CAR_Public/070103.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 3, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 2

                            Headlines

APPLE COMPUTER: April Class Status Hearing Set For "Charoensak"
APPLE COMPUTER: Continues to Faces Calif. Trade Practices Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Lawsuit Over Faulty iPod Hard Drives Dismissed
APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Monitors
APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Suit Over Memory Defects in G4 Computers

APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Consumer Suit for Wireless Products
APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Suits Over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss
AT&T CORP: Privacy Group Files Suit Over NSA Wiretap Support
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Catheters for Embolization Risks
CALIFORNIA: Skid Row Resident Sues City Over Police Searches

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: N.J. Deal Over Faulty Brakes Gets Approval
DOBSON COMMS: Mar. 20 Hearing Set for $3.4M Stock Suit Deal
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Falling Blades Prompt Ceiling Fans Recall
IPEX INC: Nev. Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Defective Plumbing
MERRILL LYNCH: Exchange Rates Suit Gets High Court Certification

MURPHY OIL: La. Judge Mulls Oil Spill Suit Settlement Approval
PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures for Falling Parts Risk
RADIO ONE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
TERAYON COMM: Court Considers Approval for $15M Suit Settlement
TERAYON COMM: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.

TOP TANKERS: Glancy Binkow Sets Feb. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ZURICH FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Fraud Claims in Converium Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces 401(k) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
UNITED WESTERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Order in "Munoz"
VISA: Merchants' Counsel Updates Antitrust Litigation Settlement

* Federal Shareholder Class Lawsuits Dramatically Down in 2006
* Securities Fraud Class Suits Tumble to All-Time Low in 2006


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Fla. Securities Suit


                            *********


APPLE COMPUTER: April Class Status Hearing Set For "Charoensak"
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 16, 2007 class certification hearing is slated for the
case, "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.," (formerly Slattery
v. Apple Computer, Inc.), according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

Plaintiff filed "Slattery" on Jan. 3, 2005 in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on
the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa
and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market
power.  

Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the
Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment
and common law monopolization.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005.  A
hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005.  On Sept. 9,
2005, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in
part.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the
company filed an answer on Oct. 11, 2005.  

On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff's motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs
for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice
and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two
new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen).

On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.  The hearing on class
certification is set for April 16, 2007.


APPLE COMPUTER: Continues to Faces Calif. Trade Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action, "Branning et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc.," which is alleging violations of the
California's trade laws, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San
Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.  The initial
complaint alleged violations of California Business Professions
Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor
warranties.  

Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of
trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song
Beverly Act.  Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other
relief.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.  On May
2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new
named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a
claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California
Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a claim for
false advertising.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional plaintiffs
and alleges many of the same factual claims as the previous
complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as new,
alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for
the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.  

Plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan.
31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen
of seventeen causes of action.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff.
The company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on Sept.
9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept.
21, 2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The
case is in discovery.


APPLE COMPUTER: Lawsuit Over Faulty iPod Hard Drives Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action over various problems with Apple
Computer, Inc.'s iPod, specifically its hard drive have
voluntarily dismissed their case.

Filed on May 16, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, the suit "Barry et al. v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," alleged various problems with the iPod hard
drive, including skipping and limited lifespan.  

Two plaintiffs brought the suit on behalf of a nationwide class
of iPod purchasers between May 2002 and the present.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act and breach of warranties.  They sought damages and equitable
relief.  

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case, without prejudice,
on Sept. 18, 2006, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Monitors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consumer fraud class action "Allen v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," have reached a settlement of the case, which is
pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California,
according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2006.
  
The purported nationwide class action, which was filed in Jan.
28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17"
Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half of the screen
and constant blinking of the power light.  

An amended complaint in the Allen case was filed on Oct. 24,
2005, adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the
alleged class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema
Display and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display.  

The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported
defect that causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that
the Company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or
concealed the purported defect.

Plaintiffs assert claims under California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business &
Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The amended complaint seeks
remedies including damages and equitable relief.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-inch display
and a demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding
the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs
failed to allege that they purchased those displays.

At a status conference on Nov. 1, 2005, the court ordered
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.  Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 12, 2005, and the company answered on Jan. 5,
2006 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative
defenses.  

The company has reached a settlement in this matter, which was
given preliminary approval by the court on Sept. 18, 2006.  The
final approval hearing is scheduled for Feb. 15, 2007.

The settlement covers all U.S. customers who purchased one of
company's 17-inch Studio Displays, beginning in May 2001, unless
they submit a request for exclusion postmarked on or before Jan.
19, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2006).

Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to
those customers who paid for a repair related to the inverter
board and who send in a valid claim form.  

The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who
performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair,
and how old the display was when the repair was performed.

In essence the settlement stipulates that:

      -- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired
         by the company during the second year of ownership will
         be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their
         unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and

      -- customers who had repairs done by a party other than
         the company will receive the actual amount they paid up
         to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter.

However, in order to receive the refund, customers who had their
17-inch Studio Display repaired on or before Nov. 13, 2006 must
mail a claim form postmarked on or before Feb. 12, 2007.  

If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be
mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered
repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier.

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-826-3082,
         Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com;and

     (2) Scott R. Shepherd of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
         Shah, LLC, 35 E. State Street, Media, PA 19063-2917
         Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880, Fax: (610)
         891-9883, E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com, Web
         site: http://classactioncounsel.com/.


APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Suit Over Memory Defects in G4 Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. has reached a settlement in several class
actions in relation to the defects in the memory of company's
PowerBook G4 portable computers.

The suits that were settled are:

      -- "Butzer, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.;"

      -- "Wirges v. Apple Computer, Inc.; and

      -- "Blackwell v. Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiffs filed the Butzer action on Aug. 23, 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the
company's PowerBook G4 portable computers.

The complaint alleged defects in the memory of the computers.  
It also alleged that this purported defect extends to other
series of the company's portables and stated that plaintiffs
reserved the right to amend the complaint to include these other
series.  

Plaintiffs asserted claims for alleged violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  The complaint sought
remedies including restitution and/or damages and injunctive
relief.  

The Wirges action was filed on Jan. 20, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, also on
behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made similar
allegations.  

Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranties, violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint sought restitution, damages and other
remedies.

The Blackwell action was filed on Feb. 10, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made identical
allegations to those made in the Butzer case.  

Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied
warranties, violation of the CLRA, violation of the Song-Beverly
Act, false advertising and unfair competition.  The complaint
sought restitution, an injunction and other remedies.

The company filed an answer to the Butzer complaint on Oct. 19,
2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses.  

The company filed an answer to the Wirges action on Feb. 28,
2006, and also filed a motion to transfer the Wirges case to the
Northern District of California.

The company filed an answer to the Blackwell complaint on March
15, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses.

The company has reached a settlement with the named plaintiffs
in all three cases and these matters are concluded, according to
Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Consumer Suit for Wireless Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action over the transmission rates of certain of its wireless
products, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The case is currently pending in Los Angeles County Superior
Court.  Plaintiffs filed this action styled, "Baghdasarian, et
al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," on Oct. 31, 2005, on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of all purchasers of all Apple
wireless products (router, modem, or adaptor) sold at any time.  
The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the
transmission rates of these products.

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express
warranty and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Business Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition)
and California Business Professions Code 17500 (false
advertising).  It seeks damages and equitable remedies.

The company filed an answer denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses to the complaint on Dec.
15, 2005.


APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Suits Over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces several lawsuits in the U.S. and in
Canada over hearing loss as a result of alleged design defects
in the iPod, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

Generally, these complaints allege that the company's iPod music
players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are
inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate
warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by
iPod users.

One of these actions is "Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.,"
which was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of a
purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers and alleges
violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, breaches of
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

Another suit is "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which was
filed on Jan. 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported
class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before
Jan. 31, 2006.  

That action alleged breaches of implied and express warranties,
violations of California Business & Professions Code  17200
(unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code
17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The Birdsong action was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, and the Patterson
action was dismissed.  

An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong,
dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California
law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006.
Plaintiffs will not oppose the motion but instead will file a
second amended complaint by Jan. 15, 2007.

A third action was filed in Canada.  The complaint, "Royer-
Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," was
filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Feb. 1, 2006.  It is
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
iPod purchasers in Quebec.  

A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for
Feb. 8 and 9, 2007, although plaintiff counsel has now requested
that the hearing be delayed pending a ruling on the motion to
dismiss in the U.S. case.

The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc., Case No. 6:06-cv-
00159-TLM-MEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with
referral to Judge Mildred E. Methvin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John R. Whaley of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, P.O. Box
         1190, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874,
         Fax: 318-561-2591, E-mail: jwhaley@nbalawfirm.com;

     (2) Scott Earl Brady of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
         Hwy., Ste. B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925-
         5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
         scott@bradylawfirmllc.com; and

     (3) Christopher K. Jones of Keogh Cox & Wilson, P.O. Box
         1151, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-383-3796, Fax:
         225-343-9612, E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com.


AT&T CORP: Privacy Group Files Suit Over NSA Wiretap Support
------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a purported class
action in a California court against AT&T Corp., accusing the
company of violating its customers' privacy rights by opening
its records and systems to secret spying by the National
Security Agency (NSA), The New Standard reports.

The suit seeks to force the federal court system to consider the
legality of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic phone
taps.  

In a statement announcing the legal action, EFF accused the NSA
of recklessly snooping on U.S. residents in contravention of
existing laws.

The privacy-rights group is also accusing AT&T of sharing
information from a massive database of calls it maintains.  EFF
alleges that the company's activity violates both customer
privacy and long-standing local telecommunications laws.  

Thus, they are seeking a jury trial to force AT&T to stop
sharing information with government intelligence and law
enforcement agencies.

The New York Times first broke the domestic NSA surveillance
story in December, detailing a 2002 presidential order
permitting the NSA to avoid seeking a warrant when eavesdropping
on U.S. residents communicating with people overseas during a
terrorism investigation.  

The administration contends that Congress granted Bush the
authority to do so when it authorized the "war on terror."  It
maintains that intelligence agencies must be unencumbered by the
warrant requirements in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) when pursuing terrorists.  

The Act, which established special courts to handle such
sensitive information in a timely manner, currently grants
agents up to 72 hours after surveillance has begun to secure a
warrant.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Catheters for Embolization Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) is voluntarily
recalling certain lots of the Mach 1 Guide Catheter in the
United States.

The company is initiating this recall because it has determined,
through internal inspections, that in some product units, excess
strands of resin may exist in the inner lumen near the hub of
the guide catheter.

If the excess resin is present in the catheter and detaches
during a procedure, there is the potential for embolization, in
which strands of resin could obstruct a blood vessel. An
obstruction of a small blood vessel by an embolism may not cause
tissue damage; however, an obstruction of a major blood vessel
or multiple small blood vessels could result in serious
complications such as stroke, heart attack or kidney problems.

To date, no product complaints have been reported to Boston
Scientific related to this issue, and there have been no
reported injuries.

The affected lots of Guide Catheters are 687532, 687586, 687593,
687596, 687654, 687753, 687754, 688035, 687877, 687878, 687879
and 688002. The total number of devices involved in this recall
is estimated at 51.

The Guide Catheter is a tube that is thread through the body and
allows delivery of medical devices to the heart to treat
coronary artery disease.

The products affected by this recall were distributed only to
hospitals in the United States. Boston Scientific is notifying
affected hospitals through detailed recall notification letters
requesting that use of the product affected by this recall
should cease immediately. Instructions on how to return product
are included in the notification letters.  Replacement product
will be available for all affected product.

To arrange for return of affected product, please contact Boston
Scientific at 1-800-811-3211.

The Company has notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) of this action.


CALIFORNIA: Skid Row Resident Sues City Over Police Searches
------------------------------------------------------------
A man living in Los Angeles' Skid Row neighborhood filed a
purported federal class action against the city and its police
chief William Bratton over increased police searches of
residents in the area.

John Quarles claims that he is a victim of these searches.  He
was allegedly harassed on June 21, 2006, according to a report
by The Daily Breeze.

Mr. Quarles also claims that in recent months, officers "have
initiated police sweeps on Skid Row as they have adopted and
pursued an unlawful policy of harassment against plaintiff and
others on Skid Row who are perceived to be homeless."

He contends that the unlawful practices and tactics amount to a
war on the low-income residents of Skid Row.

The searches were allegedly a direct result of an initiative by
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced this fall to combat crime
downtown.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: N.J. Deal Over Faulty Brakes Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Superior Court approved a $14.5 million
settlement in a national class action alleging defective brakes
on Jeep Grand Cherokees that were manufactured by
DaimlerChrysler Corp., Mary P. Gallagher of The New Jersey Law
Journal reports.

The case is known as "Lubitz v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., BER-L-
4883-04," and generally claims that the vehicles allegedly had
defective front brake discs or rotors and defective brake
housings or calipers, which resulted in uneven disc thickness
that caused pulsation when the brakes were applied and sometimes
led to brake failure.

DaimlerChrysler allegedly stonewalled consumer complaints --
filed during the warranty period -- about the brakes, the suit
alleges.

The lead co-counsels for the plaintiffs are Gary Graifman, of
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman in Chestnut Ridge, N.Y., and
Gary Mason of the Mason Law Firm in Washington, D.C.  While
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, represented DaimlerChrysler in the case.

In a ruling released Dec. 26, 2006, Judge Jonathan Harris
certified, for settlement purposes, a class consisting of those
who bought or leased 1.2 million 1999 to 2004 Jeep Grand
Cherokees.

Most of the money, up to $12 million, will go to a subclass of
those who bought or leased a 1999 to 2002 vehicle.  They are to
be reimbursed for the cost of repairing or replacing the brakes
within the warranty period.  Counsel fees of $2,126,878, plus
costs, will also come out of that same $12 million pot.

An estimated $2.5 million will pay for inspections for members
of two other subclasses who have 2003 to 2004 model year Jeeps.

Those who contacted DaimlerChrysler about pulsation while still
under warranty, even if it has since expired, are entitled to a
free brake inspection, and repairs if a disk thickness variation
is found.  

The others get a free inspection, if they are experiencing
pulsation, and a free repair, but only if they are still within
the warranty.

At the time of the Oct. 30 fairness hearing, more than 1 million
class members had been identified, with 1,984 opt-outs, a rate
of less than 0.2 percent, Judge Harris noted, and fewer than 70
objectors, which he termed "inconsequential."  Thus, in the end
the judge gave his final approval to the settlement.

The judge's order resolves litigation in New Jersey as well as
similar suits in New York, Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri and
California.  The cases were consolidated in New Jersey, where
the first one was filed.


DOBSON COMMS: Mar. 20 Hearing Set for $3.4M Stock Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma will hold on March 20, 2007, 9:00 a.m. an approval
hearing in the $3.4 million settlement of the class action "In
Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
CIV-04-1394-C."

The class consists of all persons and their beneficiaries who
purchased or acquired publicly traded Dobson Communications,
Corp. securities between May 6, 2003 to Aug. 9, 2004.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma in the courtroom of Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Feb. 14, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is March 26, 2007.

Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed
against the defendants.  Most of them allege violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.  

The suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various
positive statements concerning its financial prospects and
subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM
network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and
that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into "In Re: Dobson
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were filed.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to
dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.

In Nov. 2006, Dobson Communications Corp. reached a settlement
agreement for a consolidated securities class action pending
against it and certain of its officers and directors in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006).

The company said the $3.4 million settlement, if approved, would
settle all claims from investors who bought shares between May
6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004.  A substantial portion of the
settlement amount is covered by insurance, according to the
company.

The suit is "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart W. Emmons, William B. Federman and Jennifer F.
         Sherrill of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave.,
         Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-
         1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com,
         wfederman@aol.com and jfs@federmanlaw.com.

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory Castaldo of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         tborum@sbclasslaw.com and gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey A. Berger of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP-
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
         312-701-8583, Fax: 312-706-8400, E-mail:
         jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com; and  

    (ii) Warren F Bickford, IV, Fellers Snider Blankenship
         Bailey & Tippens-OKC, 100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax:
         405-232-9659, E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com.


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Falling Blades Prompt Ceiling Fans Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------
Air Comfort Products Division of Emerson Electric Co., of St.
Louis, Missouri, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 units of Emerson 60-
inch designer ceiling fans.

The company said the brackets holding the fan blades can break,
causing the blade to detach. Falling pieces can hit and injure
bystanders.

Air Comfort Products has received one report of a fan blade
striking a consumer in the head.  The company is also aware of
six incidents of the brackets failing.  Three incidents resulted
in minor property damage.

The recall involves the "Emerson Designer 60-inch Ceiling Fan."  
The recalled fans have a 60-inch diameter and come in seven
types of finishes including weathered bronze, pewter, antique
brass, white, antique white, oil rubbed bronze and brushed
steel.  The following model numbers are included in the recall
and can be found on the base of the fan.

These ceiling fans were manufactured in Taiwan and are being
sold by Menards and other lighting showrooms, electrical
distributors and hardware stores nationwide from May 2005
through September 2006 for between $90 and $300.

Consumers are advised to stop using these fans immediately and
contact Air Comfort Products to receive a voucher for a free
Emerson replacement fan of comparable value.  Air Comfort will
reimburse consumers up to $75 for charges incurred in the
removal and installation of replacement fans from Air Comfort.

For more information, consumers should contact Air Comfort toll-
free at (866) 478-8564 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.emersonfans.com.


IPEX INC: Nev. Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Defective Plumbing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ipex, Inc. faces a purported class action in Nevada over
defective plumbing found on Las Vegas homes, KVBC reports.

A group of valley homeowners filed the suit, claiming that pipes
made by the company have burst, which in turn have cost them
thousands of dollars in repairs.

Attorneys involved in the lawsuit say there are many homeowners
out there who might be affected. They say as many as 50,000
homeowners could be at risk.

Randall Jones, a plaintiffs' attorney, says that the company
knew there was a problem with the fittings.  His suit seeks to
get the plumbing fittings replaced expeditiously, and at no cost
to the homeowner.

Ipex, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ipexinc.com.


MERRILL LYNCH: Exchange Rates Suit Gets High Court Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Marion Allan granted
class-action certification to a lawsuit filed against Merrill
Lynch Canada over foreign currency investments, the Calgary Sun
reports.

Merrill Lynch investor, Russell Cooper brought the original suit
against the company, alleging it was unduly profiting from
exchange rates it charged for securities transactions in foreign
currencies.

The suit claims Merrill Lynch earned substantial commissions on
the investments without telling the clients.

Mr. Cooper and his lawyers argued the suit deserves to be a
class action because the issues are identical to a 2001 suit
against TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc., which
alleged breach of contract, negligence and unjust enrichment
over undisclosed profits from foreign exchange rates used on
stock trades.

But Merrill-Lynch countered that the situations are different
because TD Waterhouse was a discount broker with a different
sort of contact with clients than the one-on-one relationship
found in a full-service investment operation.

Merrill-Lynch further argued it provided a service that
benefited its clients.  The company claims it was entitled to
charge a premium on the exchange rate because it provided
currency in circumstances where there was a risk of loss if
rates fluctuated before a securities transaction became final.

It also argued it provided foreign currency at better rates than
its clients could obtain.

Merrill-Lynch also denied assertions its clients were unaware it
employed a spread or did not understand the nature of the
transactions.

In her complex ruling, Justice Allan found there were enough
common elements to justify the suit's certification as a class
action.  While the brokerage house's relationships with
individual clients might be unique, "it is the basic written
agreements that established the relationship in each case," she
writes in her judgment.

"The relationship between Merrill and its clients is one of the
core common issues in this case," the justice pointed out.


MURPHY OIL: La. Judge Mulls Oil Spill Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Louisiana will consider approving a $330 million
proposed settlement for a class action against Murphy Oil Corp.
over an oil spill that occurred in the aftermath Hurricane
Katrina, The Associated Press reports.  The judge has set a
"fairness hearing" on Thursday.

According to Murphy attorney, Kerry Miller, if the judge
concludes that the settlement is fair and no one appeals his
ruling within 37 days, Murphy could start cutting checks and
scheduling closings to buy homes in the area nearest the
refinery as soon as Feb. 11.

                       Case Background  

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

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

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

Earlier, residents of St. Bernard Parish that opted out of a
class action against Murphy were given until Jan. 4, 2007 to
rejoin a proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 20, 2006).

Judge Fallon extended the deadline, which had been originally on
Dec. 8, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying
property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million
would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said.
  
Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty
Arpent Canal.    

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:      

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

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

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

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


PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures for Falling Parts Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Lighting Inc., of Spartanburg, South Carolina, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 12,800 trim assembly kits for recessed light
fixtures.

The company said heat from the light bulb can cause the
fixture's plastic trim to soften and melt, causing the trim and
lens to fall.  This can result in laceration injuries to nearby
consumers.

Progress Lighting has received four reports of the trims
melting. No injuries have been reported.

Trim assembly kits involved in this recall attach to recessed
light fixtures installed primarily in bathroom ceilings.  The
trim assemblies include a 7 3/4-inch white plastic ring, a glass
lens and a metal reflector.  Affected models were made in China
and have model numbers: 8009-60, 8010-60 or 8011-60.  The model
number and country of manufacture are located on a sticker
attached to the inside and outside of the reflector.  Models
made in Mexico are not included this recall.

These recalled trim assembly kits were manufactured in China and
are being sold by electrical and lighting distributors
nationwide from July 2006 through December 2006 for between $9
and $27.

Pictures of the recalled trim assembly kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recessed light fixtures
containing the recalled trim rings immediately and contact
Progress Lighting to arrange for installation of a replacement
trim ring.

For more information, contact Progress Lighting toll-free at
(877) 369-4548 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or log on to http://www.progresslighting.com.


RADIO ONE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated securities class action against
Radio One, Inc., the company said at its Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In November 2001, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of New York, now captioned, "In re Radio One, Inc.  
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160."  

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds  
of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted initial  
public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s (IPO  
Lawsuits).  

In the complaint filed against the company (as amended), the
plaintiffs claim that it, certain of its officers and directors,
and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings violated  
Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based
on allegations that its registration statement and prospectus
failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the
underwriters.  

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section  
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  
  
In July 2002, the company joined in a global motion, filed by
the Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  In October 2002, the
court entered an order dismissing the company's named officers
and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant
to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect
to the company's officers and directors until Sept. 30, 2003.  

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against the
company and most of the Issuers.  
  
In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the company's
board of directors approved in principle a settlement proposal
with the plaintiffs, which is anticipated to include most of the
Issuers.  

The proposed settlement would provide for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the participating Issuers and
their officers and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against their
underwriters.  

The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that
plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum from
the underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs guaranteed recovery.  

In September 2003, in connection with the proposed settlement,
the company's named officers and directors extended the tolling
agreement so that it would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.  
  
In June 2004, the company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.  On February 2005, the Court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.  

In August 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive Order, and directed that Notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members beginning November  
2005.  

In February 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against
certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be
assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.  

In April 2006, the Court held a Settlement Fairness Hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The
Court's decision on final approval of the settlement remains
pending,

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


TERAYON COMM: Court Considers Approval for $15M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to grant approval to a proposed $15 million settlement
in the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.

Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class actions
in federal court against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.

Later that year, the cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-00-1967-MHP."  The court then appointed lead plaintiffs
who filed an amended complaint.

In 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new
complaint.  

In 2002, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss that
complaint, which, like the earlier complaints, alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material information regarding our technology.

On Feb. 24, 2003, the court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between Nov. 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000.  

On Sept. 8, 2003, the court heard defendants' motion to
disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class.  

On Sept. 10, 2003, the court issued an order vacating the
hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions, and, on
Sept. 22, 2003, the court issued another order staying all
discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date,
which had been scheduled for Nov. 4, 2003.  

On Feb. 23, 2004, the court issued an order disqualifying two of
the lead plaintiffs and ordered discovery, which was conducted.

In February 2006, the company mediated the case with plaintiffs'
counsel.  As part of the mediation, the company reached a
settlement of $15.0 million.  

After this mediation, the company's insurance carriers agreed to
tender their remaining limits of coverage, and the company
contributed approximately $2.2 million to the settlement.  

On March 17, 2006, the company along with plaintiffs' counsel,
submitted the settlement to the court and the shareholder class
for approval.

The court held a hearing to review the settlement of the
shareholder litigation on Sept. 25, 2006.  To date, the court
has not approved the settlement, according to its Dec. 29, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.


TERAYON COMM: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. remains a defendant in a
purported securities fraud class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to its Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2005.

On June 23, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the
company by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the company's common stock between October
28, 2004 and March 1, 2006.  

Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are
named as individual defendants.  The lawsuit focuses on the
company's March 1, 2006 announcement of the restatement of our
financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2004, and for
the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants' representations concerning the company's financial
condition, impressive income growth, and various other
statements in the company's quarterly and annual financial
results and SEC filings were materially false and misleading
(Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006).

It further alleges that defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded the company's reported financial results and growth
were attributable to improper accounting practices, including
improper revenue recognition practices, which resulted in an
overstatement of the company's revenues.

Unknown to investors, the company's internal controls and
procedures and, as a result, the company's projections and
reported financial results were seriously flawed.

Furthermore, the company's earnings were not increasing in the
amounts that had been represented by defendants, and the
company's reported earnings statements for the interim periods
were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The complaint claims that on Nov. 7, 2005, after the market
closed, Terayon announced that the company "is reviewing the
recognition of revenue for certain transactions during prior
periods."  More specifically, an internal review was initiated
after the company determined "that certain revenues recognized
in the second half of fiscal year 2004 from a customer may have
been recorded in incorrect periods."

The complaint further alleges that on March 1, 2006, Terayon
issued a press release announcing that the company's
"consolidated financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31,
2004 and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two
quarters of 2005 should no longer be relied upon and will be
restated."

In response to these revelations, the next day, March 2, 2006,
Terayon's stock price fell $0.37 per share-a more than 13%
decline in the stock's value - on extremely heavy trading volume
of more than four million shares.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any other
relief deemed proper by the court.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d80

The suit is "I.B.I. Investments LTD v. Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com.


TOP TANKERS: Glancy Binkow Sets Feb. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP disclosed a February 9, 2007,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of TOP Tankers, Inc. between
June 28, 2005 and Nov. 28, 2006.

The suit, filed in Dec. 2006, is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006).

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.

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.


ZURICH FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Fraud Claims in Converium Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed securities fraud claims against Zurich Financial
Services (ZFS) and the underwriters of its spin-off of Converium
Holdings AG, while allowing the case to proceed against some of
Converium's former officers, according to Reuters.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, charged that ZFS
knew at the time of its initial public offering of re-insurer
Converium in 2001 that Converium was under-reserved for the
amount of claims it would have to ultimately pay, and would have
to take "hundreds of millions of dollars in charges to meet
previously undisclosed liabilities."

In dismissing the fraud claims against the company, Judge Denise
Cote ruled that based on Converium's public disclosures about
reserve developments, investors were on notice of Converium's
problems no later than 2002.

In addition to Zurich, claims were also dismissed against:

      -- Merrill Lynch & Co.,  
      -- UBS AG, and,
      -- directors of Converium.  

However, some claims against Converium and former Chief
Executive Dirk Lohmann and ex-Chief Financial Officer Martin
Kauer will continue, according to Judge Cote's ruling.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces 401(k) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Inc. was named as a defendant in a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota filed on behalf of participants in the company's
401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (the UnitedHealth
Group Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and/or held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc.
common stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005 through May 24,
2006.

The case, which has been assigned Case No. 06-CV-2237 (JNR/SRM),
alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries
concealed from Plan participants important information
concerning:

     (i) long-standing, improper practices at the Company
         relating to executive stock options, including those
         awarded to former CEO William McGuire and current CEO
         Stephen Hemsley, and

    (ii) whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
         prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
         Plan.

After receiving from the Company certain documentation relating
to the Plan Stull, Stull & Brody filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violations of ERISA, which is the current pleading
in the case.

UnitedHealth Group and the other defendants named in the Amended
Complaint have indicated that they intend to move to dismiss the
case, and that their dismissal motion will be filed in early
2007.

Stull, Stull & Brody intends to vigorously oppose any motion to
dismiss the case. It also intends to ask the Court to certify
the case as proper class action.

For more information, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. of Stull,
Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-
800-337-4983/ ext. 112, Fax: (212) 490-2022.


UNITED WESTERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Order in "Munoz"
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of United Western Bancorp
and certain other defendants in the class action, "Heraclio A.
Munoz, et al. v. Sterling Trust Company, et al.," which was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California.

Sterling Trust Co., United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank,
The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. were
named as defendants in the action, which was filed in December
2001.  

The complaint sought class action status, requested unspecified
damages and alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of
Sterling Trust.  

In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted
summary judgment as to all claims against it.  In April 2006,
the court granted a motion for summary judgment, dismissing
Sterling Trust, United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The
Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. from the
action.

On Sept. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the California Superior Court, according to United Western's
Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


VISA: Merchants' Counsel Updates Antitrust Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine Cannon (formerly Constantine & Partners) directed
the claims administrator in "Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 96-5238," to mail checks to class members
for overcharges on Visa and MasterCard signature debit and
credit card transactions during the period October 1992 to July
2003.  

These payments include claims that were filed and approved by
March 10, 2006 that did not involve the consolidation of
multiple store locations or divisions.  Claims that required
consolidation and were filed and approved by Oct. 20, 2006, are
also being paid at this time.  

This distribution of approximately 128,000 payments involves
more than $300 million.  This is the third round of
distribution, the first having occurred in December 2005 and the
second in June 2006, involving more than $650 million in claim
payments.

Constantine Cannon, the lead counsel in the case expects that
the remaining claim forms involving payments for signature debit
and credit card overcharges will be approved and ready for
payment before the end of 2007.  It also expects that payments
for online PIN debit overcharges will be made to all or most
qualifying class members in 2007.

Among the 128,000 checks to be mailed by the claims
administrator during the next few days, there are approximately
29,400 checks of $1,000.00 or more; 1,790 checks of $10,000.00
or more; 308 checks of $100,000.00 or more; and 40 checks of
$1,000,000.00 or more.

In addition to this cash monetary relief, the settlement in this
case includes an injunction valued by the court in the range of
$25-$87 billion to U.S. merchants and consumers.

In approving the settlement, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit stated that it is "the largest antitrust
settlement in history," that "the compensatory relief by itself
constitutes the largest settlement ever approved by a federal
court;" and "produced significant and lasting benefits for
America's merchants and consumers."

                         Case Background

The $3.1 billion settlement fund stems from class action
captioned, "In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The suit was between retailers nationwide and credit providers
Visa and MasterCard and relates to how the stores process
transactions made with debit cards, which deduct cash from
consumers' existing bank accounts, rather than building up their
debt with credit accounts.

It charges both MasterCard and Visa USA with violating U.S.
antitrust law by monopolistic and anticompetitive business
practices concerning debit cards.

The suit specifically alleges that Visa and MasterCard violated
antitrust laws by insisting that merchants who accept their
credit cards must also accept their debit cards, and also that
the two card companies charge unfair fees, eventually driving up
costs for consumers, (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2003).

The case was certified as a class action in February of 2000,
included five million merchants in the U.S. and is said to
involve billions of dollars.

On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle with the final
settlement agreements being signed on June 4, 2003 and the
federal judge overseeing the case, Judge John Gleeson, granting
preliminary approval to the deal and the notice plan on June 13,
2003, (Class Action Reporter story July 24, 2003).

Objections to the terms of the settlements and plan of
allocation were due last Sept. 5, 2003.  A fairness hearing took
place on September 25, 2003, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York before Judge Gleeson.

The settlement will bring awards ranging from healthy to
adequate.  According to those overseeing the suit, the $3
billion-plus compensation should begin in 2006.

They say that the antitrust class award would go to all
businesses and organizations in the United States that accepted
Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards between Oct. 25, 1992
and June 21, 2003, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2005).

Alongside the $3 billion compensation award, the settlement also
called for the providers to stop requiring merchants that accept
credit cards to also accept certain debit card transactions. The
companies also agreed to lower debit card fees that they charge
merchants for an interim period, by one-third.

Some of retail's heaviest hitters led the suit, including Wal-
Mart Stores Inc., Sears Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores
Inc. and Safeway Inc.  Those stores will collect exponentially
more than a business the size of the smaller companies involved
in the case.

For more details, call 1-888-641-4437 or 212-350-2799 or visit,
http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com.

The suit is "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al v. Visa USA, Inc., et
al, Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge John
Gleeson with referral to Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lloyd Constantine, Matthew L.
Cantor, Jeffrey Issac Shinder and Robert L. Begleiter of
Constantine Cannon, P.C., 477 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-350-2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail:
lconstatine@cpny.com, mcantor@cpny.com, jshinder@cpny.com and
rbegleiter@cpny.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kevin J. Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 425
         Lexington Ave., 29th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 455-7680 or -2000, Fax: (212) 455-2502, E-mail:
         karquit@stblaw.com, and

     (2) Stephen V. Bomse, Brian P. Brosnahan and Thomas P.
         Brown of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, 333 Bush
         St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone:
         (415) 772-6000, E-mail: sbomse@hewm.com,
         bbrosnahan@hewm.com and tbrown@hewm.com.


* Federal Shareholder Class Lawsuits Dramatically Down in 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
NERA Economic Consulting's annual benchmark study showed that
despite a surge in lawsuits alleging options backdating,
shareholder class action filings were down dramatically in 2006,
even as settlements of existing cases soared past last year's
record levels.

Class action settlements paid by corporations to shareholder
plaintiffs rose by some 37% -- an increase driven by more "mega-
settlements" exceeding $100 million.  Four multi-billion-dollar
settlements occurred in 2006.  

They were:

     -- the $2.7 billion settlement paid to shareholders in the
        AOL Time Warner class action,
     -- the $1.1 billion Royal Ahold NV settlement and
     -- two separate $1.1 billion settlements resulting from two
        Nortel Networks class action cases.

These four settlements are in addition to the partial of $7.1
billion paid to shareholder plaintiffs in the Enron class action
-- which began in 2005 and continued into 2006.

The largest payout to date in a shareholder class action, the
Enron settlement is expected to grow even larger after the final
payments are made to shareholders.

"This is an astonishing development given that before 2006 only
three settlements had ever exceeded $1 billion," write NERA
economists Todd Foster, Ronald I. Miller and Stephanie Plancich,
co-authors of the report.

Settlement size is influenced by variety of factors, including
the class of securities involved, whether there are allegations
of accounting improprieties, and whether the case concerns an
IPO. "The single most powerful" determinant of settlement size,
according to the study, is the losses experienced by investors.

The NERA study also noted that, despite some 22 lawsuits in 2006
over the issue of options backdating, shareholder class action
filings are projected to plunge 36% (the data for the study
tracks 2006 filings through December 15).

This decline in filings continues a trend that began in the
second half of 2005, and represents a 44% decline from the
average rate of filings after the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA), passed in 1995 to curtail excessive
securities litigation.

According to NERA, only 129 federal shareholder class actions
were filed from January 1 through December 15, 2006. A total of
135 are expected by year's end -- in contrast with 211 filings
in 2005.

"It is not yet clear what is driving this precipitous decline.
One hypothesis is that Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), passed in July of
2002, has now had enough time to cause improvements in corporate
governance that have limited fraud and resulting class actions,"
the authors write. However, for a number of reasons, they call
this scenario "unlikely."

"Another possibility is that the decline is the result of
distraction on the part of some of the largest plaintiffs' law
firms," such as Milberg Weiss, due to federal indictment and
personnel changes.

NERA concludes, "If limitations in the resources of the
plaintiffs' bar turn out to be the cause of the trend in filings
then we would expect filings to return to higher levels in the
future."

Among other findings in the NERA study:

    * The largest drop in filings occurred in the Ninth Circuit,
      despite its reputation for being friendly to plaintiffs.  
      Filings plunged from 68 in 2004 to only 27 through
      December 15, 2006.  The smallest decrease took place in
      the New York-centered Second Circuit, which represents a
      substantial portion of the financial sector.  The Second
      Circuit "has seen fully 87% of the filings it typically
      received over 1998-2004," according to NERA.  However,
      every circuit court but two is expected to see filings
      decline by at least one third this year.

    * With the drop in filings, the average corporation now
      faces less than an 8% probability of being the target of
      at least one such suit over a five-year period.  The
      annual likelihood of a suit has fallen 9% since the period
      of 1993 to 1995, from 1.8% to 1.6%, prior to PSLRA reform.

    * Chances are also greater that shareholder class action
      cases will be dismissed.  More than 38% of class action
      cases filed between 1999 and 2004 were dismissed.
      Dismissal rates have nearly doubled since PSLRA reforms.

    * A significant portion of shareholder class action cases
      are dismissed within the first two years.  The Second and
      Ninth Circuits, which together receive the most cases,
      dismiss approximately 20% within this time period.  The
      Fourth Circuit has the highest rate, dismissing 31% of
      cases within two years, while the Tenth Circuit has the
      lowest, at 5%.

    * Seven of the ten largest settlements occurred between 2005
      and 2006. Enron's $7.1 billion partial settlement exceeds
      last year's record-setting $6.2 billion WorldCom
      settlement, which dwarfed the mammoth $3.6 billion Cendant
      settlement in 2000.

    * The average shareholder class action settlement, including
      this year's largest billion dollar cases, is $86.7 million
    * up from the average of $73.6 million in 2005.  [These
      numbers do not take Enron into account.] If cases
      exceeding $1 billion are excluded, the average is $34
      billion, according to NERA numbers through December 15.

    * More than 10% of shareholder class action settlements were
      "mega-settlements" of over $100 million, in contrast with
      an average of 3% reaching this threshold in prior years.

    * Median settlements, which are more descriptive of typical
      cases, continued to rise in 2006, hitting a new peak of
      $7.3 million.

    * There were also fewer class action settlements of $3
      million or less. They made up 22% of 2006 settlements,
      compared with 26% in 205 and 44% in 1996.

    * Investor losses constitute the single most powerful
      publicly available determinant of settlements.  Average
      investor losses have ballooned from $140 million in suits
      settling in 1996 to $2.5 billion in 2003.

    * Other factors helping to determine the size of settlements
      are the class of securities involved (bonds and options
      boost the size of settlement values), the depth of
      defendant's pockets, and whether accounting improprieties
      are suspected.  

      According to NERA, "The mere existence of allegations
      concerning improprieties leads to an increase in the
      expected settlement of more than 20%."

    * Settlements increase by approximately one-third if an IPO
      is involved.

    * Corporations in the health services sector pay
      significantly higher class action settlements than
      defendants in other industries, a possible consequence of
      billing fraud allegations resulting from the federal False
      Claims Act.

Recent Trends In Shareholder Class Action Litigation: Filings
Plummet, Settlements Soar on the net: http://www.nera.com.

NERA Economic Consulting is an international firm of economists
who understand how markets work. It provides economic analysis
and advice to corporations, governments, law firms, regulatory
agencies, trade associations, and international agencies.

For more information, contact Jill Shea of Bolde Communications,
Phone: 212-727-1680, E-mail: jshea@boldepr.com


* Securities Fraud Class Suits Tumble to All-Time Low in 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
report showed that the number of securities fraud class actions
filed in 2006 was the lowest ever recorded in a calendar year
since the adoption of the Public Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA) of 1995.

The Securities Class Action Filings 2006 Year in Review report
illustrated securities fraud class actions decreased by 38
percent since 2005, plunging from 178 filings to just 110,
making this year's numbers nearly 43 percent lower than the ten-
year historical average of 193.

Additional indices tracked by the Clearinghouse confirm a
significant decline. John Gould, Vice President of Cornerstone
Research and a contributor to the study, noted that the decrease
in securities class action activity in 2006 is even more
dramatic when measured by the associated market capitalization
losses.

For instance, in 2006 the total Disclosure Dollar Loss (market
capitalization losses at the end of the class period, typically
the time of the disclosure of the alleged fraud), as measured by
the Clearinghouse's DDL Index(TM), sank a remarkable 44 percent
from $93 billion in 2005 to only $52 billion in 2006. The total
Disclosure Dollar Loss is now 58% below its historic average of
$124 billion, and only 21% of the historic peak observed in
2000.

The total Maximum Dollar Loss in 2006 (shareholder losses
measured by the largest capitalization decline experienced
during the class period), tracked by the Clearinghouse's MDL
Index(TM), fell from $362 billion in 2005 to $294 billion in
2006. The total Maximum Dollar Loss is now 57% below the
historic average of $680 billion per year, and only 14% of the
historic peak observed in 2002.

"The DDL and MDL statistics show the combined impact of less
filings and lower market capitalization losses per filing. These
numbers are potentially indicative of a new era in the
securities litigation arena," said Mr. Gould.

The decline is even more striking when filings alleging options
backdating are excluded. To date, there have been 22 securities
class actions filed related to options backdating allegations,
20 of which were filed in 2006. Excluding the options backdating
cases from the sample, as these reflect one-time events that
will not recur in the future, suggests that "core" securities
class action litigation in 2006 was only 90 cases, a decline of
53% from the historic norm.

The MDL for these 90 cases is $198 billion (71% below the
historic average) and the DDL for these cases is $42 billion
(66% below the historic average).

Incidences of "mega" filings -- cases with DDLs in excess of $5
billion or MDLs in excess of $10 billion -- also declined in
2006. There was only one "mega" DDL filing in 2006, whereas
there were 5 such filings in 2005. There were 8 "mega" MDL
filings in 2006, 4 of which were driven by option backdating
claims. In contrast, there were 9 "mega" MDL filings in 2005.

                          Reasons

The study attributes the record low numbers of securities fraud
class action filings in 2006 to three primary factors:

     -- First, the strengthened federal enforcement environment
        reflected in the pressure that the SEC and Department of
        Justice now bring to bear on corporations to conduct
        internal investigations that implicate the individual
        executives responsible for the fraud, may be reducing
        the amount of fraud in the market.

     -- Second, a strong stock market combined with lower stock
        price volatility typically reduces the number of cases
        filed.

     -- Third, the overwhelming majority of securities fraud
        class actions that were filed in the late 1990s to the
        early 2000s are now behind us.

While the boom and bust cycle of this era may have contributed
to the peak, the numbers in 2006 are low even when compared to
pre-peak activity.

"These are unprecedented numbers, and my bet is that the private
securities fraud litigation market is shrinking because
corporations are engaging in less activity that gives plaintiffs
an excuse to file a complaint alleging fraud," explained
Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, co-Director of the Rock
Center on Corporate Governance, and former Commissioner of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. "The federal government is a
much more aggressive adversary than the private bar, and the
feds can force a level of compliance that private class action
lawyers could never touch. I think we are seeing the effects of
a tougher and smarter campaign against white collar fraud by the
SEC and Department of Justice."

                   Fraud Allegation Trends

There were more allegations of specific accounting
irregularities in the complaints filed in 2006 compared to 2005,
a trend that is consistent with last year's findings and
indicates a continued concern over the quality of financial
reporting.

Of significance, there was a more than 70 percent spike in the
percentage of cases involving "other" accounting allegations,
jumping from 37 percent of all accounting allegations in 2005 to
63 percent in 2006. Almost half of the "other" accounting
allegations were related to stock options issuances.

                       Industry Activity

The distribution of case filings by industry in 2006 was similar
to that observed in 2005. The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector
(e.g., commercial services, biotechnology, food,
pharmaceuticals, etc.) again proved to be the major source of
securities class action litigation in 2006, accounting for 33
percent of the total number of filings and the highest DDL.

The Consumer Cyclical and Technology sectors were also large
contributors, as 5 of the top 10 MDL cases were filed against
tech sector companies (accounting for almost 50 percent of the
Maximum Dollar Loss).

                        Circuit Activity

The Second Circuit (New York) was again the most active federal
circuit in terms of number of filings, although the court's
total filings dropped 26 percent since 2005 (42 filings in 2005;
31 filings in 2006).

The Ninth Circuit (California) followed close behind with 25
filings, 11 of which were options backdating cases. The Third
Circuit (Delaware/Pennsylvania) and Eleventh Circuit
(Florida/Georgia/Alabama) had just 11 filings each.

Historically the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have had the
largest disclosure dollar losses. The highest levels of DDL in
2006 were recorded in the Second Circuit ($26 billion), followed
by the Eleventh Circuit ($8 billion), and Ninth Circuit ($7
billion).

Professor Grundfest and Dr. Gould are available to speak to the
media about the report. The full text of the 2006 Year in Review
report can be found on both the Clearinghouse site:
http://securities.stanford.eduand on Cornerstone Research's  
website at http://www.cornerstone.com.

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis regarding the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation.

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides  
financial and economic analysis in civil litigation, regulatory
proceedings, business consulting, and public policy analysis,
and concentrates in matters involving securities, antitrust,
intellectual property, financial institutions, energy, and
accounting.

For more information, contact John Hellerman, Phone: 202-274-
4762, E-mail: jhellerman@hellermanbaretz.com; or Joseph
Grundfest of Stanford University Law School, Phone: 650-723-
0458, E-mail: grundfest@stanford.edu; or John Gould of
Cornerstone Research, Phone: 617-927-3000, E-mail:
jgould@cornerstone.com.


                  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


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Fla. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC commenced a securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Whitney Information Network, Inc.,
between Nov. 18, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Whitney Information.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information on the suit, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire
or Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire both of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two
Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-
90 (toll free), E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.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 2007.  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  * * *