CAR_Public/070104.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 4, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

                            Headlines

ABB INC: Faces ERISA Suit in Mo. Over 401(k) Retirement Plan
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Faces Amended Pa. Securities Fraud Complaint
ANCHOR GLASS: March 16 Hearing Set for $5.5M Stock Suit Deal
APPLE CANADA: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over iPod Battery Life
APPLE CANADA: Trial to Start Soon for "St-Germain" Litigation

APPLE CANADA: Still Faces Litigation Over Faulty iPod Nanos
APPLE COMPUTER: Court Denies Dismissal Motion v. "Tucker" Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Suit Over iBook G4's Logic Board
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated iPod Nano Lawsuit in Calif.
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Litigation Over MacBook Case Discoloration

APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Problematic 65W Power Adapters
APPLE COMPUTER: Parties Reach Settlement in "Davis" Litigation
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs in "Euro Tec" File Amended Complaint
APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement in Hard Drive Capacity Suit

APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Suit over Hard Drive Capacity
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Nurses' Wage Suit in Tenn.
DELGADO TRAVEL: Founder Faces Sexual Harassment Suits in N.Y.
G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Preserved Products
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Survivors Group Demand Access to Archive

HOST AMERICA: Conn. Stock Suit Pre-motion Conference Set Jan.
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Appeals Court Yet to Rule on Stock Suit
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Ill. Court Okays Consumer Suit Settlement
ISRAEL: Foreigners in Territories Mull Lawsuit Over Visa Refusal
KENTUCKY: Suit by Boone County Property Taxpayers Builds Ups

MUELLER GROUP: Named in Suit Over Toxic "Foundry Sand" Disposal
ORACLE CORP: No Trial Date Yet in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.J.
POLAROID CORP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Lawsuit Appealed

SONUS NETWORKS: Lead Plaintiff Named in Mass. Securities Suit
TRINSIC INC: Appeals Court Vacates Certification of Focus Cases
TRINSIC COMMS: Ill. Consumer Litigation Enters Into Discovery
SOUTH CAROLINA: Schools May Face Suit Over Student Info Leak
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Fraud Trial of Former CEO to Start January

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Lazard Told to Hand Documents in Stock Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Plaintiffs Seek $72M More from Penn. Labor Suit


                   New Securities Cases

TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Va. Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


ABB INC: Faces ERISA Suit in Mo. Over 401(k) Retirement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome J. Schlichter, an attorney at Schlichter Bogard & Denton
in St. Louis commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri against ABB, Inc. and Fidelity
Management Trust Co. alleging they overcharged employees
participating in ABB's 401(k) retirement plan, Kiplinger.com
reports.

The suit contends that the 401(k) fees and expenses paid by the
plans - and borne by employees - are too high and that the
companies didn't disclose them properly.

Attorneys are seeking a class action certification for the case.

At issue are rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, a federal law that sets standards for private
pension plans, according to the report.

ERISA requires that pension fees be reasonable and fully
disclosed, and that they be charged solely for the benefit of
the people in them.

ABB manufactures equipment needed for the transmission and
distribution of electric power.  It also designs and develops
automation technologies for industry.  ABB Inc., which is based
in Norwalk, Conn., is the U.S. unit of ABB Ltd.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Faces Amended Pa. Securities Fraud Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amkor Technology, Inc. continues to face an amended securities
fraud complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action, "Nathan
Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.," was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.  Subsequently, other law firms have filed related
cases, which will likely be consolidated with the initial
complaint.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that Amkor engaged in
"channel stuffing" and made certain materially false statements
and omissions in its disclosures during the putative class
period of October 2003 to July 2004.

On Aug. 15, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional officer, director and former director defendants and
alleging improprieties in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly
recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles and made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in
violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from
July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Civil Procedure 23 of the Federal Rule, compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, and such other further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "In Re: Amkor Technology Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00610-LP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Louis H. Pollak
with referral to Judge M. Faith Angell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, P.O. Box
         30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235, E-
         mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com; and

     (2) Evan J. Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
         Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-6200,
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Patrick Loftus of Duane Morris, LLP, 30 South 17th
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396, Phone: 215-979-
         1367, E-mail: loftus@duanemorris.com; and

    (ii) Karen T. Stefano of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, US, Phone:
         650-849-3405, E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


ANCHOR GLASS: March 16 Hearing Set for $5.5M Stock Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing on March 16, 2007, 8:30 a.m. for the
proposed $5.5 million settlement of the class action, "Davidco
Investors, LLC v. Anchor Glass Container Corp. et al., Case No.
8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ."

The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Anchor Glass Container Corp. between Sept. 5, 2003 and Nov.
4, 2004.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, in the courtroom of the
Honorable Susan C. Bucklew.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is March 2, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is April 30, 2007.

                        Case Background

In 2004, shareholders of the bottle manufacturer sued the
company for securities fraud in connection with its loss of a
contract to manufacture and label bottles of Rolling Rock beer.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Anchor Glass Container Corporation;  
     -- Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.;  
     -- Cerberus Institutional Partners (America), L.P.;  
     -- Cerberus Institutional Partners, L.P.; and
     -- Cerberus International, LTD.  

The shareholders alleged that Anchor fraudulently failed to
disclose the loss of the Rolling Rock contract and its plan to
close the plant where the Rolling Rock work was done.

They brought claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The district court previously denied Anchor's motion to dismiss
the Exchange Act claims.  Anchor moved to dismiss the Sections
11 and 15 claims.

The district court ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations that
Anchor failed to disclose its troubles with Rolling Rock and the
plant were sufficient to support its Section 11 claims.

The district court denied Anchor's motion to dismiss, finding
that the Section 11 claims were adequately supported  (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 13, 2006).

Further, because the underlying Section 11 claim was sustained,
the district court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 15
claim.

The suit is "Davidco Investors, LLC v. Anchor Glass Container
Corp. et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle of District of Florida under Judge
Susan C Bucklew, with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Richard Astley, Paul J. Geller, Jack Reise and  
         Jonathan M. Stein all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal Highway - Suite  
         200, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561/750-3000 Ext.  
         148, Fax: 561/750-3364, E-mail: sastley@lerachlaw.com
         or pgeller@lerachlaw.com or jreise@lerachlaw.com or  
         jstein@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Christopher S. Polaszek of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &  
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, Suite 600, 5200 Town Center  
         Circle, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561-361-5000,  
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Maya S. Saxena of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal  
         Highway, Suite 307, Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781, Phone:  
         800/361-5096, Fax: 888/782-3081, E-mail:  
         msaxena@saxenawhite.com; and

     (4) Julie Prag Vianale and Kenneth J. Vianale both of  
         Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112,  
         Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/392-4750 ext 107, Fax:  
         561/392-4775, E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com.
  
Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Chris S. Coutroulis of Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221 West  
         Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33607,  
         Phone: 813/223-7000, Fax: 813/229-4133, E-mail:  
         ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com;

     (2) John D. Mullen of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Suite 1900, 100 S  
         Ashley Dr., Tampa, FL 33602, Phone: 813/472-7867, Fax:  
         813/472-7570, E-mail: john.mullen@phelps.com;

     (3) Matthew M. Oliver, Lawrence M. Rolnick and Sheila A.  
         Sadighi all of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston  
         Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: 973/597-2500 or  
         973/597-2468 or 973/597-6218, Fax: 873/597-2400 or 973-
         597-2469 or 973/597-6219, E-mail:  
         MOliver@lowenstein.com or lrolnick@lowenstein.com or  
         ssadighi@lowenstein.com; and  

     (4) Samuel J. Salario, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221  
         West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33607,  
         Phone: 813/229-4337, Fax: 813/229-4133, E-mail:  
         ssalario@carltonfields.com.


APPLE CANADA: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over iPod Battery Life
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Inc. remains a defendant in four purported class
actions in Quebec and Ontario over alleged misrepresentations by
the company regarding the battery life of its popular iPod mp3
player, one of the complaints though was on appeal after being
recently dismissed.  

The dismissed action is styled, "Lenzi v. Apple Canada, Inc.,"
was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on June 7, 2005, seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.  

On Feb. 2, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff's motion for
authorization to institute a class action (motion for
certification).  Plaintiff has appealed this ruling, and the
appeal will be heard on Feb. 22, 2007.

Two similar complaints relative to iPod battery life, entitled,
"Wolfe v. Apple" and "Hirst v. Apple," were filed in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada on Aug. 15, 2005 and Sept. 12, 2005,
respectively.  

Both actions define the purported class as a national class
consisting of all persons in Canada who have purchased or who
own an iPod.  A motion for certification of the class proceeding
has been scheduled for the spring of 2006.

In addition, a similar complaint regarding iPod battery life,
"Hamilton v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," was
filed in Alberta, Calgary, Canada on Oct. 5, 2005, purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of iPods in Alberta, Canada.  That
complaint has not been served.


APPLE CANADA: Trial to Start Soon for "St-Germain" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A 2007 trial is anticipated for the purported class action, "St-
Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.," according to Apple Computer,
Inc.'s Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30,
2006.

Plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Aug. 5,
2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action for the
refund by the company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy that
was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between Dec.
12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004 but later declared invalid by the
Canadian Court.  

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.  On Feb.
24, 2006, the court granted class certification and notice was
published during the last week of March 2006.  

Discovery is closed and the case is prepared for trial, which
the company anticipates will take place in 2007.


APPLE CANADA: Still Faces Litigation Over Faulty iPod Nanos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Inc. remains a defendant in three lawsuits filed
in Quebec and Ontario, which are alleging that the company's
iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches
excessively during normal use which renders the screen
unreadable.

Two similar complaints, styled "Carpentier v. Apple Canada,
Inc.," and "Royer- Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple
Canada, Inc.," were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Oct.
27, 2005 and Nov. 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization
to institute a class action on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in
Quebec.

The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the
Carpentier file, in which Apple's preliminary motion for leave
to file evidence will be heard on Dec. 18, 2006.  No further
dates have been set.

Another complaint, entitled, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and
Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed in Ontario, Canada on Jan. 9,
2006 seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf
of iPod nano purchasers in Canada.

A similar complaint, Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple
Computer, Inc., was filed in Ontario, Canada on Jan. 9, 2006
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
iPod nano purchasers in Canada.

In the two Quebec class actions, a motion to stay the Royer-
Brennan case is stayed in favor of the previously filed
Carpentier case.  In the Ontario Action, Apple Canada Inc. and
Apple Computer, Inc., have served Notices of Intent to defend.  

On Dec. 18, 2006, plaintiff's counsel advised that a
substitution of attorneys would occur, most likely in January
2007.

The file is now stayed, and the company's motion to examine
petitioner and for leave to file evidence at certification will
be set after the new counsel appears, according to Apple
Computer, Inc.'s Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Court Denies Dismissal Motion v. "Tucker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied a motion to dismiss the purported class action over the
tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the
purchase of iPods and vice versa filed against Apple Computer,
Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action, "Tucker v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," on July 21, 2006, alleging various claims
including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased
on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa
and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market
power.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business &
Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was heard on Nov. 20, 2006.  On Dec. 20, 2006,
the court denied the motion to dismiss, according to Apple
Computer, Inc.'s Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Suit Over iBook G4's Logic Board
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., is named a defendant in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California over the failure rate of the iBook G4's logic board.

The suit is "Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.," and was filed on
Nov. 7, 2006 on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all
purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer's logic
board fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising).  

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.  The
company's response to the complaint is not yet due.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated iPod Nano Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class
action that is being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, several suits were filed in California state and
federal courts.  They generally are alleging that the company's
iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches
excessively during normal use, which renders the screen
unreadable.

The suits involved are:

      -- "Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc." (originally filed as
         Tomczak v. Apple Computer, Inc. on Oct. 19, 2005 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California with an amended complaint filed on Oct. 26,
         2005);

      -- "Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on
         Oct. 26, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of California;

      -- "Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Oct.
         26, 2005 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court);

      -- "Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Oct.
         31, 2005, U.S. District Court for the Southern District
         of New York);

      -- "Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on
         Nov. 4, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of California);  

      -- "Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Nov. 23,
         2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
         New Jersey);

      -- "Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Dec. 7, 2005,
         in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
         Louisiana);

      -- "Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Dec. 22,
         2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
         District of California);

      -- "Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Dec. 29,
         2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
         District of Louisiana); and

      -- "Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc." (filed on Feb. 9,
         2006, San Mateo County Superior Court with the first
         amended complaint filed March 16, 2006).

The federal actions were coordinated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge
Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006, order of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Plaintiffs filed a first consolidated and amended master
complaint on Sept. 21, 2006, alleging violations of California
and other states' consumer protection and warranty laws and
claiming unjust enrichment.  

The master complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes:

      -- all U.S. residents (excluding California residents) who
         purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or
         designed using processes necessary to ensure normal
         resistance to scratching of the screen; and

      -- all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. residents who
         purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or
         designed using processes necessary to ensure normal
         resistance to scratching of the screen.

Pursuant to stipulation, the Wimmer, Valencia, and Rappel
federal complaints were dismissed without prejudice and the Mayo
and Williamson complaints were administratively closed without
prejudice.  The company answered the master complaint on Nov.
20, 2006.

The two California state actions were coordinated on May 4,
2006, and assigned to the Hon. West in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state
consumer protection, unfair competition, false advertising, and
warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.

The consolidated complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of
all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a
manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible
to excessive scratching.  The company answered the consolidated
amended complaint on Oct. 6, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Litigation Over MacBook Case Discoloration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported
class action over discoloration of the MacBook case, 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
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit, "Greaves v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed on June
30, 2006 in the San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a
purported class of California purchasers alleging discoloration
of the MacBook case.

Plaintiff asserts claims under California Business & Professions
Code Section 17500 (false advertising), California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and misrepresentation.  Plaintiff's
complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on Aug. 16, 2006.  The
company filed an answer on Oct. 3, 2006 denying all allegations
and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., is named a defendant in a purported
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiff filed the purported class action, "Vogel v. Jobs et
al." on Aug. 24, 2006 against the company and certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors alleging
improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain
defendants' profits, failing to properly account for those
grants and issuing false financial statements.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's stock from Dec. 1, 2005 through August 11,
2006, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims.

A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel was
scheduled to be heard on Dec. 4, 2006 but was taken off calendar
when the case was re-assigned to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel.  The
motion therefore is still pending.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Problematic 65W Power Adapters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported
consumer fraud class action over problems with its 65W Power
Adapters for iBooks and Powerbooks, 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
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.," and was filed on
Aug. 31, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported nationwide class
of consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and
Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.  

The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter,
including fraying, sparking and premature failure.  Plaintiffs
allege 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.  

The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.  The Company
filed an answer on Oct. 20, 2006 denying the material
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  A
mediation session is set for March 13, 2007.


APPLE COMPUTER: Parties Reach Settlement in "Davis" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the litigation, "Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.," have
reached a settlement in the matter, 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
Sept. 30, 2006.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in the San Francisco
County Superior Court in California, alleging that the company
engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to
its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan.

The suit asserts causes of action for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional
misrepresentation and concealment.  Thus, it seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

The company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were
granted, in part, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The
company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint.  

On Oct. 29, 2003, the company filed a motion to disqualify
plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported
class and to the general public.  The court granted the motion
but allowed plaintiff to retain substitute counsel.  

Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not
for the class.  The company moved to disqualify plaintiff's new
counsel and to have the court dismiss the general public claims
for equitable relief.  

The court declined to disqualify plaintiff's new counsel or to
dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class
action claims are dismissed.  

The company appealed the ruling and the case is stayed pending
the outcome of the appeal. The court heard oral argument on July
12, 2005.  The California Court of Appeals denied the appeal on
Aug. 17, 2005, affirming the trial court's decision.  

The company filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court, which was denied on Nov. 23, 2005.  The case was
remanded back to the trial court.

The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is
concluded.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs in "Euro Tec" File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the purported copyright
infringement class action, "Euro Tec Enterprises, Inc. et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc. et al.," 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 Sept. 30, 2006.

The case was filed on May 16, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by certain independent
music publishers against the company and several other
defendants for allegedly failing to secure a compulsory license
for copyrighted musical compositions being sold as downloads.  

Plaintiffs' complaint seeks an injunction, damages and other
relief.  The company filed an answer on July 28, 2006 denying
all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative
defenses.

The case is in discovery and is set for trial on Nov. 13, 2007
if no class is certified or on June 10, 2008 if a class is
certified.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 23, 2006 and the
company filed an amended answer on Nov. 28, 2006 denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative
defenses.


APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement in Hard Drive Capacity Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the purported class action,
"Goldberg, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. (formerly
known as "Dan v. Apple Computer, Inc."), which was filed in the
Los Angeles Superior Court in California.

Plaintiffs filed the purported class action against the company
and other members of the computer industry on Sept. 22, 2003 on
behalf of an alleged nationwide class of purchasers of certain
computer hard drives.  

The case alleges violations of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false advertising related
to the size of the drives.  

Plaintiffs allege that calculation of hard drive size using the
decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.  The
complaint seeks restitution and other relief.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and the
company filed an answer on Sept. 23, 2004, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  

Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint
based on sales by resellers and filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings based upon Proposition 64.  The court granted both
motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005.  

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2005.  The
Defendants filed a demurrer on June 6, 2005, which will be heard
on Aug. 22, 2005.  The Court granted the demurrer in part and
denied it in part.  

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the company filed an
answer on Dec. 15, 2005, denying all allegations and asserting
numerous assertive defenses.

The company reached a court-approved settlement with the
plaintiffs in this action and the matter is 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
Sept. 30, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Suit over Hard Drive Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the purported class action, "Gillis
et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which was filed in the San
Diego County Superior Court in California.

Plaintiffs filed the suit on Dec. 23, 2005 alleging that the
Company has misrepresented the hard drive capacity of two
Powerbook G4 computers: the 12-inch, 1.5 GHz computer with 512
MB of memory and a 100GB hard drive; and the 15-inch, 1.67 GHz
computer with 1GB of memory and 100GB hard drive.  

Plaintiffs allege that the Company's standard disclosure on its
packaging regarding hard drive size was not present on the
packaging for these two models.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Business &
Profession Code sections 17200 (unfair competition), California
Business & Profession Code 17500 (false advertising), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and causes of action for deceit and
negligent misrepresentation.  Plaintiffs seek restitution and
other relief.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the company filed a demurrer and a motion to
strike.  The company withdrew the demurrer and motion to strike
per stipulation.  

The company has reached a court-approved settlement with the
plaintiffs in this action and the matter is 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
Sept. 30, 2006.


BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Nurses' Wage Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corp., and the Methodist Healthcare
are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit backed by the Service Employees
International Union over an alleged conspiracy to keep nurses'
wages at artificially low levels, The Morning Star reports.

In a court filing, the hospitals called the lawsuits "a
transparent attempt to drum up support for union campaigns
around the country."

In June 2006, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and
James & Hoffman, PC initiated a class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of Suzanne
C. Clarke and Conise P. Dillard, nurses employed in hospitals in
the Memphis area (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2006).

The suit alleges that hospitals in the Memphis Metropolitan
Statistical Area have conspired to keep their nurses' wages at
artificially low levels.

The lawsuit invokes the federal antitrust laws to force the
hospitals to pay their nurses compensation that is long overdue.

According to the suit, these hospitals have been putting their
bottom line ahead of patients and the nurses who care for them.

For years, these hospitals have deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanged detailed, non-public, current
information about the wages each is paying its nurses.  

The purpose and effect of this information exchange has been to
permit the hospitals to suppress nurse wages -- depriving nurses
of a fair wage and contributing to the nursing shortage in the
nation.

According to the lawsuits, the conspiring hospitals have been
taking extreme advantage of a vulnerable but critical component
of the American healthcare system.  

In the aggregate, these hospitals have underpaid nurses in the
four cities hundreds of millions of dollars.  According to
preliminary estimates, Memphis nurses on average have been
underpaid approximately about $14,000 yearly.

The suit seeks to recover compensation properly earned by nurses
employed in hospitals in the area.  It also seeks costs,
including attorneys' fees and interest.

Methodist spokeswoman Mary Alice Taylor said the hospital group
is committed to fair pay practices.  "We believe that this class
action lawsuit is baseless at face value and that is why we
filed a motion to dismiss," she said.

Similar cases are pending in Albany, N.Y., Chicago and San
Antonio.

A copy of the Memphis complaint is available free of charge at:
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?be6

The suit is "Clarke et al. v. Baptist Memorial HealthCare
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02377-JPM-dkv," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
under Judge Jon Phipps McCalla with referral to Judge Diane K.
Vescovo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David P. Dean and Mary Joyce Carlson both of James and
         Hoffman, 1101 17th St., NW, Suite 510, Washington D.C.
         20036-4748, Phone: (202) 496-0500, Fax: (202) 496-0555;

     (2) Michael Hausfeld, Joseph M. Sellers, Charles P.
         Tomkins, Allyson B. Baker and Daniel A. Small all of
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
         York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West, Washington, District
         of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-
         408-4699;

     (3) Michael P. Lehmann, Thomas P. Dove, and Kimberly A.
         Kralowec all of The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush Street,
         15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-
         2070, Fax: (415) 982-2076;

     (4) Daniel E. Gustafson and Jason S. Kilene both of
         Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 650 Northstar East, 608 Second
         Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 333-
         8844, Fax: (612) 339-6622;

     (5) Mark A. Griffin and Raymond J. Farrow both of Keller
         Rohrback LLP, 2101 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle,
         WA 98101-3052, Phone: (206) 623-1900, Fax: (206) 623-
         3384; and

     (6) Gary K. Smith of Gary K. Smith & Associates, PLLC, The
         Tower at Peabody Place, 100 Peabody Place, Ste. 1050  
         Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-544-6399, Fax: 901-544-
         6398, E-mail: gsmith@garyksmithlaw.com.


DELGADO TRAVEL: Founder Faces Sexual Harassment Suits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delgado Travel founder Hector Delgado, is facing three class-
action lawsuits in Manhattan Supreme and federal courts for
sexual harassment, the New York Post reports.

The suits, filed by former employees -- Patricia Espinosa,
Monica Montero, Ivonne Rodriguez, Jessica Ajoy, Ana Maria Flores
and Jessica Saltos -- accuses Mr. Delgado of routinely grabbing
his workers' breasts and buttocks.

The complaints also allege that Mr. Delgado asked some staffers
to perform sex acts as part of their office duties.

The former employees are asking for between $1.2 million and
$2.9 million.

Mr. Delgado, who owns 30 agencies and employs more than 280
people, insists that he's being targeted by discontents seeking
cash.

He, however, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a worker in a
separate 2000 incident.


G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Preserved Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (NASDAQ: WILC) is facing two
purported class action lawsuits, which have been filed by
different individuals.

The complaints allege that the company misled its customers by
reducing the contents of cans of several types of preserved
products, and then charging its customers the same price as
before.

The complaints, if recognized as a class action, allege damages
of approximately $1.8 million, in the case of one claim, and
approximately $1.5 million in the case of the second claim (half
of the alleged damages of each claim for return of the
overcharge and one half for additional compensation).

The company believes that the complaints are without merits and
intends to vigorously defend against the litigations.

For more information on the suits, contact Chen Shlein - CFO of
G. Willi Food International Ltd., +972-8-932-2233, E-mail:
chen@willi-food.co.il; or Christopher Chu of The Global
Consulting Group, Phone: +1-646-284-9426, E-mail:
cchu@hfgcg.com, Web site: http://www.willi-food.co.il.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Survivors Group Demand Access to Archive
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Holocaust Survivors' Foundation-USA, a national coalition of
American survivors' organizations, has issued an open letter
urging the opening of Nazi war documents kept by the Red Cross
at Bad Arolsen, Germany, the AP WorldStream reports.

The International Tracing Service, an arm of the International
Committee of the Red Cross, runs the archive.  It comprises
transportation lists, concentration camp registrations, death
books and displaced persons files.  

The documents could help Holocaust survivors win larger claims
for restitution, survivors groups say.  

In October, Assicurazioni Generali entered an agreement to pay
tens of millions of additional dollars to the heirs of Holocaust
victims who held policies predating World War II.  Some
survivors are appealing the dismissal of the suit.


HOST AMERICA: Conn. Stock Suit Pre-motion Conference Set Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 12, 2007 conference is set for a planned motion by Host
America Corp. to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud suit
pending against it in Connecticut federal court.

In August 2005 and September 2005, 12 putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the company,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and David J. Murphy.

One or more of the complaints also named:

     -- Gilbert Rossomando,
     -- Peter Sarmanian,
     -- Roger D. Lockhart, and
     -- EnergyNsync, Inc.

The complaints were captioned as:

     -- "Mintz v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
        05-cv-1260-SRU (filed on August 9, 2005);"

     -- "RFC Securities LLC v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 05-cv-01269-JBA (filed on August 11, 2005);"

     -- "Collins v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
        05-cv-01270-JBA (filed on August 11, 2005);"

     -- "Conlin v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
        05-cv-01291-WWE (filed on August 15, 2005);"

     -- "Sutton v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action 05-
        cv-01292-JBA (filed on August 15, 2005);"

     -- "Dombrowski v. Host American Corp., et al., Civil Action
        No. 05-cv-01329-RNC (filed on August 19, 2005);"

     -- "Yorks v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
        05-cv-1250 (filed on August 8, 2005);"

     -- "Sullivan v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil Action
        No. 05-01391 (filed on September 2, 2005);"

     -- "George Theall v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 05-cv-1389 (JBA) (filed September 1, 2005);"

     -- "Sonia Kilgore v. Host America Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 05-cv-1435 (JBA)(filed September 12, 2005)
       (collectively, the "class actions");"

     -- "Jonathan Destler v. Host America Corp., et al., No. 05-
        cv-01479 (JBA) (filed September 21, 2005);"

     -- "Brett Reeves v. Host America Corp. et al., Civil Action
        No. 05-cv-01511 (JBA) (filed September 27, 2005)
        (collectively, the class actions).

The complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased Host's publicly traded securities between July 12,
2005 and July 22, 2005.

In general, plaintiffs alleged that Host's July 12, 2005 press
release contained materially false and misleading statements
regarding Host's commercial relationship with Wal-Mart.  

The complaints alleged that these statements harmed the
purported class by artificially inflating the price of Host's
securities and that certain defendants personally benefited from
the inflated price by selling stock during the alleged class
period.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages based on alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
        
On Sept. 21, 2005, as amended on Sept. 26, 2005, the court
issued a consolidation and scheduling order, consolidating the
above-referenced class actions as, "In re Host America
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250 (JBA)."  On
June 15, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint for
violations of the securities laws.

The consolidated complaint, which supersedes all previously
filed class action complaints, names as defendants Host,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, David J. Murphy, Peter Sarmanian, and Roger
D. Lockhart, and purports to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of the company
between July 12, 2005 and Sept. 1, 2005.

The consolidated complaint is based on substantially the same
allegations as the earlier filed complaints.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages based on alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and under Section 20A against
defendants Mr. Sarmanian and Mr. Lockhart.  

On Dec. 18, 2006, Host America and its past and present officer
and director defendants filed a request for a pre-motion
conference respecting their contemplated motion to dismiss.  The
court has scheduled a conference for January 12, 2007.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elias A. Alexiades, 215 Church Street, 2nd Floor, New  
         Haven, CT 06510, Phone: 203-777-4720, Fax: 203-777-
         4722, E-mail: alexiades@mindspring.com;

     (2) Jeffrey P. Campisi of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP - NY  
         805 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:  
         212-687-1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail:
         jcampisi@kaplanfox.com; and

     (3) Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov Stone & Bonner, 485  
         Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:  
         212-239-4340, Fax: 212-239-4310, E-mail:
         tciarlone@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants is Peter M. Casey of Greenberg &  
Traurig-MA, One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:  
617-310-6048, Fax: 617-310-6001, E-mail: caseyp@gtlaw.com.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Appeals Court Yet to Rule on Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an
appeal against the dismissal of the securities class action
filed against Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Between Aug. 20 and Oct. 4, 2004, five putative securities fraud
class actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The five lawsuits were consolidated as
"In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:04-CV-3342."

On March 23, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborer' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to
the parties' agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its
amended complaint on June 6, 2005.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements during the
proposed class period of Nov. 10, 2003 to Aug. 13, 2004.

It also alleges that defendants misrepresented the company's
financial condition in 2003 and 2004 as evidenced by the
restatement, violated generally accepted accounting principles,
and misrepresented the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls so that they could engage in insider trading at
artificially-inflated prices, retain their positions at the
company, and obtain a credit facility for the company.

On Aug. 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Defendants argued,
among other things, that the amended complaint fails to allege
fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the heightened
pleading requirements for securities fraud class actions under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Defendants also argued that the amended complaint does not
allege fraud with particularity as to numerous Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles violations and opinion statements
about internal controls, fails to raise a strong inference that
defendants acted knowingly or with severe recklessness, and
includes vague and conclusory allegations from confidential
witnesses without a proper factual basis.

The lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Sept. 28, 2005, and defendants filed their reply in support
of the motion to dismiss on Nov. 14, 2005.  On Dec. 21, 2005,
the court held a telephonic hearing relating to the motion to
dismiss.  

On Jan. 10, 2006 the court issued a memorandum and order
dismissing with prejudice all claims filed against the
defendants.  Plaintiff in the securities class action filed its
notice of appeal on Feb. 2, 2006.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy
informing the court that the action was automatically stayed
because it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On March 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a partial opposition to
company's suggestion of bankruptcy arguing that the action
against non-bankrupt co-defendants was not stayed.

On July 24, 2006 the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set the
briefing scheduling for the appeal proceedings.  Both plaintiff
and defendants have filed their respective briefs, but the Fifth
Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal or set the case for oral
argument, according to the company's Dec. 20, 2006 form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Roger B. Greenberg of Schwartz Junell, et al., 909
         Fannin, Ste. 2700, Houston, TX 77010, E-mail:
         rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com; Phone: 713-752-
         0017, Fax: 713-752-0327

     (3) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard, et al., 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414; and

     (4) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein, et al., 1100 New York
         Ave., NW Ste. 500 W. Twr., Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         202-408-4600.

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


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Ill. Court Okays Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois granted final approval
to a settlement of a suit alleging breach of medical monitoring
warranty against Interstate Brands Corp. and Interstate Bakeries
Corp.

In February 1998, a class action, "Dennis Gianopolous, et al. v.
Interstate Brands Corp. and Interstate Bakeries Corp., Case No.
98 C 1073," was brought against the company in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

The company obtained summary judgment on several of the class
plaintiffs' claims and in July 2003 the court decertified a
class claim for medical monitoring.  The remaining three claims
all allege breach of warranty.  

The court entered summary judgment in favor of the individual
named plaintiff as to liability on one of those claims, but
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to damages for
that claim.

In June 2004, the court decertified the class of non-Illinois
consumers of the recalled snack cakes.  On Aug. 23, 2004,
plaintiff's counsel filed a second amendment to the complaint
identifying proposed new class representative(s) for the
purported Illinois class.  

As a result of the company's Chapter 11 filing, the case was
automatically stayed.  Pending Bankruptcy Court and Circuit
Court approval, the company agreed to settle the case by
providing coupons to a class of consumers in 23 states.

On March 3, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court granted relief from the
automatic stay to allow the proposed settlement class and the
company's to proceed in the Circuit Court of Cook County to seek
approval and implementation of the settlement.

On July 17, 2006, the Circuit Court held a final fairness
hearing and approved the settlement.  The company recorded a
charge of $0.8 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2005 based
upon this settlement.


ISRAEL: Foreigners in Territories Mull Lawsuit Over Visa Refusal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several foreigners are considering filing a class action against
the Israeli government for refusing to grant them visitors'
visas to visit their extended families in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.

These people include foreign passport holders married to
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and those of Palestinian
descent, a Palestinian spokesman told The Jerusalem Post.

The spokesman, Basil Ayish, is the media committee coordinator
of the Campaign for the Right of Entry/Re-Entry to the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.  

According to Mr. Ayish, there are some 120,000 families in the
West Bank and Gaza in which one of the spouses is a foreign
passport holder who is not registered in the Palestinian
population registrar.  

On Nov. 28, 2006, Mr. Ayish's organization held a meeting in Al-
Birah to consider legal action against Israel.  Speakers,
including attorney Muhammad Dahlah, charged that Israel's policy
was in violation of international humanitarian and human rights
law.

Speakers at the meeting called on the foreign nationals to urge
their home countries to put pressure on Israel to change its
policy.


KENTUCKY: Suit by Boone County Property Taxpayers Builds Ups
------------------------------------------------------------
More than 30 plaintiffs have joined a lawsuit over alleged
errors in property valuation by the Boone County Property
Valuation Administrator's office, it emerged in a report by
Cincinnati Enquirer regarding the swearing in of a new property
assessor for the county.

Cynthia Arlinghaus Rich replaces Ron Burch who committed suicide
in October.  Mr. Burch's tenure had been found to have produced
property records that reportedly contained "irregularities."  
The problems include properties that were "grossly undervalued,"
properties that were not reassessed regularly and values that
were reduced to "fiscally infeasible levels," according to the
report.

Boone County and the Property Valuation Administrator's office
are now facing a purported class action filed by Independence
attorney Eric Deters in Boone County Circuit Court.  

He is representing local property owner Bill Chipman and a
purported class of taxpayers who say their 2006 assessments were
too high.  

Mr. Deters said he now has 30 to 50 plaintiffs in the suit,
according to the report.

The suit originally named the revenue department and the
Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals, but those have now been dropped
from the claim.

The county and the Property Valuation Administrator's office are
represented by Covington attorney Jeff Mando, member at Adams,
Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, P.L.L.C., 40 West Pike Street,
P.O. Box 861 Covington, Kentucky 41012 (Kenton Co.), Phone: 859-
394-6200, Fax: 859-392-7200.

For more details, contact Eric C. Deters of Eric C. Deters &
Associates, P.S.C., Independence, Kentucky 41051, Phone: Phone:
(859) 363-1900.


MUELLER GROUP: Named in Suit Over Toxic "Foundry Sand" Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Group, LLC's U.S. Pipe subsidiary has been named in a
purported civil class action case originally filed on April 8,
2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court on December 15, 2006.  The case was
filed against U.S. Pipe and other foundries in the Anniston,
Alabama area alleging state law tort claims (negligence, failure
to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and outrage) arising
from creation and disposal of "foundry sand" alleged to contain
harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and other toxins,
including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for real and personal
property damage and for other unspecified personal injury.
Management believes this matter is still in early stages of
litigation and no substantial discovery has taken place.  


ORACLE CORP: No Trial Date Yet in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to set a date for the consolidated securities class
action filed against Oracle Corp. after an earlier schedule has
been vacated.

Stockholder class actions were filed against the company and its
chief executive officer on and after March 9, 2001.  Between
March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised
second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, the company's then chief financial officer
(who currently is chairman of the company's board of directors)
and a former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the company's actual and
expected financial performance and the performance of certain of
its applications products, while certain individual defendants
were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities
laws.

Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants
sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged
in accounting violations.

The parties are conducting discovery.  Although trial had been
set for Sept. 11, 2006, the court vacated that trial date, and
no new trial date has been set, according to the company's form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

The suit is "Nursing Home Pension Fund et al. v. Oracle Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jennie Lee Anderson, Eli
Greenstein, Mark Solomon and Monique Winkler of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058,
Fax: 619-231-7423 and 415-288-4534, E-mail:
jenniea@lerachlaw.com, Elig@lerachlaw.com, marks@lerachlaw.com
and MoniqueW@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dorian Daley, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA
         94065, Phone: (650) 506-5200, Fax: (650) 506-7114;

     (2) James C. Maroulis of Oracle Corporation, 500 Oracle
         Parkway, M/S 5OP7, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, Phone:
         650-506-4517, Fax: 650-506-7114, E-mail:
         jim.maroulis@oracle.com; and

     (3) Lee Howard Rubin of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, Two
         Palo Alto Square, Suite 300, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
         Alto, CA 94306-2112, Phone: 650-331-2037, Fax: 540-331-
         4537, E-mail: lrubin@mayerbrownrowe.com.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purported stockholder class actions filed against Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies and certain of its executive
officers have been named as defendants in several purported
stockholder class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of the registrant between April 29, 2004 and July
5, 2006.

The lawsuits followed the registrant's July 5, 2006 announcement
that it will restate certain of its financial statements and
allege that the registrant and certain members of its management
engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the registrant's financial condition and results.

The class actions have been consolidated and are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The court
has appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  The
registrant anticipates that the plaintiffs will file a
consolidated amended complaint in January 2007.  

Additionally, a letter from the staff of the SEC has informed
the registrant, dated July 7, 2006, that the SEC is conducting
an informal investigation of the registrant related to its
proposed restatement.  


POLAROID CORP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed an amended complaint in a proposed class action on
behalf of purchasers of Polaroid Corp. stock between March 28,
2000, and Aug. 9, 2001.

The original complaint charges that the company's auditor KPMG
LLP, its chairman and chief executive, chief financial officer,
and controller ignored generally accepted accounting principles
and misrepresented deferred tax assets, fraudulently reversed
restructuring charges.  KPMG is also accused of failing to issue
going concern qualification and misrepresented Polaroid's
refinancing.

On Sept. 21, 2004, the Court entered the Opinion and Order
signed by U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein granting the
motion to consolidate the actions and granting the Sczesny
Trusts' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for the
approval of the selection of Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff &
Sucharow LLP as lead counsel.  

On Nov. 19, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.  The defendants' filed a motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the court entered opinion and order granting
the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  
According to the order, plaintiffs' claims with respect to the
alleged deferred tax asset and restructuring reserve reversal
frauds are dismissed as time-barred because plaintiffs were on
inquiry notice more than one year before commencing this action.

Further, plaintiffs' claims with respect to the alleged going
concern qualification and refinancing misrepresentation frauds
are dismissed for failure to plead scienter with the requisite
particularity.  

On Nov. 20, 2006, the court entered the Clerk's Judgment, and
the case is now closed.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Lawsuit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud complaint filed against Siebel
Systems, Inc., is appealing the dismissal of the suit by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of Siebel
Systems, a company acquired by Oracle Corp. in January 2006,
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Siebel and certain of its
officers relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and
certain customer satisfaction surveys.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff.  The consolidated
complaint also raised claims regarding Siebel's business
performance in 2002.  

In October 2004, Siebel filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on January 28, 2005 with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 1, 2005.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.  Siebel
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 27,
2005, and on Dec. 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.  

On January 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on
September 18, 2006, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief.  Defendants' responsive brief was filed on Dec. 15, 2006.


SONUS NETWORKS: Lead Plaintiff Named in Mass. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark L. Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts issued an order and decision naming the State
of Mississippi as lead plaintiff, with Wolf Popper LLP, as its
lead counsel in the consolidated securities class action against
Sonus Networks, Inc., captioned, "In Re Sonus Networks
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW."

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company's
common stock filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the company, certain officers
and directors and a former officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Class Action Complaints).

The purchasers sought to represent a class of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Dec. 11, 2000 and
Jan. 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.

The class action complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
about its products and business.

On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On April 22, 2003, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at
the conclusion of which the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
on July 30, 2004.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the court certified the class and appointed a
class representative.  On March 9, 2005, the court appointed
lead counsel.

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of
the class representative, the class representative withdrew.
Lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new plaintiff
as the class representative.

On May 19, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and took
the matter under advisement.  On Aug. 15, 2005, the court issued
an order decertifying the class and requiring the parties to
submit a joint report informing the court whether the cases have
been settled and whether defendants would be seeking to recover
attorney's fees from the plaintiffs.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to voluntarily
dismiss their complaints with prejudice.  On Oct. 5, 2005, the
court entered an order dismissing the cases.

On Oct. 21, 2005, the defendants filed a motion seeking the
recovery of attorneys' fees from plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
have opposed the motion.  No hearing date has been scheduled
(Class Action Reporter, April 10, 2006).

On Dec. 27, 2006, the Court issued an order and decision naming
the State of Mississippi as lead plaintiff, with Wolf Popper
LLP, as its lead counsel in this lawsuit.

In appointing Wolf Popper LLP as lead counsel, the Court noted,
"Wolf Popper LLP has experience and expertise in representing
plaintiffs in securities class actions. It has a record of
achieving results for its clients in many of those cases." The
Court also found that Mississippi's "status as an institutional
investor, its substantial stake in this dispute, and its
retention of qualified counsel" as satisfying "the presumption
that it should be appointed lead plaintiff ... "

The suit is "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, case
no. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert J. Berg and Michael S. Bigin of Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, 22nd
         Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414; and

     (2) Richard H. Weiss, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
         Lerach, One Penn Plaza, New York City, NY 10002, Phone:
         212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229.

Representing the company are Daniel W. Halston, J. Andrew Kent,
Michelle D. Miller, James W. Prendegrast, Jeffrey B. Rudman, and
Peter A. Spaeth of Wilmer Hale, 60 State Street, Boston, MA
02109, Phone: 617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com, michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com,
jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com, peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com.


TRINSIC INC: Appeals Court Vacates Certification of Focus Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated a district
court's order granting class certification in each of six focus
cases in "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,"
which names Trinsic Inc. as defendant.

During June and July 2001, three separate class actions were
filed against the company, certain of our current and former
directors and officers and firms engaged in the underwriting of
our initial public offering of stock.  

The lawsuits, along with approximately 310 other similar
lawsuits filed against other issuers arising out of initial
public offering allocations, have been assigned to a judge in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
for pretrial coordination.

The lawsuits against the company have been consolidated into a
single action.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
April 20, 2002.  A second corrected amended complaint, which is
the operative complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.

The amended complaint is based on the allegations that the
company's registration statement on Form S-1, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
IPO, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to
state facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
by failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly had
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from,
and allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated
shares in the IPO.

The plaintiffs in the amended complaint assert claims against
the company and the directors and officers pursuant to Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC there under.  

The plaintiffs in the amended complaint assert claims against
the directors and officers pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
by the SEC there under.

The plaintiffs seek an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements. Initial discovery has begun.

The plaintiffs, the issuers, and insurers of the issuers have
reached a settlement.  The principal terms of the proposed
settlement are:

     -- a release of all claims against the issuers and their
        officers and directors;

     -- the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
        certain claims the issuers may have against the
        Underwriters; and

     -- an undertaking by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs
        receive not less than $1 billion in connection with
        claims against the Underwriters.

Hence, under the terms of the proposed settlement the company's
financial obligations will likely be covered by insurance.  To
be binding, the court must approve the settlement.  There is no
assurance that the court will finally approve the settlement.

On Dec. 5, 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, vacated the court's order granting class certification
in each of six focus cases and remanded for further proceedings.  

The court has stayed all proceedings pending a decision from the
Second Circuit as to whether it will hear further arguments on
class certification.

The suit is Master File Number 21 MC 92.


TRINSIC COMMS: Ill. Consumer Litigation Enters Into Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in the consumer fraud class action filed
against Trinsic Communications, Inc., formerly known as
Z-Tel Communications, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois County Department, Chancery Division.

Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed the putative class action on May 13, 2004.  The
original complaint alleged that the company's subsidiary engaged
in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into paying
amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively labeling
certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes or fees
when in fact they were not.

It sought to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
persons or entities that contracted with the company for
telecommunications services and were billed for particular taxes
or regulatory fees.

Additionally, the complaint asserted a claim under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and sought
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

On June 22, 2004, the company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, C.A. No. 4
C 4187.

On July 26, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the state circuit court.  On Jan. 12, 2005, the federal court
granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court.

On Oct. 17, 2005, the state court heard argument on the
company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and granted that motion,
in part with prejudice.  

The court dismissed with prejudice the claims relating to the
"E911 Tax," the "Utility Users Tax," and the "Communications
Service Tax."  It found that those tax charges were specifically
authorized by state law or local ordinance, and thus cannot be
the basis of a Consumer Fraud claim.

The court also dismissed with leave to replead the claims
relating to the "Interstate Recovery Fee" and the "Federal
Regulatory Compliance Fee."  It determined that plaintiff had
failed to allege how she was actually damaged by the allegedly
deceptive description of the charges.

On Nov. 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint alleging that the company mislabeled its "Interstate
Recovery Fee" and "Federal Cost Recovery Fee" in supposed
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

As with the original complaint, the first amended class action
complaint seeks damages, fees, costs, and class certification.

The company filed a further motion to dismiss, which was heard
by the court on April 3, 2006.  The court granted that motion by
dismissing plaintiff's claims for unfair practices under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
dismissing in part plaintiff's claims for deceptive practice
under the Act.

The court determined that the plaintiff did not state sufficient
facts indicating that her alleged damages were caused by the
company's alleged deception.  

Plaintiff was granted 21 days in which to replead the claims of
deception.  On April 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a second
amended class action complaint again alleging that Trinsic
mislabeled its "Interstate Recovery Fee" and "Federal Cost
Recovery Fee" in supposed violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The second amended class action complaint seeks damages, fees,
costs, and class certification.

The company moved to dismiss this second amended class action
complaint, and the court heard the motion on Aug. 28, 2006.  On
Sept. 27, 2006, the court issued a ruling allowing the
plaintiff's remaining claims to stand and ordered the company to
answer the second amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2006.  

The company filed an answer denying all material allegations.
Discovery has recently begun, according to the company's Dec. 21
form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Susan Schad v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc.," filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Illinois County
Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 04CH07882," under Judge
Richard J. Billik, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Miller Faucher Chertow, 30 N
LaSalle St. 3630, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.  

Representing the company is Pretzel & Stouffer, 1 S. Wacker Dr.
#2500, Chicago, IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 346-1973.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Schools May Face Suit Over Student Info Leak
------------------------------------------------------------
State senator Dave Thomas is considering filing a class action
against Greenville County Schools over computers that the school
sold that still contained personal information of their
students, WIStv.com reported early in December.

Senator Dave Thomas represents two men who bought computers that
the school sold containing confidential student and employee
information, including Social Security numbers.  

According to the report, Sen. Thomas has turned information over
to the State Law Enforcement Division to see if the school
district broke any law releasing the computer.

The school board is trying to retrieve the computers and date
from those who have acquired them.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Fraud Trial of Former CEO to Start January
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal criminal trial to determine the involvement of the
former chief executive of Supreme Specialties Inc. in the fraud
at the company is to begin this month, according to a report by
The Star-Ledger.  The trial is set to start Jan. 29 and could
last as long as three months.

In court papers filed as part of a securities class action,
former chief executive Mark Cocchiola had denied wrongdoing,
according to the report.

Federal prosecutors had filed court papers asking a judge to
temporarily postpone certain required responses in the civil
case until after Mr. Cocchiola's criminal trial ends, the report
said.                          

                        Case Background

An investor sued Suprema Specialties on Jan. 24, 2002, accusing
the company of misleading the public about its financial
results.  Suprema filed for bankruptcy on the same year.

The class action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
New Jersey, seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Suprema stock from
Aug. 8, 2001 through Dec. 21, 2001.

The complaint names Suprema and six top officers and directors
as defendants, saying they inflated the company's stock price
during the class period by inflating recorded sales.  

In August 2001 when the Company announced "record" results for
the fourth quarter and year-end of 2001.  In September 2001, the
company filed statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission saying it was issuing 3.5 million shares of stock to
the public.   

In November 2001, Suprema again trumpeted its results for the
first quarter of 2002.  One-month later, Suprema announced the
resignation of its chief financial officer and controller and
said it had begun an investigation into its past financial
results.  Nasdaq halted trading in Suprema shares the same day.

Four customers and a Suprema employee have pleaded guilty to
participating in a round-tripping scheme.  Mr. Cocchiola and
former chief financial officer Steve Venechanos were indicted in
July 2005 on 38 counts of conspiracy and mail, wire, bank and
securities fraud.

                   Consolidated Class Action

On Feb. 28, 2002, the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action.  Beginning on March
15, 2002 competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were filed with the court.  

On July 1, 2002, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the class and lead counsel to oversee the litigation.  
The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 9, 2002.  On Sept. 15, 2006, plaintiffs filed
a motion to certify the class.

The suit is "Smith, et al v. Suprema Specialties, et al., Case
No. 2:02-cv-00168-WHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey under Judge William H. Walls.

Mr. Cocchiola's civil attorney is William Bailey.  Erik
Sandstedt, one of the lead attorneys in the class action case.


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Lazard Told to Hand Documents in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted plaintiffs in "In re Vivendi Universal S.A. Securities
Litigation," to compel non-party Lazard Group LLC -- a New York-
based Delaware company -- to produce documents, located in
France, under an October 2005 subpoena duces tecum.

Lazard had claimed that in deference to France's 'Blocking'
statute plaintiffs must seek documents in its possession or
control in France under Chapter 11 of the Hague Convention on
the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters.  

On Nov. 11, 2006, court granted plaintiffs' motion and denied
Lazard protective relief.  Applying the factors outlined in
"First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLP," it found no
reason to depart from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
noting that a majority of courts have held that France has
little interest in enforcing its Blocking statute.

Citing "Bodner v. Paribas" and "Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance
Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.," the court
observed that, despite threats by French agencies, the statute
does not subject Lazard to a realistic risk of prosecution.

                       Case Background

Sixteen separate putative class action suits were filed against
Vivendi Universal, Jean-Marie Messier and (in nine cases)
Guillaume Hannezo in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements throughout the class period that had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.  

Specifically, prior to and during the class period, Mr. Messier
took Vivendi on an acquisition binge that, according to
published reports, resulted in the company amassing
approximately $ 18 billion in debt as he turned the company from
a water concern into an entertainment powerhouse.

In September 2002, the 14 New York cases were consolidated into
"In re Vivendi Universal Securities Litigation (Master File No.
02 CV 5571)," and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-
lead counsel.

In November 2002, the two California cases were transferred to
New York and consolidated with the New York litigation.


WAL-MART STORES: Plaintiffs Seek $72M More from Penn. Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania hourly employees at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. returned
to court to seek another $72 million in damages and interest for
labor laws violations by forcing employees to work through rest
breaks and denying them overtime pay as well, The Associated
Press reports.

In October 2006, a Philadelphia jury awarded $78,468,415 in
compensation to a class of approximately 186,000 Pennsylvania
hourly employees at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. outlets throughout the
state (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

But the employees have returned to court arguing that about
125,000 plaintiffs in the class action deserve an additional
$500 each in damages, or $62 million, under Pennsylvania labor
laws because the jury found Wal-Mart acted in bad faith.  These
so-called liquidated damages are designed to compensate people
for the delay in payment.

The remaining 61,000 plaintiffs, who do not qualify for those
damages because of legal time limits, should share in $10
million in interest on the back pay, plaintiffs' lawyer Michael
Donovan argued.

The 12 members of the Philadelphia jury had earlier found on
liability in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims that the
employees had not been paid for time spent working off the clock
or for missed 15-minute rest breaks.  

The jury also found that Wal-Mart did not have a good-faith
contest or dispute when it failed to compensate the class
members for the off-the-clock work and the missed rest breaks.
Following the determination of liability, the jury then
considered the question of damages.

Wal-Mart, which denies wrongdoing and is appealing the jury
award, opposed the added damages and interest.

Company attorneys said that Donovan merely estimated the number
of potential plaintiffs, and has not proven that each was
shortchanged.

The workers already are expected to receive anywhere from about
$50 to a few thousand dollars each from the initial award,
depending on how long they worked for the company.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein did not
immediately rule on the issues argued.  He questioned why Mr.
Donovan sought liquidated damages of $500 per worker when the
statute could be interpreted to allow $500 in damages each time
a worker was shortchanged.

"If I'm a claimant, I'm entitled to everything the law says I'm
entitled to, and if that's $500 every time I was shorted and I
was shorted 24 times a year, then it's $12,000," Judge Bernstein
said.

According to Mr. Donovan, he did not interpret the state wage
law that way.  He added that Wal-Mart's lack of record keeping
would make it impossible to determine the number of individual
violations.

Judge Bernstein certified a class on Jan. 16 after seeing
routine skipping of breaks and non-payment of extra work in Wal-
Mart's computer records (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).
That time, the suit is estimated to cover nearly 150,000 current
and former employees.  The class is being pursued on behalf of
186,000 workers.  

The employees are represented by attorney Michael Donovan, of
Donovan Searles, 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-732-6067, Fax:
215-732-8060.

Representing Wal-Mart is Brian P. Flaherty of Wolf, Block,
Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2097 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone:
215-977-2000, Telecopier: 215-977-2334.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Va. Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announces that a class action has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Tier Technologies, Inc. who
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
TIER between Nov. 29, 2001 and Oct. 25, 2006.  

The securities fraud class action is currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint alleges that TIER and certain of its officers and
directors violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements.

In particular, TIER failed to disclose that the values of its
net income, retained earnings and reserves were materially
overstated.  

On Dec. 14, 2005, the company announced that its financial
statements for fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through Sept.
30, 2004 and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005, should no
longer be relied upon and announced that a restatement of those
financial statements would be required.  

Later, on April 19, 2006, the company announced that an internal
investigation revealed a "number of serious new allegations
relevant to the restatement-related issues," and on May 24,
2006, the company announced that its stock would be de-listed
from Nasdaq.  Following these belated disclosures, shares of
TIER declined precipitously.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100 or 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.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  * * *