student.

According to school officials, local administrators may use
software vouchers for current or future Microsoft operating
system software such as Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office
applications and encyclopedia software and certain non-Microsoft
software.

Attorneys James Stranch and Ted Carey handled Tennessee's case,
one of the first to be filed.

The system allocations range from Carroll County's $155.12 to
$1.9 million for Memphis schools.  Details on the allocations
are available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?17ae

For more details, contact James G. Stranch III of Branstetter
Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, 227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor,
Nashville, TN 37201-1631, Phone: (615) 254-8801, Fax: (615) 255-
5419.


NEW YORK: City, State Agree to Pay Withheld SSI Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
New York City and State officials agreed to distribute millions
of dollars in retroactive benefits to settle the class action,
"Harris v. Eggleston," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, The New York Times
reports.

With assistance from the Urban Justice Center (UJC), disabled
New Yorkers who improperly lost their food stamps when they were
transferred from welfare to the federal disability rolls filed
the suit on April 1, 2002.  Barbara Harris, Maria Ojeda, William
Brown, and Barbara Marroquin are the named plaintiffs.

The suit challenged the city's and state's practice of wrongly
withholding millions of dollars of food stamps from thousands of
eligible people with disabilities, and demanding the city and
state find and reimburse the people whose food stamps were
erroneously terminated.  

Many people on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the federal
benefit for poor people who are too disabled to work, are
categorically eligible to receive food stamps.  

Yet, under the state's supervision, the city has used a computer
system that automatically terminates the food stamps of welfare
recipients who prove they are too disabled to work and begin
receiving SSI.

Ultimately, the settlement must still be approved of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, which ultimately pays for the
benefits.

Roughly 100,000 New Yorkers could be eligible to receive food
stamp coupons to replace benefits denied to them erroneously for
any period since 1999.  Bill Lienhard, a lawyer for UJC
estimated that payouts for benefits due would amount to at least
$4.3 million.

According to a letter describing the settlement, the all parties
"agreed on a plan to restore food stamps using standard amounts
for certain categories of class members and abbreviated
application procedures."  The letter was sent recently to the
judge presiding over the case and was agreed to by the city,
state, and plaintiffs.

The suit is "Harris, et al v. Eggleston, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-02498-RMB-KNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman with
referral to Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David F. Dobbins, Sr. of Patterson, Belknap, Webb &
         Tyler, LLP, 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10036, Phone: (212) 336-2800, Fax: (212) 336-2829, E-
         mail: dfdobbins@pbwt.com; and

     (2) William G. Lienhard of Urban Justice Center, 666
         Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10012, Phone: 646-
         602-5667, Fax: 212-533-4598, E-mail:
         wlienhard@urbanjustice.org.

Representing the defendants is Robert Lewis Kraft, Office of the
Attorney General, New York State, 120 Broadway, New York, NY
10271, Phone: 212-416-8632, Fax: 212-416-6075, E-mail:
robert.kraft@oag.state.ny.us.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Graniteville Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. asked the U.S. District Court for the
District of Southern Carolina to approve an agreement for a
class settlement for personal injury claims associated with the
company's Jan. 6, 2005, derailment in Graniteville, South
Carolina.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,
     -- Norfolk Southern Corp.,
     -- Olin Corp.,
     -- Union Tank Car Co.,
     -- Benjimin Aiken,
     -- Mike Ford,
     -- James Thornton, and
     -- Jimmy Ray Thornton.

The settlement agreement is for claims that were not part of a
previous class settlement approved last year covering property
damage, evacuation expenses and losses, and minor personal
injuries.

If approved, the agreement would provide varying levels of
compensation for people who were injured and who received
medical treatment or were hospitalized as a result of the
derailment and subsequent release of chlorine.

Norfolk, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern s Norfolk Southern
Railway subsidiary operates around 21,200 route miles in 22
states, the District of Columbia and Ontario, Canada.

The company operates the most extensive intermodal network in
the East and is North America's largest rail carrier of metals
and automotive products.

The suit is "In Re Graniteville Cases, Case No. 1:06-mn-06000-
MBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina under Judge Margaret B. Seymour.

Representing defendants are:
     
     (1) Mark G. Arnold of Husch and Eppenberger, 190 Carondelet
         Plaza, Suite 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441, Phone: 314-
         480-1500, E-mail: mark.arnold@husch.com;

     (2) W. Howard Boyd, Jr. of Gallivan White and Boyd, PO Box
         10589, Greenville, SC 29603, Phone: 864-271-9580, Fax:
         864-271-7502, E-mail: hboyd@gwblawfirm.com;

     (3) Karen Aldridge Crawford of Nelson Mullins Riley and
         Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone:
         803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail:
         karen.crawford@nelsonmullins.com;

     (4) Gray Thomas Culbreath of Collins and Lacy, PO Box 12487

         Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-256-2660, Fax: 803-771-
         4484, E-mail: gculbreath@collinsandlacy.com;

     (5) John Arthur Davison of Fulcher Hagler Reed Hanks and
         Harper, PO Box 1477, Augusta, GA 30903-1477, Phone:
         706-724-0171, Fax: 706-724-4573, E-mail:
         adavison@fulcherlaw.com;

     (6) Paul A. Dominick of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard and
         Robinson, PO Box 486, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-
         577-9440, Fax: 843-720-1777, E-mail:
         pdominick@nexsenpruet.com;

     (7) John Carson Duffey of Stuart and Branigin, PO Box 1010,
         Lafayette, IN 47902, Phone: 765-423-1561, E-mail:
         jcd@stuartlaw.com; and

     (8) Alan B. Hoffman of Husch and Eppenberger, 190
         Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441,
         Phone: 314-480-1500, E-mail: alan.hoffman@husch.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles H. Baumberger of Rossman Baumberger Reboso and
         Spier, Courthouse Tower, 44 W Flager Street, Suite
         2300, Miami, FL 33130-1808, Phone: 1-800-775-6511;

     (2) DeAndrea Gist Benjamin and Donald Gist both of The Gist
         Law Firm, 4400 N Main Street, Columbia, SC 29201,
         Phone: 803-771-8007, Fax: 803-771-0063, E-mail:
         federalfiling@gistlawfirm.com;

     (3) Ziva P. Bruckner of Capers Dunbar Sanders and Bruckner,
         1500 Wachovia Bank Building, 669 Broad St., Augusta, GA
         30901-1454, Phone: 706-722-7542, Fax: 706-724-7776, E-
         mail: bziva@hotmail.com;

     (4) James David Butler of Richardson Patrick Westbrook and
         Brickman, PO Box 1368, Barnwell, SC 29812, Phone: 803-
         259-9900, Fax: 803-541-9625, E-mail: dbutler@rpwb.com;

     (5) Mary Theresa Campbell, 149 Chesterfield Street, South
         Aiken, SC 29801, Phone: 803-642-4450, Fax: 803-642-
         4459, E-mail: mcampbellpa@bellsouth.net;

     (6) Mark Dale Chappell of Chappell and Smith, PO Box 12330,
         Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-929-3600, Fax: 803-929-
         3604, E-mail: mchappell@chappellsmitharden.com;

     (7) Ben F. Easterlin, IV of King and Spalding, 1180
         Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-572-
         2430, E-mail: beasterlin@kslaw.com;

     (8) Daniel S. Haltiwanger of Richardson Patrick Westbrook
         and Brickman, PO Box 1368, Barnwell, SC 29812, Phone:
         803-259-9900, Fax: 678-731-1532, E-mail:
         dhaltiwanger@rpwb.com; and

     (9) John W. Harte, Jr., of The John W Harte Law Offices, PO
         Drawer 586, Aiken, SC 29802, Phone: 803-648-3900, Fax:
         803-642-2778, E-mail: harteaiken@aol.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: $2.45B Settlement Pact with Shareholders Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Loretta Preska in
Manhattan have approved Nortel Networks Corp.'s $2.45 billion
settlement with its shareholders, Martha Graybow writes for
Reuters.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the company will pay
$575 million in cash and issue shares equal to about 14.5% of
its current outstanding equity, worth more than $1.64 billion
based on Nortel's current stock value.

In addition, the settlement includes $228.5 million in payments
from the company's insurers and half of any money that the
company gets in its lawsuits against former CEO Frank Dunn and
other fired senior officers related to the accounting fiasco.

Reuters reports that the company and its shareholders had agreed
to stop the litigation, which includes two separate class-action
securities fraud suits brought by different shareholder groups,
as a result from an accounting scandal.  The pact still needs
approval by various Canadian courts.

According to the source, the shareholders said that in the
lawsuits, they lost money because the company revised its
financial outlook in 2001 and restated results from 2001 to 2003
to correct accounting errors.

Citing company spokesman Jay Barta, Reuters relates that Nortel
is very pleased with the progress of the suit settlement.

                          About Nortel

Headquartered in Ontario, Canada, Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE/TSX: NT) -- http://www.nortel.com/-- delivers technology   
solutions encompassing end-to-end broadband, Voice over IP,
multimedia services and applications, and wireless broadband
designed to help people solve the world's greatest challenges.
Nortel does business in more than 150 countries.

                           *     *     *

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Oct. 5, 2006,
Moody's Investors Service upgraded its B3 Corporate Family
Rating for Nortel Networks Corp. to B2.


NORTH CAROLINA: Review Urged for Predatory Lending Case Opinion
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper will urge the state
Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling preventing homeowners
from using state courts to sue an out-of-state company that
services their mortgages, The Associated Press reports.

Recently, four of the seven members of the North Carolina
Supreme Court ruled that Garry and Judy Skinner of Durham County
could not use the N.C. courts to sue the out-of-state trust that
held their mortgage.  

The narrow majority pointed out that the trust did not have
enough contact with North Carolina to be sued there.  Justice
Paul Newby explains that North Carolina courts "lack personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident trust that has no connections to
this state other than holding mortgage loans secured by deeds of
trust on North Carolina property."

However, Justices Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Mark Martin, and
Robert Edmunds disagreed, saying that lending companies subject
themselves to the jurisdiction of North Carolina courts by
holding an interest in properties, receiving money, and
generating income from loans negotiated in the state.

"The defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege
of doing business in North Carolina and should be subject to
personal jurisdiction in North Carolina," Justice Timmons-
Goodson wrote in the dissent.

However, in urging for reconsideration, A.G. Cooper contends
that a home is the biggest purchase most families will ever
make.  He said in reaction to the ruling that if North Carolina
homeowners get ripped off, they deserve justice in the North
Carolina courts and they should not be forced to go to another
state to seek justice.

The couple had disputed a $3,600 fee on their $45,000 second
mortgage.  Their attorneys say the $3,600 fee was four times
what state law allows.   

Essentially, state law only allowed the lender to charge a $900
fee on the mortgage, said Gary Shipman, one of the couple's
attorneys.  

Thus, Mr. Shipman filed a class action over the trust fund,
which held 114 loans to North Carolina residents on $4 million
worth of real property.

However, with the ruling, the couple now has until Jan. 9, 2007
to decide on whether to ask the state Supreme Court to re-hear
their case.

Mr. Shipman and his law partner, William Wright, said they might
ask the court to reconsider the decision.

For more details, contact Gary K. Shipman or William Wright of
Shipman & Wright, L.L.P., 11 South Fifth Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28401, (New Hanover Co.), Phone: 910-762-1990,
and 800-762-1990, Fax: 910-762-6752, Web site:
http://www.shipmanlaw.com.


OHIO: Prisoner-Release Request in Overcrowding Suit Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for the City of Youngstown is opposing an injunction
that seeks a prisoner-release order limiting the Mahoning County
jail population to 288 inmates, Peter H. Milliken of Vindy.com
reports.

Attorneys Robert Armbruster and Thomas Kelley made the request
last week on behalf of the several jail inmates in a class
action over jail conditions at the jail in Mahoning County,
Ohio.

Both lawyers filed the class action against the county in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio back in
November 2003.

In their motion for injunctive relief, Messrs. Armbruster and
Kelley wrote that an immediate injunction is necessary, since
the jail is an extremely violent and dangerous place, exposing
inmates to actual physical harm.  In addition, they pointed out
that tensions at the jail are high with the staff unable to
observe, let alone control inmate behavior.

Furthermore, they wrote that the plaintiffs' constitutional
rights are being violated as the result of overcrowding. The
plaintiffs are subjected to irreparable injury that can only be
remedied by the issuance of this injunction.  

Citing what they called "the high likelihood of a mass
disturbance" in the jail, they added that the inmates could not
wait until the May 16 and 17, 2007, hearing the three judges had
set on whether to issue a prisoner-release order.

A day after the filing the request, David D. Dowd announced that
he and Judges Dan Aaron Polster and Alice M. Batchelder of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit would conduct a hearing on
the injunction request on Dec. 28, 2006.  Judge Dowd has been
overseeing jail operations since March 2005, when he determined
the lockup was overcrowded and unsafe.

Opposing that request is Anthony J. Farris, deputy city law
director of Youngstown, who is contending that the granting of a
prisoner-release order for Mahoning County jail would be
"disastrous."  He has vowed to file a brief opposing a prisoner-
release order.

Originally a hearing was set for May 16 and 17, 2007, which will
determine whether the court will issue a prisoner release order
to solve overcrowding at the jail (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
12, 2006).  

However, the City of Youngstown opposed any existing or future
prisoner release orders and subsequently filed a motion to
intervene in the case.  Federal judges rejected the attempt on
the city's failure to file a legal motion setting forth a claim
or defense for which intervention is sought.

Youngstown renewed its bid to intervene on July 27.  It included
in its motion a resolution allowing the city law department to
oppose release of prisoners that judges have ordered held in the
jail.  On Aug. 2, Judge Dowd signed an order permitting the city
to intervene (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006).  

Meanwhile, Anthony J. Farris, deputy city law director, said the
city and county are continuing talks, including discussions on
possible payments by the city to house its misdemeanor prisoners
charged under state law in the county jail.  The city now pays
the county only to house misdemeanor prisoners charged under
city ordinances.
  
                         Case Background  

The suit was filed on Nov. 14, 2003 against the County of
Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity; Dave Ludt; Edward J.  
Reese; Randall A. Wellington; and Vicki Allen Sherlock (Class
Action Reporter, July 24, 2006).  

Named as plaintiffs are:

      -- James Joseph Mancini,
      -- Joshua Baird,  
      -- Kevin Whitacker,  
      -- Leland Scott,  
      -- Maurice Barnes,  
      -- Mike Hamad,
      -- Nathaniel Roberts,  
      -- Rodney Gray

The suit is "Roberts, et al. v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, A  
Local Government Entity, et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-02329-DDD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio under Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas  
Kelley of Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker, Ste. 720,
159 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-434-2113,
Fax: 330-434-2158, E-mail: robattarm@aol.com and
tkelley1@neo.rr.com

Representing the defendants is Sharon K. Hackett, Office of the  
Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County, 120 Market Street,   
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-740-2330, Fax: 330-740-2366.   

Representing the Intervenor is Anthony J. Farris, City of   
Youngstown, Department of Law, 26 South Phelps Street,   
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-742-8874, Fax: 330-742-8867, E-
mail: ajf@cityofyoungstownoh.com.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Court Sets 2007 Conference for Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles L. Brieant of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has set a timetable for both sides
to exchange information in a shareholder lawsuit against
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.

However, a trial on the litigation is unlikely to start before
the spring, according to a report by The Journal News.

The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was
against the company and certain of its officers and directors on
Aug. 3, 2005.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of
stockholders of the company that purchased shares between Feb.
9, 2005 and Nov. 15, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12,
2006).

Plaintiffs also name as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering (IPO) and a private equity
fund that was a selling stockholder in the offering.  The
district court has appointed a lead plaintiff.

On Dec. 23, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter in
regard to:

      -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
         release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

      -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
         of the company's products was declining and that the
         company was planning to withdraw several products from
         the market.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint in February 2006.  In a pretrial ruling in July
10, 2006, the court dismissed claims that management acted
fraudulently.

Among other things, Judge Brieant said that shareholders had
failed to offer any factual evidence for a prospective jury that
managers had manipulated Compound W sales.  

Shareholders also failed to show that Chief Executive Officer
Peter C. Mann and Chief Financial Officer Peter J. Anderson had
any fraudulent motives.  Each man retained more than 80 percent
of his stock in the company after putting the rest up for sale
in the IPO.

However, Judge Brieant let stand claims by shareholders that the
registration statement and prospectus for the IPO were not
prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles,
and that the documents misstated market demand for certain key
Prestige Brands products.  Thus, the judge scheduled an
attorneys' conference for May 18, 2007.  

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge  
Charles L. Brieant.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr., of Lerach,  
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIs),  
         50 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,  
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:  
         srudman@lerachlaw.com and malba@lerachlaw.com;   

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East  
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:  
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (4) Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
         Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,  
         NY 10119, Phone: (212) 613-5625, Fax: (212) 868-1229,  
         E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com;

     (5) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola  
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:  
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (6) William J. Ban of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two  
         Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA  
         19103, Phone: (215) 963-0600, Fax: (215) 963-0838, E-
         mail: wban@barrack.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Todd R. David and Scott P. Hilsen of Alston & Bird,  
         L.L.P., One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree  
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7357,  
         Fax: (404) 527-8717;

     (2) John Gueli of Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), 599  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 848-
         4744, Fax: 212 848-7179, E-mail: jgueli@shearman.com;
         and  

     (3) Jeff G. Hammel of Latham and Watkins (NY), 885 Third  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 906-1200, Fax:
         (212)-751-4864, E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com.


SERVICE CORP: Faces Pa. Suit Over Workers' Back Wages, Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (SCI) was named a defendant in
a purported federal class action over its alleged failure to pay
back wages and overtime to thousands of employees, including
workers at funeral homes that it owns, Steve Levin of The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 8, 2006, also names as
a defendant Alderwoods Group, Inc.  Lead plaintiffs were
identified as Deborah Prise of Shadyside and Heather Rady of
Greensburg.

It includes Burton L. Hirsch, H.P. Brandt and H. Samson funeral
homes, which are among the more than 1,700 North American
funeral homes owned by SCI.

According to Charles H. Saul of Margolis Edelstein, as many as
6,000 current and former funeral service employees could be
involved in the case.  He estimates that the total amount of
back wages and overtime ranges between $40 million and $70
million.

The suit is "Prise, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01641-JFC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Joy Flowers
Conti.

Representing the plaintiffs is Charles H. Saul of Margolis
Edelstein, 310 Grant St., Suite 1500, Grant Bldg., Pittsburgh,
PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-4256, E-mail:
csaul@margolisedelstein.com.

Representing the defendants is Amy E. Dias of Jones Day, One
Mellon Center, 31st Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412)
391-3939, E-mail: aedias@jonesday.com.


SQUARE D: Recalls Switches for Shock, Electrocution Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Square D Co., of Palatine, Illinois, in cooperation with U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,600
general duty safety switches.

The company said the safety switch can continue to supply
electricity even after being placed in the "OFF" position.  This
poses the risk of an electric shock or electrocution hazard to
consumers.  No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall includes General Duty 30 and 60 ampere, 240 volt, 1
phase and 3 phase NEMA 3R safety switches.  The switches are
typically used to control the flow of electricity to outdoor
motorized units that are hardwired to a household or business'
electrical system such as outdoor air conditioning and heating
(HVAC) equipment.  The switches contain "ON" and "OFF"
positions.  The "OFF" position is designed to cut the flow of
electricity to an outdoor motorized unit to protect the person
who is servicing the unit.  The recalled switches have the
following date codes and catalog number printed on bottom of the
wiring label inside the front cover or on bottom of the package
label.

Date Codes                              Catalog Numbers
06371 through 06446 D211NRB             D211NRBBP
                                        D211NRBCP
                                        D221NRB
                                        D221NRBCP
                                        D321NRB
                                        D321NRBCP
                                        DU221RB
                                        DU222RB
                                        DU321RB
                                        DU322RB

These general duty safety switches were manufactured in Mexico
and are being sold at electrical distributors and retailers from
September 2006 through November 2006 for between $120 and $300.

Picture of the recalled general duty safety switch:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07062.jpg

Consumers are advised to return the uninstalled safety switches
to the retailer or distributor where purchased for a free
replacement unit. Installed safety switches will be replaced
free of charge by contacting the firm.

For more information, contact Square D toll-free at (877) 202-
9046 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.us.squared.com.


TALK AMERICA: Faces Del., Pa. Suits Over Cavalier Telephone Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Talk America Holdings, Inc. faces shareholders suits in relation
to a proposed in connection with the agreement to be acquired by
Cavalier Telephone Corp. or in responding to the bid by Sun
Capital Partners, Inc., according to 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 suits are:

      -- "Fred Tobin, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Talk America Holdings, Inc.,
         Edward B. Meyercord, III, Gabriel A. Battista, Mark S.
         Fowler, Ronald R. Thoma and Robert J. Korzeniewski,
         Case No. 0609143, was filed on Oct. 2, 2006 in the
         Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania,     
         Civil Division-Law;"
     
      -- "Edward Katz, individually, and on behalf of all others
         imilarly situated v. Edward B. Meyercord III, Mark
         Fowler, Robert Korzeniewski, Gabriel Battista, Ronald
         Thoma, and Talk America Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2461-
         N, was filed on Oct. 10, 2006 in the Court of Chancery
         of the State of Delaware, New Castle County;" and

      -- "Bruce Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated v. Edward B. Meyercord III, Mark
         Fowler, Robert Korzeniewski, Gabriel Battista, Ronald
         Thoma, and Talk America Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2493-
         N, filed on Oct. 23, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of
         the State of Delaware, New Castle County."

                      Tobin Litigation

The "Tobin" complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all of
Talk America's stockholders asserting claims based on alleged
self-dealing and breaches of fiduciary duty by the company's
directors in connection with the agreement to be acquired by
Cavalier.   

It alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing by failing to obtain the highest price reasonably
available for the company by structuring the merger agreement to
provide for a $6.25 million termination fee and up to $1.25
million in expenses, and by utilizing a process allegedly
designed to ensure the sale of Talk America to Cavalier on terms
preferential to Cavalier and Mr. Meyercord.   

Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including:

      -- declaration of a proper class action; declaration that
         the merger agreement is unlawful and unenforceable;

      -- injunction prohibiting the defendants from consummating
         the acquisition until the Company adopts a procedure
         that obtains the highest possible price for
         shareholders;

      -- injunction directing the individual defendants to
         exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction
         which is in the best interest of the shareholders;

      -- rescission of the merger agreement;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust; and

      -- an award of attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs.

                       Katz Litigation

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all Talk
America's stockholders (excluding the defendants and their
affiliates) asserting claims based on breaches of the board's
fiduciary duties in connection with the agreement to be acquired
by Cavalier and in responding to the bid by Sun Capital.

It alleges that the company's directors are not complying with
their fiduciary duties by failing duly to pursue and obtain the
best value reasonably available on a sale of the company and the
directors are passively allowing the forced vote provision of
the merger agreement to push an uninformed decision on the
stockholders.

The suit further alleges that the company's directors have
breached and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties
owed to Talk America and its stockholders.  

Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including declaration
of a proper class action, ordering the individual defendants to
affirmatively fulfill their fiduciary duties by acting to
undertake an appropriate evaluation of alternatives to maximize
value for Talk America's public stockholders prior to any vote
on the merger agreement, ordering defendants to account for all
damages suffered by the plaintiff and other class members as a
result of the alleged wrongs, and awarding the plaintiff the
costs and disbursements of this lawsuit.

                       Murphy Litigation

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all Talk
America's stockholders (excluding the defendants and their
affiliates).  

It alleges that the company's directors have acted and are
acting contrary to their fiduciary duty to maximize value on a
change in control of Talk America.  

In that connection, the complaint alleges that:

      -- the merger is inadequate and unfair to plaintiff and
         other class members because it is at a substantially
         lower price than the offer by Sun Capital;

      -- the merger will deny the plaintiff and other class
         members the opportunity either to benefit by the higher
         offer or to share proportionately in the future success
         of Talk America and its valuable assets; and

      -- the merger benefits Mr. Meyercord but is detrimental to
         the plaintiff and the class.

Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including an injunction
against the consummation of the merger, unspecified rescissory
damages in the event the merger is consummated, unspecified
money damages plus interest thereon against the defendants, and
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses.


TALK AMERICA: Faces Identical Shareholder Litigation in Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Talk America Holdings, Inc. faces two separate yet substantially
similar shareholder lawsuits in the Court of Common Pleas of
Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division-Equity that were both
filed on Sept. 29, 2006, according to 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 suits are:

      -- "Daniel Tyler, individually and on behalf of a class of
         persons similarly situated v. Edward Meyercord III,
         Mark Fowler, Robert Korzeniewski, Gabriel Battista,
         Ronald Thoma, Talk America Holdings, Inc. and Cavalier
         Telephone Corporation, Case No. 0609065," and

      -- "Michael Kaiser, individually and on behalf of a class
         of persons similarly situated v. Edward Meyercord III,
         Mark Fowler, Robert Korzeniewski, Gabriel Battista,
         Ronald Thoma, Talk America Holdings, Inc. and Cavalier
         Telephone Corporation, Case No. 0609067."

Each complaint:

      -- purports to be brought on behalf of all Talk America's
         stockholders (excluding the defendants and their
         affiliates);

      -- alleges, among other things, that the individual
         defendants (the company's directors) breached their
         fiduciary obligations to the company's stockholders in
         proposing to acquire [sic] the public shares of Talk
         America at $8.10;

      -- alleges that Cavalier Telephone Corp. has aided and
         abetted Talk America and its directors' alleged
         wrongdoing;

      -- alleges that the merger consideration is unfair to the
         public stockholder of Talk America since:

         -- there is a higher bona fide offer for $9.00 per
            share (apparently referring to the conditional Sun
            Capital proposal);

         -- the $8.10 proposed acquisition price fails to
            reflect and is far below the true valuation of Talk
            America; and

         -- the merger agreement does not contain a "go-shop"
            provision during which period only a substantially
            reduced break-up fee would be payable if a higher
            bid were to emerge; and

      -- alleges that, as a result of defendants' failure to
         take such steps as their fiduciary obligations require,
         plaintiff and other class members have been and will be
         damaged in that they have not and will not receive
         their proportionate share of the value of the company
         assets and business, and have been and will be
         prevented from obtaining a fair price for their common
         stock.
   
Thus, they are seeking various forms of relief, including
certification of the purported class, an injunction against the
consummation of the merger unless and until a fair price is
paid, unspecified money damages plus interest thereon and
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
respective lawsuit.


TEMASEK HOLDING: FSP-BUMN to File Constitution Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United State Enterprise Workers Union Federation (FSP BUMN)
is set to file a class action on Dec. 28, with the Central
Jakarta District Court, against Temasek Holding Singapore over
alleged violation of Indonesia's Constitution, Antara reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of GSM Indonesia cellular phone users,
alleges Temasek had engaged in monopolistic practices and hiked
GSM Indonesia cellular rates causing huge losses to GSM cellular
phone consumers in Indonesia.

"We will file the suit because Temasek has committed an unlawful
act and even a violation of Indonesia's Constitution,"
Habiburakhman, a lawyer acting for the federation, said.

Mr. Habiburakhman, also claims the Singapore-based company was
also believed to have gained control over two of Indonesia's
biggest GSM cellular phone operators, namely Indosat and
Telkomsel.

"The sale of the government's shares in Indosat to Singapore
Technologies Telemedia which is a Temasek subsidiary has not
resulted in any significant benefit for Indosat's development,"
he said.

Temasek had "emasculated" the professionalism of Indonesians by
putting its own people in key positions in the company and
sidelined Indonesian employees, the lawyer said.

Arief Poyuono, the FSP BUMN chairman, said the class action
mechanism was chosen because at stake was the interest of as
many as 65 million GSM cellular phone users. Individual suits
would not be effective, he added.

The federation would appoint 50 lawyers from the State Assets
Recovery Advocacy Team (TAPAN) as its legal representatives in
the suit, he said.


VIXEL CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Vixel Corp.

On Nov. 15, 2001, prior to the Emulex's acquisition of Vixel
Corp., a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York as Case No. 01 CIV.
10053 (SAS), Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) against Vixel and
two of its officers and directors and certain underwriters who
participated in the Vixel initial public offering in late 1999.

The amended complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased Vixel
stock during the period Oct. 1, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to Vixel's officers and directors until
Sept. 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement, Vixel's
officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit without
prejudice.

During June 2003, Vixel and the other issuer defendants in the
action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs that
would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.

In connection with the possible settlement, those officers and
directors who had entered tolling agreements with the plaintiffs
agreed to extend those agreements so that they would not expire
prior to any settlement being finalized.

Although Vixel approved this settlement proposal in principle,
it remains subject to a number of procedural conditions, as well
as formal approval by the court.

On Aug. 31, 2005, a preliminary order in connection with
settlement proceedings was issued by the court, which, among
other items, set a date for a settlement fairness hearing held
on April 24, 2006 and the form of notice to the settlement
classes of the issuers' settlement stipulation.

In December 2005, the settlement notices authorized by the court
were sent to former Vixel stockholders, as well as a March 24,
2006 objection deadline.

At the settlement fairness hearing held on April 24, 2006, the
court raised these primary issues:

      -- the (possible) change in value of the settlement since
         preliminary approval, and whether the benefits of the
         settlement should be evaluated at the time of approval
         or at the time of negotiation;

      -- how the class certification argument before the second
         circuit court of appeals could or would affect the
         fairness of the settlement;

      -- how to evaluate the intangible benefits of the
         settlement to the class members; and

      -- how to value the $1 billion guarantee (for the
         consolidated litigation involving Vixel and 297 other
         Issuers) by Insurers in the Stipulation and Agreement
         of Settlement Exhibit C in light of the Underwriters'
         potential future settlements.

The court did not rule on April 24, 2006 on the motion for final
approval or objections.

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


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.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Brower Piven Announces Fla. Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Technical Olympic USA,
Inc. between Aug. 1, 2005 and Nov. 6, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against defendant Technical Olympic USA,
Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or directors.  

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

Interested parties have no later than Feb. 12, 2007 to move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.  

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


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Files Stock Fraud Suit in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and all persons who
purchased the securities of Tier Technologies, Inc. during the
period from Nov. 29, 2001, through and including Oct. 25, 2006.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The complaint charges that Tier and several of its current and
former officers violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about Tier's financial health and
earnings during the class period.  

In particular, the complaint says that the defendants
misrepresented the Company's financial position by overstating
income, engaging in earnings management and by failing to
prepare the company's financial statements in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  

The price of Tier's stock dropped substantially as investors
gradually learned of the serious problems at the company.  On
Oct. 25, 2006 Tier restated its financial results for the fiscal
years ending Sept. 30, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

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

Interested parties have no later than Jan. 9, 2007 to move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.  

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Dana Frusco
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or dfrusco@cmht.com.


TOP TANKERS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, has filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of TOP Tankers,
Inc. (TOPT) between June 28, 2005 and Nov. 28, 2006.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to
discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at
(310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
info@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.

The complaint charges TOP Tankers and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning TOP Tankers' business and financial
performance caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.  

TOP Tankers is an international provider of worldwide seaborne
crude oil and petroleum products transportation services.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them, including that:

      -- the company improperly accounted for certain sale and
         leaseback transactions involving ships during the class
         period;

      -- specifically, the company recognized certain gains from
         these transactions before receipt of payment;

      -- the company's financial statements were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On Nov. 29, 2006, before the market opened, TOP Tankers
disclosed that its auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, had resigned as
the company's independent auditors over a disagreement between
the company and Ernst & Young over the accounting treatment of
certain aspects of the sale and leaseback of thirteen vessels
that closed in March and April 2006.  

The company also reported that it would restate its interim
unaudited financial statements for the first and second quarters
of 2006.

As a result of this news, shares of TOP Tankers' stock dropped
$0.82, or 14 percent, to close, on Nov. 29, 2006, at $5.04, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties have no later than Feb. 9, 2007 to move the
court 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, Web site:
http://www.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  * * *