CAR_Public/070115.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, January 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 10

                            Headlines

A.G. EDWARDS: Faces N.Y., N.J., Ore., Pa., Calif. Overtime Suits
ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Calif. WARN Violations Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC: Idaho Court Mulls Final Approval for Settlement
ALBERTSON'S INC: Time to Appeal for "Dunbar" Litigation Expires
ARAMARK CORP: Settles Del. Suits Related to Acquisition Proposal

BAYER CORP: Faces Calif. Pharmaceutical Sale Reps' Overtime Suit
CHINESE DAILY: Workers Win Wage, Hour Violations Suit in Calif.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeals Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Fla. Fraud Lawsuits Still in Arbitration
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Education Law Violations Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Gender Bias Suit Granted Class Status
DELL CANADA: Faces Litigation in Ontario Over Inspiron Notebooks
DOMINION BRIDGE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
EMMIS COMMS: Continues to Face Shareholder Litigation in Ind.
ENRON CORP: States Support Investors in Lawsuit Against Banks

FOCUS HEALTHCARE: Settles Health Care Providers' Lawsuit in La.
FREEMOTION: Recalls Exercise Machines Due to Falling Weights
GEMSTAR-TV: Shareholders to be Paid from Sarbox "Fair Funds"
GREAT ATLANTIC: Receives Windfall From VISA/MasterCard Suit Deal
HANSEN NATURAL: Jan. 29 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Scheduled

HARRIS SCARFE: Notice of Stock Suit Settlement Sent to Class
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: $445M Suit Settlement Granted Final Approval
HELEN OF TROY: Still Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Suit
HO'S TRADING: Recalls Soup Recipes Over Undeclared Sulfites
ILLINOIS: Plaintiffs in U46 Litigation Filed Amended Complaint

JOVANE INVESTMENTS: Faces $1.2B Real Estate Fraud Suit in Calif.
LOEWS CORP: Provides Update on Tobacco Litigation Against Unit
MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Court Limits Testimony in Antitrust Suit
MONSANTO CO: Ill. Court Mulls Trial for ERISA Violations Suit
NEW YORK: June Hearing Set for $2.5M Strip-Search Suit Agreement

NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit
PALM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
PALM INC: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Suits Over Treo Products
PDI INC: Marketing Services Firm Named in Bayer-Baycol Lawsuit
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: Faces $10M Fla. Breach of Contract Suit

RED HAT: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Stock Suit to End by Sept. 21, 2007
SUNWEST MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Over Non-Compliance of State Laws
TELXON CORP: Final Distribution of $67.9M Settlement Underway


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CELESTICA INC: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


A.G. EDWARDS: Faces N.Y., N.J., Ore., Pa., Calif. Overtime Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.G. Edwards, Inc. was named as a defendant in separate lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
New York, the District of New Jersey, the District of Oregon and
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania.

Each of the suits seeks to be a class action on behalf of
defined groups of financial consultants or employees being
trained to be financial consultants during specified periods
that vary in each lawsuit.  

Each of the suits seeks, among other relief, overtime pay for
the purported class members and two of the suits seek
reimbursement of certain amounts deducted from commissions
allegedly owed the employees or paid by the employees.

As has been previously disclosed, a lawsuit also seeking to
represent a class of financial consultants and employees being
trained as financial consultants and making similar claims has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Calif. WARN Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class
action, "Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al.,"
which was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California.

The suit alleges that the company and its subsidiaries, Lucky
Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees their
final paychecks in an untimely manner.  The suit seeks statutory
penalties.  

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action,
according to company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Nov. 30, 2006.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Idaho Court Mulls Final Approval for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for
the County of Ada has yet to issue a final approval order for
the settlement of a purported class action against Albertson's,
Inc. in relation to a definitive agreement to sell the company.

On Jan. 22, 2006, the company entered into a series of
agreements providing for the sale of Albertson's to Supervalu
Inc., CVS Corp. and a consortium of investors including Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P., Kimco Realty Corp., Lubert-Adler
Management, Inc., Klaff Realty, L.P. and Schottenstein Stores
Corp. (Cerberus Group).  

As a result of a series of transactions provided for under the
agreements, Albertsons' stockholders stand to ultimately be
entitled to receive $20.35 in cash and 0.182 shares of Supervalu
common stock for each share of Albertson's common stock that
they held before the transactions.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for
the County of Ada, naming Albertsons and its directors as
defendants.

The action, "Christopher Carmona v. Henry Bryant et al., No. CV-
OC-0601251," which was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho and subsequently remanded to Idaho state
court, challenges the agreements entered into in connection with
the transactions.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that company and its
directors, violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or
aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
including by failing to value Albertsons properly and by
ignoring conflicts of interest.

Among other things, the complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the completion of the
transactions.

On May 18, 2006, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding for a full settlement with the plaintiff.  In
connection with executing the memorandum of understanding, which
remains subject to the approval of the court, the company filed
a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission in which
it made disclosure of additional details of the circumstances
and events leading up to the company's entry into the sale and
related transactions that are the subject of the legal action.

In addition, Albertsons agreed, subject to court approval, to
pay certain fees and expenses of plaintiff's counsel.  On Aug.
17, 2006, over the objection of a former shareholder who sought
but was refused status as an intervenor, the court:

      -- preliminarily approved the Carmona settlement;

      -- certified a no-opt-out settlement class consisting of
         all former Albertsons shareholders and their successors
         in interest, assigns and transferees who held
         Albertsons shares at any time between Sept. 2, 2005
         through June 2, 2006 excluding the defendants and their
         immediate families;

      -- appointed Christopher Carmona as the representative for
         the settlement class;

      -- set a schedule for final approval of the settlement;
         and

      -- approved notices to be published and sent to the former
         shareholders advising them of the schedule and an
         opportunity to object to the settlement.

On Dec. 13, 2006, the court held a hearing for final approval of
the settlement.  After hearing argument from counsel and
testimony on behalf of one shareholder, the court took the
matter under advisement, according to company's Jan. 9, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Nov. 30, 2006.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Time to Appeal for "Dunbar" Litigation Expires
---------------------------------------------------------------
The time period for further appeal by plaintiffs in the class
action "Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc.," has now passed.

Maurice Dunbar, a grocery manager filed the suit in March 2004,
seeking recovery including overtime pay based upon plaintiff's
allegation that he and other grocery managers were improperly
classified as exempt under California law (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

In June, Judge Ronald M. Sabraw of the Superior Court of
California for Alameda County denied to certify the class on the
grounds that the difficulty in resolving issues applicable to
individual managers outweigh the benefits of a class action.  

Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the First District Court of
Appeal.  Mr. Dunbar argued that common issues of classification
predominated over individual issues of liability and damages,
according to the report.  

The classification of grocery managers as "executive positions"
reflected a single corporate policy decision, he maintained, the
grocery managers should be able to contest it in a single
action.

To support Mr. Dunbar's claims, 92 managers submitted
declarations stating that the great majority of their work time
was devoted to non-managerial tasks, such as checking inventory,
stocking shelves, and cashiering.

Albertson's argued that most of the work performed was allegedly
executive.  The company further, contended that the issue of job
duties varied too greatly among individual managers to compel
class certification.

Judge Sabraw found that individual issues were predominant, as
deposition testimony suggested the work of many grocery managers
varied significantly from store to store and week to week.  

In conclusion, he said the company's common classification
policy was insufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement
for class certification.

The time period for further appeal by plaintiffs has now passed,
according to company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Nov. 30, 2006.


ARAMARK CORP: Settles Del. Suits Related to Acquisition Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corp. entered into an agreement in principle to settle
litigation filed against it in Delaware courts with regards to a
proposal to acquire shares in the company.

On May 1, 2006, two cases were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in New Castle County against the Company
and each of the company's directors.  

The two cases are putative class actions brought by stockholders
alleging that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company in connection with the proposal from a
group of investors led by Mr. Neubauer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the company.

On May 22, 2006, two additional cases making substantially
identical allegations were brought against the company and
certain of its directors:

      -- one in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia,
         Pennsylvania in which only the company and Mr. Neubauer
         were named as defendants; and

      -- another in the Court of Chancery of the State of
         Delaware in New Castle County in which the company and
         all directors were named as defendants.

All of the cases make claims for monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and expenses.  On June 7, 2006, the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated the
three pending Delaware actions as "In re: ARAMARK Corporation
Shareholders Litigation."

On or around Aug. 11, 2006, the City of Southfield Police and
Fire Retirement System filed a fourth putative class-action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
New Castle County purportedly on behalf of the company's
stockholders.  

The complaint names the company and each of the company's
directors as defendants and alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the stockholders in connection with
the proposed acquisition of the company's outstanding shares and
making claims for monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated this action with "In re: ARAMARK Corporation
Shareholders Litigation."  

The parties have entered into an agreement in principle to
settle the Delaware actions.  The agreement in principle remains
subject to court approval.  

As part of the agreement in principle, each share of Class A
common stock beneficially owned by members of ARAMARK's
management committee -- Joseph Neubauer, L. Frederick
Sutherland, Bart J. Colli, Timothy P. Cost, Andrew C. Kerin,
Lynn B. McKee, Ravi K. Saligram and Thomas J. Vozzo -- will be
counted as one vote for purposes of the additional vote to
approve the adoption of the merger agreement.


BAYER CORP: Faces Calif. Pharmaceutical Sale Reps' Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, filed by
one of its former employees seeking back pay as far back as six
years.

The suit, filed by Natalie Balyasny, alleges violation of
federal and state wage and hour laws.

It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are,
or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in
any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the
following titles:

     (a) Pharmaceutical Sale Representative 1
     (b) Pharmaceutical Sale Representative 2
     (c) Pharmaceutical Sale Representative 3

and employees who performed substantial the same work as
employees with those titles above and who were employed during
the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for
relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including
time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry
-- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as
"exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state
labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

Specifically, plaintiff allege that upon information and belief,
defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of
corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout
California and the U.S., in the following respects:

     (a) failing to pay employees overtime compensation for
         hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

     (b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees'
         time; and

     (c) failing to pay class members overtime compensation for
         hours worked in excess of eight hours per day.

There are questions of law and fact common to the class which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members, including:

     (1) whether defendants employed or jointly employed
         plaintiff and the class within the meaning of the
         California law;

     (2) what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants
         failed in their duty to maintain time records;

     (3) what were the policies, practices, programs,
         procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding
         payment of overtime wages;

     (4) what were the policies, practices, programs, procedure,
         protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of
         wages for all hours worked;

     (5) whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay
         plaintiff and the class premium pay for hours worked in
         excess of 40 per workweek or eight hours per workday
         within the meaning of California law;

     (6) what are and were the policies, practices, programs,
         procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding
         the types of work and labor for which defendants did
         not pay the class members at all;

     (7) at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods
         of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay
         the class members for their work;

     (8) what are the common conditions of employment and in the
         workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies
         and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect
         whether the class was paid at overtime rates for
         overtime work;

     (9) whether defendants compensated class members that
         terminated their employment all wages owed them
         immediately upon the termination of their employment as
         required by California law; and

    (10) whether defendants provided plaintiff with rest periods
         and meal breaks as required by California law.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Covered Employees,
prays for relief as follows:

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        are unlawful under FLSA;
   
     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 216(b);

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the FLSA
        Collective plaintiffs;

     -- certification of this action as a class action brought
        pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the class;

     -- an injunction against defendants, their officers,
        agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any
        and all persons acting in concert with it, as provided
        by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
        polices, and patterns set forth;

     -- an award of damages, according to proof, including
        liquidated damages, to be paid by defendant;

     -- penalties available under applicable law;

     -- costs of action incurred, including expert fees;

     -- attorney's fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216 and other applicable statutes;

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

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the
        court deems necessary, just and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1864

The suit is "Natalie Balyasny v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-07594-JFW-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter,
with referral to Judge Paul L. Abrams.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric B Kingsley and George R Kingsley, both of Kingsley
         and Kingsley, 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200,
         Encino, CA 91436, Phone: 818-990-8300; and

     (2) D. Maimon Kirschenbaum of Joseph and Herzefld, 757
         Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-688-5640.

Representing defendants is Jennifer White-Sperling of Morgan
Lewis and Bockius, 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-612-7205, E-mail:
jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com.


CHINESE DAILY: Workers Win Wage, Hour Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California awarded a multi-million dollar judgment to workers at
the Chinese Daily News in Monterey Park, California in relation
to the newspaper's willful violations of federal and state wage
and hour laws.

The jury verdict in the class action found that the Chinese
Daily News violated California provisions on overtime pay and
meal and rest periods, as well as the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The jury award -- a minimum of $2.5 million -- will result in a
multi-million dollar award to the newspaper workers, with the
final amount depending on damages assessed by the court because
the violations were found to be willful, along with additional
damages for the state violations.

Employees at the Chinese Daily News have been fighting for
fairness and a union voice since 2001 but had been blocked by a
long management campaign of intimidation, illegal firings and
other fear tactics.

During this long process of delay and denial of workers' rights,
the Chinese Daily News employees remained determined to win
workplace justice and filed wage and hour lawsuits which were
certified as in a class action last year.

TNG-CWA Local 39521 worked with the Chinese Daily News workers
from the beginning, helping them build their organization and
take on a vicious anti- union management determined to fight
them at every turn. "This decision brings some justice for
workers who have been intimidated and abused by management just
because they wanted to exercise their workplace rights," said
Doug Cuthbertson, executive officer of the local.

TNG-CWA President Linda Foley said the fact that the jury
recognized the unfair treatment and shoddy behavior of the
Chinese Daily News management was a sweet victory for workers
after years of taking their charges and complaints to the
National Labor Relations Board and getting no redress, despite
findings of illegal actions by their employer.

"Management had too many years to harass and intimidate workers
who should have long ago had their union," Ms. Foley said. "This
is a key example of why our labor election system is broken and
why we need to make company neutrality and card-check
recognition the law of the land through the Employee Free Choice
Act."

The suit is "Lynne Wang et al v. Chinese Daily News Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01498-CBM-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Consuelo B. Marshall, with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

Representing defendants are Steven D. Atkinson, Scott K.
Dauscher, Thomas A. Lenz and Mark T. Palin, all of Atkinson
Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, 17871 Park Plaza Dr, Ste 200,
Cerritos, CA 90703-8597, Phone: 562-653-3200, Fax: 562-653-3333,
E-mail: satkinson@aalrr.com or skd@aalrr.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Della Bahan of Bahan & Associates, 125 University
         Avenue, Suite 102, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-
         0740, Fax: 510-845-3654;

     (2) Jennifer A. Reisch of Bahan & Associates, 140 S Lake
         Ave, Ste 230, Pasadena, CA 91101, Phone: 626-796-5100;

     (3) Peter Bibring of the ACLU Foundation of Southern
         California, 1616 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
         90026, Phone: 213-977-9500; E-mail:
         pbibring@aclu-sc.org;

     (4) Cornelia Ho-Chin Dai, Dan Stormer and Christy Virginia
         Keeny all of Hadsell & Stormer, 128 North Fair Oaks
         Avenue, Suite 204, Pasadena, CA 91103-3645, Phone: 626-
         585-9600, Fax: 626-577-7079; and

     (5) Randall R. Renick and Joshua Piovia-Scott both of
         Randall R Renick Law Offices, 128 N Fair Oaks Avenue,
         Suite 204, Pasadena, CA 91103, Phone: 626-585-9608,
         Fax: 626-585-9610.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeals Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. in the Central District of California appealed
the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  

From July 8, 2004 through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by certain alleged purchasers of
the company's common stock against the company and certain of
its current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis
Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
have been consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated
amended complaint was filed in February 2005.  

The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock during
a specified class period from Aug. 27, 2003 through July 30,
2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.  
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief.

On April 24, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint
with prejudice.  The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit.  

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Manuel
L. Real.  The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

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

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Fla. Fraud Lawsuits Still in Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action alleging fraud by Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
regarding the status of its accreditation with other colleges is
in arbitration.

On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually
identical putative class-action complaints:

     -- "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc.," and

     -- "Florida Metropolitan University, and Satz v. Rhodes
         Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
         Metropolitan University."

Additionally, on May 7, 2004, the company received another
putative class-action complaint entitled:

     -- "Jennifer Baker, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
         Florida Metropolitan University, Inc." and

on April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint,

     -- "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
         Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan
         University, Inc."

The Baker complaint names nine plaintiffs while the Alvarez
first amended and supplemental complaint names 99 plaintiffs.

Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case recently granted the
plaintiffs motion to add an additional seven plaintiffs to the
first amended and supplemental complaint.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former students in
the company's Florida Metropolitan University (FMU) campuses in
Florida and online.  

They allege that FMU concealed the fact that the Commission on
Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) does not accredit it and that FMU credits are not
transferable to other institutions.

Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as a class action
and recovery of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for
themselves and all similarly situated people.

The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the company on all
counts in a July 5, 2005 award on the company's motion to
dismiss.

The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement
with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and
is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.  Mr. Satz filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the arbitrator recently denied.

The company has filed motions to compel arbitration in "Baker"
and "Alvarez," and the Travis court recently compelled that case
to arbitration.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2006.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Education Law Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative
class action demand in arbitration entitled "Michelle Sanchez v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.," which is pending in California
Superior Court.

The suit was filed by a former diagnostic medical sonography
student from the company's Bryman College campus in West Los
Angeles, alleging violations of the California education code
and of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2006.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Gender Bias Suit Granted Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn Patel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted class certification to a lawsuit
filed against Costco Wholesale Corp. over alleged denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The lawsuit, first filed in August 2004 by a female assistant
manager at a Costco warehouse in Colorado, now could include
more than 700 women allegedly discriminated against in being
denied promotions

Filed in 2004, the suit, "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,"
claims that women are denied equal opportunities for promotion
to the positions of assistant warehouse manager and general
warehouse manager (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2006).

The lawsuit contends that Costco lacks an application process,
job posting system or written standards for assistant and
general manager promotions.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, according to
the company's June 16, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 7,
2006 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2006).

At the time the lawsuit was filed, company officials said they
"strongly disagree with any claim that Costco has discriminated
against any individual or group of employees."
    
The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James M. Finberg, Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq. and Bill Lann  
         Lee all of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275  
         Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-
         3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail:  
         JFinberg@lchb.com or lhazam@lchb.com or blee@lchb.com;

     (2) Jocelyn Dion Larkin and Brad Seligman both of The  
         Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710,  
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail:  
         jlarkin@impactfund.org or bs@impactfund.org; and

     (3) Elizabeth A. Lawrence and Steve Stemerman both of Davis  
         Cowell & Bowe, 595 Market Street, Suite 1400, San  
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-597-7200, Fax: 415-597-
         7201, E-mail: eal@dcbsf.com or stemdcb@aol.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) David D. Kadue and William Owen Kampf both of Seyfarth  
         Shaw LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300, Los  
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-5211 or 310-277-7200  
         x1515, Fax: 310-201-5219, E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
         or wkampf@la.seyfarth.com;

     (2) Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 55 East  
         Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803,  
         Phone: 312-346-8000, Fax: 312-269-8869;

     (3) David B. Ross of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 1270 Avenue of the  
         Americas, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10020, Phone: (212)  
         218-5511, Fax: (212) 218-5526; and

     (4) Thomas J. Wybenga, 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027,  
         Phone: (425) 313-6794.


DELL CANADA: Faces Litigation in Ontario Over Inspiron Notebooks
----------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action was commenced against Dell Canada Inc.
on behalf of Canadians who own the following Dell Inspiron
notebooks: 1100, 1150, 5100, 5150 or 5160.

The claim, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
alleges that Dell was negligent in the design of the notebooks,
and that Dell knew or ought to have known of the inherent
defects in the notebooks' design but nevertheless sold, marketed
and distributed the notebooks in Canada.

As alleged in the claim, the fundamental problem with the Dell
Inspiron Computers involves design defects that make the
computers susceptible to overheating and premature motherboard
failure.  The failures involving these Dell notebooks often
occur just outside of the standard one-year warranty period.

The claim seeks compensation as a result of alleged defects in
these Dell notebooks.  The defendant named in the lawsuit is
Dell Canada Inc.  A similar action in the U.S. involving the
Dell Inspiron 5150 was recently settled, however, ongoing
litigation involving the four other models continues.

"Many people rely on their notebook computers as a means of
earning a living and for educational purposes", said Joel P.
Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP. "This action seeks to
deliver fair compensation to Canadian consumers who own these
computers."

The proposed representative plaintiff, Thad Griffin of Aurora,
Ontario, stated: "I do not believe that I should be forced to
spend hundreds of dollars to fix the defective motherboard, when
Dell should have known about this problem at the time they
initially sold the computer".

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court. The firm of Rochon Genova LLP represents the plaintiff
and the prospective class members.

For more information, contact Rochon Genova LLP, 121 Richmond
St. W, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1, Phone: (416) 363-
1867 or toll-free: 1-866-881-2292, Website:
http://www.rochongenova.com.


DOMINION BRIDGE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 22, 2007 at 10 a.m.
regarding the $750,000 settlement of a class action, "Dominion
Bridge Corp. Securities Litigation."

The hearing will be before the Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr., at
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601
Market Street, Courtroom 4-B, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Dominion Bridge from April 20, 1995
through May 18, 1996, inclusive.

Proofs of claim are due March 3, 2007.  Deadline for exclusion
is Jan. 8, 2007.

Claims Administrator   Dominion Bridge Corp.
                       Securities Litigation
                       c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
                       P.O. Box 9014
                       Jericho, NY 11753-8914
                       Phone: (800) 766-3330
                       Fax: (516) 931-0810
                       Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims

Counsel                       Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
For Representative Plaintiff  Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
and Settlement Class          Weiss & Lurie
                              10940 Wilshire Boulevard
                              Suite 2300
                              Los Angeles, CA 90024
                              Phone: (310) 208-2800


EMMIS COMMS: Continues to Face Shareholder Litigation in Ind.  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation remains a defendant in a suit
filed by shareholders in relation to an offer by ECC
Acquisition, Inc. to acquire the company.

On May 8, 2006, Emmis Communications Corporation announced that
ECC Acquisition, Inc., an Indiana corporation wholly owned by
Jeffrey H. Smulyan, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
controlling shareholder of the Company, had made a non-binding
proposal to acquire the outstanding publicly held shares of
Emmis for $15.25 per share in cash.

The proposal stated that the purchaser intended to invite
certain other members of the Company's management to join the
purchaser to participate in the transaction.  In the proposal,
Mr. Smulyan also made clear that, in his capacity as a
shareholder of the Company, his interest in the proposed
transaction was to purchase shares of the Company not owned by
him and that he would not agree to any other transaction
involving the Company or his shares of the Company.

In response to the proposal, the Board of Directors of Emmis
formed a special committee of three independent directors,
namely, Peter A. Lund, Frank V. Sica and Lawrence B. Sorrel, to
consider the proposal.  The special committee selected its own
independent financial and legal advisors and appointed Mr. Sica
to serve as its chairman.  Mr. Smulyan and other directors of
Emmis that are members of management did not participate in the
evaluation of the proposal.

On August 4, 2006, the Company received a letter from ECC
Acquisition, Inc. withdrawing the proposal.  Subsequently, Mr.
Smulyan and his advisors at various times discussed with
directors who served on the special committee and/or their
advisors the withdrawn proposal and whether Mr. Smulyan or ECC
Acquisition, Inc. would make a similar going private proposal.

Those discussions included exploration by Mr. Smulyan of the
directors' views of a potential reinstitution of the proposal at
a price of $16.80 per share in cash.  Those discussions were
discontinued on or around August 31, 2006 without a new offer
being made.  

The special committee is no longer active, but a consolidated
lawsuit filed in Marion County (Indiana) Superior Court on
behalf of Emmis shareholders seeking injunctive relief and
damages in connection with the offer, as well as class action
status, remains on file with the court.

The company believes the withdrawal of the proposal makes the
lawsuit moot.


ENRON CORP: States Support Investors in Lawsuit Against Banks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys general from 30 states had filed a brief in support of
shareholders in the case holding investment banks, including
Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse Group, liable as participants
in accounting fraud at Enron Corp., reports say.

According to Associated Press, the attorneys general signing the
brief were from Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont and West Virginia.

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  On July
5, 2006, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston granted
class-action status to a suit by shareholders.  Defendants are
opposing the certification.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans
agreed on Nov. 1 to hear arguments by Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Credit Suisse and the law firm Vinson & Elkins challenging the
certification (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 13, 2006).

Other defendants in the shareholders' suit are Royal Bank of
Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The defendants challenging the certification argue that
investors can't sue together because they must prove
individually whose acts they relied on before buying the Enron
shares.

Lead plaintiff, The University of California Board of Regents,
has reached settlements with Lehman Brothers, Bank of America,
the Outside Directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and CIBC
totaling over $7 billion for investors.

                    Non-settling Defendants

The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,  
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,  
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.  

Representing the defendants is J Mark Brewer of Brewer and  
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:  
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com.

Contact for William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin: 655 West
Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


FOCUS HEALTHCARE: Settles Health Care Providers' Lawsuit in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOCUS Healthcare Management Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Concentra Operating Corp., has tentatively settled a class
action lawsuit in Louisiana.

The case, "Gunderson, et al. v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc.,
et al.," has been pending since 2004 in the state court of
Louisiana, Parish of Calcasieu.

In the settlement, FOCUS has agreed to create a $12 million
settlement fund and to pay an additional $250,000 to cover
actual expenses related to the administration of the settlement
of the class action.

The parties to the class action have mutually agreed that the
settlement represents a compromise of disputed claims and is not
an admission of liability for any purposes.

The settlement remains subject to final court approval,
following notice to class members.

The company, along with other preferred provider organizations
(PPOs), insurance companies and third-party administrators, had
been sued by four Louisiana health care providers alleging that
the defendants provided legally insufficient notice under
Louisiana law of PPO discounts to which the health care
providers had contractually agreed.

Similar cases were also filed against insurance carriers, PPOs
and third-party administrators in the state court trial system
and the workers compensation court system.

Concentra Operating Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Concentra Inc., is dedicated to improving the quality of life by
making healthcare accessible and affordable.  Serving the
occupational, auto and group healthcare markets, Concentra
provides employers, insurers and payors with a series of
integrated services that include employment-related injury and
occupational healthcare, in-network and out-of-network medical
claims review and repricing, access to preferred provider
organizations, case management and other cost containment
services.

Concentra provides its services to approximately 200,000
employer locations and more than 1,000 insurance companies,
group health plans, third-party administrators and other
healthcare payors.  The company has 310 health centers located
in 40 states. It also operates the Beech Street and FOCUS PPO
networks.

For more information, contact Thomas E. Kiraly Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Concentra Operating
Corporation or Mark Solls the company's Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Phone: 972-364-8217 or 972-364-8043.


FREEMOTION: Recalls Exercise Machines Due to Falling Weights
------------------------------------------------------------
FreeMotion Fitness Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 5,600 units of FreeMotion Cable Cross and Dual
Cable Cross Exercise Machines.

The company said the selector pin for the weight plates can slip
out of its slot if the edges of the pin are worn, allowing the
weights to drop suddenly. Falling weight plates can hit
consumers using the machines.

FreeMotion has received nine reports of consumers receiving
contusions to the head and shoulders from falling weights after
pins disengaged.

The recall includes FreeMotion Cable Cross and Dual Cable Cross
Exercise Machines with model numbers GZFM6006 and GZFM6024. The
recalled machines can be identified by the name Cable Cross
located on the upper frame.

The FreeMotion Cable Cross machines are used to exercise by
pulling on cables on each side of the machine to raise a series
of weight plates.  

The arms where the cables enter the machine can be moved through
an arc using 13 position points spaced from straight down to
straight up.  An enclosed weight stack is situated directly in
front of the user for selection of the amount of weight to be
raised.

These recalled exercise machines were manufactured in the U.S.
and are being sold by exercise specialty stores nationwide and
through direct sales from FreeMotion from December 1999 through
May 2006 for between $3,750 and $4,500.

Picture of the recalled exercise machines:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07001.jpg

Consumers should stop using these machines and contact
FreeMotion Fitness to receive a free repair kit.

For more information, call FreeMotion Fitness Inc. at (800) 201-
2109 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go
to the company's Web site: http://www.freemotionsfitness.com.


GEMSTAR-TV: Shareholders to be Paid from Sarbox "Fair Funds"
------------------------------------------------------------
Payments by Gemstar-TV Guide International and auditor KPMG LLP
to settle a class action related to fraudulent accounting and
disclosure practices at the company are provided in the Sarbox
"Fair Funds" provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  

The funds include $22.3 million recovered by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission as a result of enforcement actions it
brought against Gemstar, four former Gemstar executives, as well
as KPMG.  Investors will begin receiving about $83 million in
cash and stock under the provision.

In September of 2004, the court approved the company's
settlement of the consolidated actions for $67.5 million payable
in cash and stock:

      -- $47.5 million in cash, and  
      -- 4,105,090 shares of common stock,

which was valued at $6.09 per share on the date the agreement
was reached, or $25 million in the aggregate.  

During the third quarter of 2004, the company exercised its
option to substitute $12.8 million in cash for 2,052,545 of the
shares of common stock that were to be issued to the members of
the class and also issued 328,407 shares of the common stock.  

On Sept. 29, 2006 the court granted a motion seeking court
approval for the distribution of the remaining settlement
proceeds to the class members/shareholders (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006).   

The suit is "In Re: Gemstar-TV Guide, Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:02-cv-02775-MRP-PLA," before Judge Mariana R.
Pfaelzer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite
150, San Diego, CA, 92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax:
858.793.0323, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Stanley S. Arkin of Arkin &
Kaplan, 590 Madison Ave., 35th Fl, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212-333-0200, Fax: 212-333-2350.  


GREAT ATLANTIC: Receives Windfall From VISA/MasterCard Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with a settlement reached in the VISA/MasterCard
antitrust class action litigation, The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, Inc. is entitled to a portion of the settlement
fund that will be distributed to class members.

Pursuant to the company's initial review of its historical
records as well as estimates provided by the Claims
Administrator, it recorded an estimated pretax recovery of $1.5
million as a credit to "Selling, general and administrative
expense" in its Statements of Consolidated Operations during
fiscal 2005.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2006, the company received a
cash payment of $1.6 million for our portion of the settlement
funds for this class action litigation.  

During the remainder of fiscal 2006, we will continue to work
with the Claims Administrator to ensure that any additional
monies owed to the company in connection with this litigation
are received.  This process may result in additional recoveries
being recorded in future periods.


HANSEN NATURAL: Jan. 29 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Scheduled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties interested to become lead plaintiff in a class action
pending against Hansen Natural Corp. in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California have until Jan. 29, 2007
to file for appointment, according to the law offices of Howard
G. Smith.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Hansen Natural (NASDAQ:HANS) between Nov. 12,
2001 and Nov. 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning, among other things, the Company's improper
backdating of stock option grants to certain key executives,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Hansen securities.

For more information, contact Howard G. Smith of the Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, Bensalem, PA, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Website:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


HARRIS SCARFE: Notice of Stock Suit Settlement Sent to Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The process to settle a shareholder lawsuit against Harris
Scarfe Holdings Ltd. is ongoing.  As of Sept. 29, a settlement
offer has been communicated to Group Members, according to
information posted at the Web site of deListed, a division of
BRG Pacific Pty Ltd.

Shares in the company were suspended from trading in March 2001.  
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission afterwards
conducted investigation into Harris Scarfe and related
companies.  

The company was placed in receivership on the same year owing
$93 million to unsecured creditors and $50 million in company
debt.

Duncan Basheer Hannon alleges directors misled shareholders.  In
June 2002, Duncan Basheer Hannon issue proceedings in Federal
Court for class action against former directors of the company.

Plaintiffs finalized an amended Statement of Claim in July 2005,
adding financial information not known at the time of the
original claim.

Around 2006, the company entered into mediation, according to
information posted at the Web site of deListed, a division of
BRG Pacific Pty Limited.

Investigations into the collapse of Harris Scarfe ended in
December with the discontinuation of criminal prosecution
against the former executive chairman of the company, Adam
Trescowthick.  

Mr. Trescowthick was charged two years ago with dishonesty,
including allegations that he provided false information to the
Australian Stock Exchange and knowingly authorized a prospectus
containing false information.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: $445M Suit Settlement Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
granted final approval to the $445 million partial settlement of
the class action "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities
Litigation, Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S."

"We are very pleased to have final court approval of these
settlements and to put this issue behind us," said HealthSouth
President and CEO Jay Grinney.  

"We now can focus our legal resources on asserting our claims
against the company's former chief executive officer; former
auditors, Ernst & Young; and former primary investment bank,
UBS, for the role each of them played in the fraud perpetrated
against HealthSouth and its shareholders."

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

                        Case Background

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

The consolidated securities action included two prior
consolidated cases:

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

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

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

Including the cases previously consolidated, the consolidated
securities action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the consolidated securities action into two
subclasses:

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

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

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

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

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

On Jan. 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

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

The complaint alleges, among other things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Settlement Terms

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

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

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

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

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

             Settlement Excludes Ernst & Young, UBS

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

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


HELEN OF TROY: Still Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen of Troy, Ltd., filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, according to
the company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Nov. 30, 2006.

Class actions have been filed and consolidated into one action
against the company, Gerald J. Rubin, the company's Chairman of
the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J.
Benson, the company's Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of
purchasers of publicly traded securities of the company.

The company understands that the plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that
the company and the two officers engaged in a scheme to defraud
the company's shareholders through the issuance of positive
earnings guidance intended to artificially inflate the company's
share price so that Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the
company's common shares at an inflated price.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, interest, fees,
costs, an accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and
injunctive relief, including an accounting of and the imposition
of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on the defendants'
insider trading proceeds.  The class period stated in the
complaint was Oct. 12, 2004 through Oct. 10, 2005.

The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas and is still in the preliminary
stages.  

On May 15, 2006 the company filed a motion to dismiss the
aforementioned lawsuit citing numerous deficiencies with the
claims it asserted.  On June 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed with
the court their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On July
17, 2006 the company filed a reply rebutting the plaintiffs'
June 29th opposition.

The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00431-DB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge David Briones.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ariel Acevedo, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, #600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486, Phone: (561) 361-5000; and

     (2) Daniel R. Malone of The Malone Law Firm, 300 East Main,
         #1100, El Paso, TX 79901, Phone: (915) 533-5000, Fax:
         915/533-5009.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Nicholas Even and Noel M. Hensleyof Haynes and Boone,
         LLP, 901 Main St., Ste. 3100, Dallas, TX 75202-3789,
         Phone: (214) 651-5000, Fax: 214/651-5940 and 214/200-
         0470, E-mail: nick.even@haynesboone.com; and

    (ii) H. Christopher Mott of Krafsur Gordon Mott, PC, 4695
         North Mesa Street, El Paso, TX 79912-6103, Phone: (915)
         545-1133, Fax: 915/545-4433, E-mail:
         cmott@gordonmottpc.com.


HO'S TRADING: Recalls Soup Recipes Over Undeclared Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc., 1010 Dean Street, Brooklyn, New York, is
recalling Home Special Health Soup Recipe (Dry Mix) because it
contains undeclared sulfites.

People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled Home Special Health Soup Recipe (Dry Mix) is packed
in a 5.3 oz. uncoded plastic container, and is the product of
China. The product was sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Home Special
Health Soup Recipe (Dry Mix) which did not declare sulfites on
the label.

The consumption of 10 milligrams or more of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite individuals
upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Home Special Health Soup Recipe
(Dry Mix) are advised to return it to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-718-622-
2288.


ILLINOIS: Plaintiffs in U46 Litigation Filed Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In another attempt to get class-action status for the case,
"Daniel et al. v. Board of Education for Illinois School
District U-46," the Chicago law firm, Futterman and Howard, the
plaintiffs' legal counsel, has filed an amended complaint, The
Courier News reports.

The original suit emerged in February 2005, after the District
U46 board of education decided in 2004 to adjust elementary and
middle school attendance zones so pupils would attend schools
closest to their homes.

The plan was a far jump from the district's decades-long
practice of busing minority and poor children from Elgin's east
side to schools in other parts of the district.

Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed with regards to those changes,
claiming that U46 discrimination against minority and English-
learning pupils.  

Its main claims were that minorities were being discriminated
against because of their race and that too few students were
being identified and served by the English language-learning
program.

Filed on Feb. 7, 2005, suit accuses the school district of:

     -- treating minority students with hostility,
    
     -- disproportionately referring black and Latino students
        to an alternative high school,

     -- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities,
        and

     -- failing to provide proper services to Latino students
        with limited English proficiency.

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black
students who claim they were discriminated against in
assignments, transportation, school closings and educational
programs.

Recently, five plaintiff families composed of three Hispanic and
two African American filed their motion to have their case
deemed a class action.

According to Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, the
difference about the new class-action motion is that they now
have five plaintiff families instead of the two original
plaintiff families.

Earlier, Ms. Ashley attempted to file a class action against the
district with two plaintiff families in March 2006, but was
denied by a federal judge.

In March 2006, Judge Robert Gettleman refused to certify the
lawsuit, saying the complaint must be narrowed, or the plaintiff
list must be expanded to accommodate all of the issues listed to
get class certification.  Plaintiffs in the suit filed an
amended complaint on May 12 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22,
2006).  

In June, the district filed a request that the lawsuit be
dismissed.  In July, plaintiffs' attorney responded to that
request and defended the suit's compliance with court
requirements.

On Oct. 6, 2006, Judge Gettleman partly granted Elgin School
District U46's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in the case.
Basically, the court dismissed claims concerning the district's
alternative high school program, because sole plaintiff Ashley
Ivy graduated from the Gifford Street High School in the spring
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).

Despite those setbacks, Ms. Ashley pointed out that with new
plaintiffs added more support can be garnered, and the
complaints of the five families are completely aligned with the
class allegations in a way that's responsive to the court's
concerns.

The class-action status would allow one group, minority
students, as well as those learning English as a second
language, to take legal action against District U46, which could
potentially include 17,000 minority pupils and 6,000 bilingual
students.

As of the moment though, according to Ms. Ashley, the complaints
against District U46 are filed on the behalf of 17 pupils and
their parents, Tracy McFadden, Marielena Montoya, Griselda
Burciaga, Beverly Ivy, and Irma Sifuentes.  She believes the
five plaintiff families "adequately represent" minority and
English-learning students throughout the district.

However, the school district's attorney disagrees, saying that
either the plaintiffs or counsel adequately represent the
interests of the diverse group of students in the district.  

Attorney Patti Whitten of Franzek Sullivan contends that the
five family plaintiffs do not raise claims that are typical of
minority students or English language learning students in the
district.

The original suit is "Daniel et al. v. Board of Education for
Illinois School District U-46, Case No. 1:05-cv-00760," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman &
Howard, Chtd., 122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 427-3600, E-mail:
cashley@futtermanhoward.com.  

Representing the defendants is Patricia J. Whitten of Franczek  
Sullivan, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL  
60606-6785, Phone: (312) 986-0300, E-mail: pjw@franczek.com.


JOVANE INVESTMENTS: Faces $1.2B Real Estate Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jovane Investments was named as a defendant a class-action
complaint filed in Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Riverside over alleged swindling of 400
investors of more than $1 billion, purportedly to be invested in
real estate and Iraqi dinars, and misrepresented itself as a
registered securities broker, a licensed bank, and a licensed
financial planner, though it is none of those things, The
Courthouse News reports.

Operating out of Murrieta, Jovane targeted residents of the
Temecula Valley for its scam, particularly Filipino Americans,
many of whom work at Rancho Springs Medical Center, the
complaint states.

The suit claims Jovane held regular meetings of its "investment
group" at a Marie Callenders restaurant by a freeway exit in
Temecula "as recently as two weeks ago," and allegedly also
committed identity theft and abused powers of attorney to take
more than $1 million from the single, anonymous plaintiff who
filed this complaint.

Plaintiff claims "class members were told to cash out retirement
accounts or other accounts" and pay them to Jovane "or be
destroyed financially."

Plaintiffs assert nine other corporations also are involved,
including defendants Sunburst Financial Systems and Oetting
Enterprises.

And in a fine touch, "a notary by the name of 'Crystal Fingers'
is also alleged to have been involved," the complaint states.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- certification of this case as a class action upon motion
        or application. In the alternative a designation of
        complex or provisionally complex is sough for this case
        because of the complexity of legal and factual issues
        and the number of parties and witnesses likely to
        present;

     -- dissolution of Jovane Investments and any other
        companies who are brought into this case by way of later
        amendment;

     -- the placement of defendant Jovane Investment into
        receivership;

     -- issuance of injunctive relief to protect plaintiff, co-
        defendants, the public, and prospective class members;

     -- damages in the amount of $1.2 billion to be placed in
        constructive or actual trust to be distributed to
        victims of the Jovane-defendants' fraud and to those
        governmental agencies who incur costs as a result of the
        investigation of any matters against Jovane-related
        defendants, whether named or unnamed;

     -- the granting of any requests for intervention by any
        governmental or regulatory agency who seeks the same in
        this case, if at all;

     -- punitive damages as to the first cause of action, not to
        exceed 10 times the value of any proven fraud herein;

     -- costs of suit;

     -- restitution, constructive trust, and rescission where
        appropriate to make plaintiff whole on any or all of the
        cause of action as alleged;

     -- any and all other relied as necessary or deemed
        appropriate in this case; and

     -- attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 1021.5 and the provisions of
        California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et
        seq.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1860

The suit is "Anonymous Investor et al v. Jovane Investments et
al, Case No. 463483," filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of Riverside.

Representing plaintiffs are Richard D. Ackerman, Esq., Stephen
A. Lindsley, Esq. and Michael W. Sands, Jr., Esq., all of
Ackerman, Cowles & Lindsley, 41690 Enterprise Circle North,
Suite 216, Temecula, CA 92590, Phone: (951) 3086454, Fax: (951)
3086453, E-mail: TemeculaLawyers@yahoo.com, Website:
http://www.MyTemeculaAttorneys.com


LOEWS CORP: Provides Update on Tobacco Litigation Against Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp., is a
defendant in 10 pending class actions.  Loews is a defendant in
two of these cases.  

In most of the pending cases, plaintiffs seek class
certification on behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the
estates of deceased cigarette smokers, who reside in the state
in which the case was filed.

One of the cases in which Lorillard is a defendant, "Schwab v.
Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al.," is a purported national class
action on behalf of purchasers of "light" cigarettes in which
plaintiffs' claims are based on defendants' alleged RICO
violations.  

Neither Lorillard nor the company are defendants in
approximately 35 additional class action cases in which
plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of smokers or purchasers of
"light" cigarettes.  

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard, have defeated
motions for class certification in a total of 35 cases, 13 of
which were in state court and 22 of which were in federal court.
These 35 cases were filed in 17 states, the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  

One of these matters, "In re: Simon II Litigation," was a
purported nationwide class action on behalf of individuals with
punitive damages claims against cigarette manufacturers, but
this class was decertified by a federal court of appeals during
2005.

In addition, a Nevada court granted motions to deny class
certification in 20 separate cases in which the class definition
asserted by the plaintiffs was identical to those in which the
court had previously ruled in defendants' favor.  

Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in
some of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which
Lorillard was not a party.  

In some of these cases, courts have denied class certification
to the plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other
matters.

                         The Engle Case

During July of 2006, in the case of "Engle v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida,
filed May 5, 1994)," the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the 2003
holding of an intermediate appellate court that the $145.0
billion punitive damages award must be vacated, including
approximately $16.3 billion against Lorillard.

The Florida Supreme Court's decision also reversed a 2003 ruling
by the intermediate Florida Court of Appeal, which held that
claims for punitive damages asserted by Florida smokers were
barred by the 1997 settlement agreement and judgment in the case
filed by the State of Florida against cigarette manufacturers,
including Lorillard.

Prior to trial, Engle was certified as a class action on behalf
of Florida residents, and survivors of Florida residents, who
were injured or died from medical conditions allegedly caused by
addiction to cigarettes, and the trial was governed by a three-
phase trial plan.  

The Florida Supreme Court determined that the case could not
proceed further as a class action and decertified the class.  
However, the Florida Supreme Court ruling permits members of the
now-decertified class whose claims arose prior to the class
certification cut-off date (Nov. 21, 1996) to file individual
claims, including claims for punitive damages, within one year
from when this decision becomes final.

The Florida Supreme Court held that these individual plaintiffs
are entitled to rely on some of the jury's findings in favor of
the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial on a number
of issues, including, among other things:

     -- that smoking cigarettes causes a number of diseases;

     -- that cigarettes are addictive or dependence-producing;
        and

     -- that the defendants, including Lorillard, were
        negligent, placed cigarettes on the market that were
        defective and unreasonably dangerous, and concealed or
        conspired to conceal the risks of smoking.

The July 2006 decision by the Florida Supreme Court also
reinstated the actual damages awarded during 2000 to two of the
three individuals whose claims were heard during the second
phase of trial.  

These awards totaled approximately $2.8 million to one smoker
and $4.0 million to the second, and bear interest at the rate of
10.0% per year.  

Lorillard's share of either of these verdicts, if any, has not
been determined.  The Florida Supreme Court has not ruled on the
parties' motions for reconsideration of the July 2006 decision,
according to Loews Corp. form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Florida enacted legislation that limits the amount of an
appellate bond, which is required to be posted, in order to stay
execution of a judgment for punitive damages in a certified
class action.  

While Lorillard believes this legislation is valid and that any
challenges to the possible application or constitutionality of
this legislation would fail, Lorillard entered into an agreement
with the plaintiffs during May of 2001 in which it contributed
$200.0 million to a fund held for the benefit of the Engle
plaintiffs (the Engle Agreement).

The $200.0 million contribution included the $100.0 million that
Lorillard posted as collateral for the appellate bond.  
Accordingly, Lorillard recorded a pretax charge of $200.0
million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2001.  

Two other defendants executed agreements with the plaintiffs
that were similar to Lorillard's.  As a result, the class agreed
to a stay of execution, with respect to Lorillard and the two
other defendants on its punitive damages judgment until
appellate review is completed, including any review by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

The Engle Agreement provides that in the event that Lorillard,
Inc.'s balance sheet net worth falls below $921.2 million (as
determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles in effect as of July 14, 2000), the stay granted in
favor of Lorillard in the Engle Agreement would terminate and
the class would be free to challenge the Florida legislation.  

As of Sept. 30, 2006, Lorillard, Inc. had a balance sheet net
worth of approximately $1.4 billion.  In addition, the Engle
Agreement requires Lorillard to obtain the written consent of
class counsel or the court prior to selling any trademark of or
formula comprising a cigarette brand having a U.S. market share
of 0.5% or more during the preceding calendar year.

The Engle Agreement also requires Lorillard to obtain the
written consent of the Engle class counsel or the court to
license to a third party the right to manufacture or sell such a
cigarette brand unless the cigarettes to be manufactured under
the license will be sold by Lorillard.  

It is not clear how the Engle Agreement is affected by the
Florida Supreme Court's decertification of the class and its
order vacating the punitive damages judgment.

                         The Scott Case

Another class action pending against Lorillard is "Scott v. The
American Tobacco Co., et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996)."

During 1997, the court certified a class composed of certain
cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire
to participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation
programs and who began smoking prior to Sept. 1, 1988, or who
began smoking prior to May 24, 1996 and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.

Trial in Scott was heard in two phases.  While the jury in its
July 2003 Phase I verdict rejected medical monitoring, the
primary relief requested by plaintiffs, it returned sufficient
findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II trial on
plaintiffs' request for a state-wide smoking cessation program.

During May of 2004, the jury returned its verdict in the trial's
second phase and awarded approximately $591.0 million to fund
cessation programs for Louisiana smokers.  

The court's final judgment, entered during June of 2004,
reflects the jury's award of damages and also awarded judicial
interest.  The judicial interest award will continue to accrue
until the judgment is paid or is vacated on appeal.

As of Oct. 15, 2006 judicial interest totaled an additional
amount of approximately $425.0 million.  Lorillard's share of
the judgment and the judicial interest has not been determined.  
Lorillard and the other defendants have initiated an appeal from
the judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeals.  The appellate
court heard defendants' appeal during April 2006.

The parties filed a stipulation in the trial court agreeing that
an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a
Louisiana statute governing the amount of appellate bonds in
civil cases involving a signatory to the Master Settlement
Agreement, required that the amount of the bond for the appeal
be set at $50.0 million for all defendants collectively.

The parties further agreed that the plaintiffs have full
reservations of rights to contest in the trial court, at a later
date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on any grounds.  

The trial court entered an order setting the amount of the bond
at $50.0 million for all defendants.  Defendants collectively
posted a surety bond in that amount, of which Lorillard secured
25%, or $12.5 million.  

While Lorillard believes the limitation on the appeal bond
amount is valid as required by Louisiana law, and that any
challenges to the amount of the bond would fail, in the event of
a successful challenge the amount of the appeal bond could be
set as high as 150% of the judgment and judicial interest
combined.  If such an event occurred, Lorillard's share of the
appeal bond has not been determined.

                    Other Class Action Cases

Two additional cases are pending against Lorillard in which
motions for class certification were granted.  In one of them,
"Brown v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al. (Superior
Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997)," a
California court granted defendants' motion to decertify the
class.  

The class decertification order has been affirmed on appeal, but
the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.  The
class originally certified in Brown was composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes
between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001 and who were exposed to
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

In the second case, "Daniels v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.
(Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed Aug. 2,
1998)," the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment during 2002 and dismissed the case.  

Plaintiffs appealed, but the California Court of Appeal affirmed
the dismissal during 2004.  Plaintiffs are now pursuing an
appeal to the California Supreme Court.  

Prior to granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the
court had certified a class composed of California residents
who, while minors, smoked at least one cigarette between April
1994 and Dec. 31, 1999 and were exposed to defendants' marketing
and advertising activities in California.  

It is possible that either or both of these class certification
rulings could be reinstated as a result of the pending appeals,
according to the company.

As discussed above, other cigarette manufacturers are defendants
in approximately 35 cases in which plaintiffs' claims are based
on the allegedly fraudulent marketing of "lights" or "ultra-
lights" cigarettes.  

Among those "lights" class actions in which neither the company
nor Lorillard are defendants is the case of "Price v. Philip
Morris USA (Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed Feb.
10, 2000)."  

During March of 2003, the court returned a verdict in favor of
the class and awarded it $7.1 billion in actual damages.  The
court also awarded $3.0 billion in punitive damages to the State
of Illinois, which was not a party to the suit, and awarded
plaintiffs' counsel approximately $1.8 billion in fees and
costs.  

During December of 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the
damages awards, decertified the class, and ordered that the case
be dismissed.

Plaintiffs have sought review of the case by the U.S. Supreme
Court.  Price is the only "lights" class action to have been
tried, although classes have been certified in some of the other
pending matters.

                        The Schwab Case

Lorillard is a defendant in one "lights" class action, "Schwab
v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District, New York, filed May 11, 2004."  

The company is not a party to this case.  Plaintiffs in Schwab
base their claims on defendants' alleged violations of the RICO
statute in the manufacture, marketing and sale of "lights"
cigarettes, and they have claimed damages totaling as much as
$200.0 billion.

Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs based on defendants'
violation of the RICO statute would be trebled.  During
September 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified a nationwide class action on behalf
of purchasers of "light" cigarettes.  The court scheduled trial
to begin during January 2007.  

Defendants are seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal
of the class certification order.  The federal court of appeals
has granted a temporary stay of the case, including the trial
date, pending its consideration of whether to accept defendants'
interlocutory appeal.

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.


MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Court Limits Testimony in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Polk County (Iowa) District Court granted a request by
Microsoft Corp. lawyers to limit the testimony of the first live
witness in an antitrust suit filed against it, The Des Moines
Register reports.

As of the first week of January, the case has consisted of jury
selection, 11 days of opening statements and several days of
videotape depositions.  The first live witness since the trial
began in late November was Ronald Alepin, a California-based
computer consultant.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled on Jan. 4
that Alepin can testify "as to what impact the conduct or acts
of the defendant has had on competitors or developers and the
computer industry" from the standpoint of an industry expert,
but he cannot "offer economic opinions (or) opinions on consumer
behavior."

The report noted that in several pre-trial motions, Microsoft
lawyers had sought to block speculative testimony by witnesses
about what the computer world be like if Microsoft had acted
differently.

The trial seeks to determine whether Microsoft violated Iowa's
competition laws by monopolizing and unreasonably restraining
trade in the markets for Intel-compatible:      

      -- personal computer operating system software; and      

      -- applications software, including word processing,      
         spreadsheet and office-suite software.     

The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:      

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

      -- denying class members free choice in software products      
         and the benefits of software innovation; and      

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.      

Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.      

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.     

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,      
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: 515-283-1111,
         Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and             

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN      
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, E-mail:      
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
    
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


MONSANTO CO: Ill. Court Mulls Trial for ERISA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has yet to be scheduled for a consolidated class
action against the Monsanto Company Pension Plan, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).

On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia
filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the
Monsanto Company Pension Plan, which is referred to as the
"Pension Plan."  

The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age
discrimination and other rules under ERISA from Jan. 1, 1997
(when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as
Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present.  

In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of
Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other
defendants.  

On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add
Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants.  On
Sept. 1, 2006, the court consolidated these lawsuits with two
purported class actions also pending in the same court against
the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under "Walker v. Monsanto,"
the first filed case.  

There is no trial setting for this matter, according to the
company's Jan. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30,
2006.

The suit is "Walker et al v. Monsanto Company Pension Plan, The
et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00436-DRH-CJP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge
David R. Herndon with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric L. Dirks of Stueve, Siegel et al., Generally
         Admitted, 330 West 47th Street, Suite #250, Kansas
         City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101,
         E-mail: dirks@sshwlaw.com; and

     (2) Michael B. Marker of Rex Carr Law Firm, Generally
         Admitted, 412 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL
         62201-3016, Phone: 618-274-0434, Fax: 618-274-8369, E-
         mail: mmarker@rexcarr.com.

Representing the defendants is Gretchen Dixon of Arent Fox,
PLLC, 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20036, US,
Phone: 202-775-5772, E-mail: dixon.gretchen@arentfox.com.


NEW YORK: June Hearing Set for $2.5M Strip-Search Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 5, 2007 hearing is set for the $2.5 million settlement of
a class action filed against the Sheriff's Department in New
York by two women who claimed they were improperly subjected to
strip searches at the Schenectady County jail, according to the
Times Union.

Both 19-year-old Nichole Marie McDaniel and 18-year-old Lessie
Lee Davies claim they were strip searched at the jail on June
11.  Both were arrested on misdemeanor charges of shoplifting
and endangering the welfare of a child.

The suit, filed on behalf of at least 5,000 people who were
subjected to a strip-searching since 2001, sought monetary
damages and an injunction barring the county and sheriff from
strip-searching those charged with petty crimes.

Under the recent settlement, the county agreed to adopt a policy
to bar such searches of people accused of misdemeanors and other
minor crimes.  

The proposed class includes those who have been admitted to the
facility between June 29, 2001, and June 29, 2005, on lesser
offenses.  Claims filing deadline is May 3.  Deadline to file
objection is April 3.

For more information, contact Schenectady County Settlement
Administrator, P.O. Box 1866, Faribault, MN, 55021-7121, Phone:
(866) 903-1193, Web site: http://www.scjsettlement.com.  


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on motions to dismiss the consolidated
securities fraud suit filed against Northfield Laboratories,
Inc.

On March 31, 2006 an investor sued Northfield Laboratories in
federal court, accusing the Company of securities law
violations.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased Northfield Securities from Feb. 20, 2004 through and
including Feb. 21, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that Northfield and an individual defendant
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the Commerce
and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title
17 of the Code of Federal Regulations, promulgated there under.

Founded in 1985, Evanston, Ill.-based Northfield Laboratories is
a development state biotechnology company.  It primarily
develops PolyHeme, an oxygen-carrying blood substitute for the
treatment of urgent life-threatening blood loss in trauma and
resultant surgical settings.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the safety profile and history of PolyHeme.  

On Feb. 22, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported in a story
that the data available to defendants from an Acute Normovolemic
Hemodilution (ANH) clinical trial using PolyHeme, but not to the
public, revealed that:

     -- 10 of 81 patients who received PolyHeme suffered a heart  
        attack within seven days, and two of those died;

     -- none of the 71 patients in the ANH clinical trial who
        received real blood were found to have suffered a heart
        attack.

Defendants in a press release on Feb. 22, 2006, responding to
The Wall Street Journal article, did not dispute the data
concerning the patient heart attacks and deaths from the ANH
clinical trial.  

Rather, defendants admit that they did not publish the data
concerning patient heart attacks and deaths.  The market was
stunned by the disclosure of the secret, adverse data from the
long-closed ANH clinical trial and the market price of
Northfield's common stock fell with the belated disclosures.

     -- on Feb. 21, 2006, the day before the disclosure by
        The Wall Street Journal, Northfield's common stock
        closed at a price of $12.23 per share;

     -- on Feb. 22, 2006, on extraordinary volume of more
        than 4.1 million shares, Northfield's common stock
        closed at a price of $11.64 per share; and

     -- the price continued to drop as the market absorbed all
        of the news, including the announcement on Feb. 24,
        2006, by U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, chairman of
        the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, that he has begun an
        inquiry into the matter.

On May 19, 2006 competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On June 19, 2006, Judge George Marovich signed an Order
consolidating all related cases into one class action and
appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 26, 2006, Judge Marovich ordered new petitions for the
appointment of lead plaintiff be filed by Aug. 16, 2006.  
motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff were filed on Aug.
16, 2006 and on Aug. 24, 2006, lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were appointed.

On Sept. 8, 2006, lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on behalf of all those who purchased
Northfield common stock and call options and sold put options
during the period from March 19, 2001 through and including
March 20, 2006.  Defendants were given until Oct. 26, 2006 to
file a response to this complaint.

On Nov. 20, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint, and on Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a response
in opposition to those motions to dismiss.  The briefing on the
motions to dismiss continues.

The suit is "Topaz Realty Corp., et al. v. Northfield
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1493," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge George M. Marovich.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
         617.542.8300;

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

     (3) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;

     (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (5) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

     (6) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (8) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

     (9) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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

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

    (12) Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite
         1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax:
         (212) 239-4310, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com;

    (13) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867;

    (14) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com;

    (15) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;

    (16) The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508,
         New York, NY, 10118, Phone: 212.686.1060, Fax:
         212.202.3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and

    (17) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com.


PALM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Palm, Inc.

In June 2001, the first of several putative stockholder class
action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain of the
underwriters for Palm, Inc.'s initial public offering, Palm and
several of its former officers.

The complaints, which have been consolidated under the caption,
"In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01 CV 5613," assert that the prospectus from Palm's
March 2, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.

The complaints allege claims against Palm and the officers under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Certain of the complaints also allege claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  

Similar complaints were filed against Handspring, Inc., a
company acquired by Palm on Oct. 29, 2003, in August and
September 2001 in regard to Handspring's June 2000 initial
public offering.  

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in April 2002.  The
claims against the individual defendants have been dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs.  The
court denied Palm's motion to dismiss.

Special committees of both Palm's and Handspring's respective
Boards of Directors approved a tentative settlement proposal
from plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid
to plaintiffs by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and
an assignment to plaintiffs of certain claims the issuers,
including Palm and Handspring, may have against the
underwriters.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  On April 24,
2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection with the
motion for final approval of the settlement but has yet to rule
on that motion.

On Dec. 5, 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the court's October 2004 order certifying a class in
six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs pursuant to an agreed upon proceeding.  

Neither Palm nor Handspring is one of the test cases and it is
unclear what impact the Second Circuit ruling will have on the
Palm and Handspring cases.  

There is no guarantee that the settlement will become final as
it is subject to a number of conditions, including final court
approval, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 1, 2006.

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


PALM INC: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Suits Over Treo Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. remains a defendant in several purported consumer
class actions filed in either the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California or the Superior Court of
California for Santa Clara County on behalf of all purchasers of
Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products.

In September and October 2005, these purported consumer class
actions were filed against the company:

      -- "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California; and

      -- "Palza v. Palm," filed in the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County.

All four complaints allege in substance that the company made
false or misleading statements regarding the reliability of its
Treo 600 and 650 products in violation of various California
laws and breached its warranty of these products.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement
of profits and injunctive relief.

In September 2005, a purported consumer class action entitled
"Gans v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03774-RMW" was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product.  

The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California
laws, the company made false or misleading statements regarding
automatic E-mail delivery to the Treo 650 product.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement
of profits and injunctive relief.

The company removed the "Palza" case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  Subsequently, all six
cases were related before a single judge in that court.  

The related cases are in the early stages, according to the
company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 1,
2006.

Palm, Inc. on the Net: http://www.palm.com/.


PDI INC: Marketing Services Firm Named in Bayer-Baycol Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PDI Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits,
including two class action matters, alleging claims arising from
the use of Baycol, a prescription cholesterol-lowering
medication.

Baycol was withdrawn from the U.S. market in August 2001 after
it was linked to about 100 deaths.  Its maker, Bayer Corp., is
facing a class action in Madison County, Illinois.  

The suit alleges Bayer engaged in deceptive advertising, hiding
possible side effects of the drug.  The suit was dismissed in
August.  Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006).

In July, Judge Mark I. Bernstein of the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas granted final approval to a national class action
settlement reimbursing union health and welfare funds, self-
insured employers, and insurers (third-party payors), for losses
caused by the withdrawal of Baycol.

PDI Inc. is a diversified sales and marketing services company
serving the pharmaceutical industry.  It creates and executes
sales and marketing programs in collaboration with companies who
own intellectual property rights to pharmaceuticals.


RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: Faces $10M Fla. Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of recreational facilities in Florida have filed a $10
million in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, claiming they were unfairly charged for pools,
shuffleboard courts, card rooms and a theater they couldn't use,
The Palm Beach Post reports.

According to the lawsuit, the recreational facilities are owned
by New York-based The Benenson Capital Co., one of the nation's
oldest and most active privately held real estate companies and
leased to Delaware-based W.P.R.F. Inc.

Joseph Friedman filed the suit on behalf of the roughly 7,000
people who live in the massive retirement community off
Okeechobee Boulevard.

According to Mr. Friedman, the companies have aggressively
sought money from those who have refused to pay the full amount.

The suit says residents shouldn't have been forced to pay the
more than $100-a-month fee to use the amenities while repairs
were being made.

Instead, plaintiffs claim, they should have only paid for the
fraction they could use - an estimated 30 percent.

Efforts to negotiate with the two companies that own the
facilities that are the hallmark of Century Village life were
met with hostility, according to the lawsuit.

According to Scott Link, one of the attorneys from two law firms
that are handling the case, in the event that class members
protested, the companies would threaten them with legal action
to collect purportedly delinquent amounts.  

He adds that the companies have further threatened to prohibit
purportedly delinquent unit owners from using what facilities
were available.

Mr. Link pointed out that given that many unit owners and
lessees are older and more vulnerable, the companies' threats
have proven an effective deterrent.

The suit has been brewing for some time.  It has the backing of
the United Civic Organization, the umbrella organization for the
various condominium associations within Century Village.

The suit is "Friedman et al v. The Benenson Capital Company et
al, Case No. 9:07-cv-80009-DTKH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Daniel T.
K. Hurley, with referral to Judge James M. Hopkins.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard James Brener of White & Case, 200 S Biscayne
         Boulevard, Suite 4900, Miami, FL 33131-2352, Phone:
         305-371-2700, E-mail: richard@alslaw.com;

     (2) Gregory William Coleman and Jeffrey C. Pepin, both of
         Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, 515 N Flagler Drive,
         Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2918, Phone: 561-
         842-2820 or 561-842-2820, Fax: 515-3148 or 515-3148, E-
         mail: gcoleman@bclclaw.com or jpepin@bclclaw.com; and

     (3) Scott Jeffrey Link of Ackerman Link & Sartory, 222
         Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1250, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,
         Phone: 561-838-4100, Fax: 838-5305, E-mail:
         slink@alslaw.com.


RED HAT: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Red Hat, Inc.

Commencing on or about March 29, 2001, the company and certain
of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a
series of purported class action suits arising out of the
company's initial public offering and secondary offering.

On Aug. 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order that transferred all of the so-called IPO allocation
actions, including the complaints involving the Company, to one
judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings (Case No. 21 MC 92).

The court has consolidated the actions into a single action.  
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing registration statements and
prospectuses that contained materially false and misleading
information and failed to disclose material information.

Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation practices by
underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in initial
public offering documents.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the 310 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.
The relief sought consists of unspecified damages.  No discovery
has occurred to date.  The individual director and officer
defendants have been dismissed from the case without prejudice.

The company, among other issuers, the plaintiffs, and the
insurers, has agreed, in concept, to a proposed settlement
whereby the company would be released from this litigation
without further payment from the company.  

That proposed settlement has been submitted to the court for its
consideration.  A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement
was held on April 24, 2006.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the court's class certification with respect to
the focus cases and remanded the matter for further
consideration.  

As a result, all matters in the case, including approval of the
proposed settlement, await such further consideration and
action, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.

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


RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Stock Suit to End by Sept. 21, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated securities fraud class action
against Red Hat, Inc. is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21,
2007, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class actions were filed against the
company and several of its present and former officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the company's securities during
various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.  In each of the actions,
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock during some or all of the period from
June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR.  

Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have now been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Also on that date PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), another
defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss.  On May 12, 2006,
the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
individual defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its
chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter, and discovery
is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.  

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Borsellino v. Red Hat, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-473," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina under Judge W. Earl Britt.

Representing the plaintiff are William Webb and Rufus Edmisten
of The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC
27602, Phone: 919-831-8700 by E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com
and rufus@rufusedmisten.com.  

Representing the company are Pressly M. Millen and Christopher
Jones of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PO Box 831 Raleigh
NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 or E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com,
cjones@wcsr.com.


SUNWEST MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Over Non-Compliance of State Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunwest Management, Inc. is facing a class action in Orange
County Superior Court, filed on behalf of Sophie Bury by and
through her Attorney in Fact, Patricia Bury, on her behalf and
on behalf of all California citizens who resided in, or are
residing in, a California Sunwest facilites from Jan. 15, 2003
through Jan. 15, 2007.

The complaint alleges that Sunwest Management, its directors,
and the approximately 16 residential elder care facilities in
the state of California that it owns, operates or manages, fail
to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing the
operation of residential care facilities for the elderly,
resulting in the defendants receiving multiple citations of
deficiencies from the California Department of Social Services.

"We believe Paragon Gardens is typical of a Sunwest facility,"
says Long Beach, Calif., plaintiff attorney Stephen Garcia of
The Garcia Law Firm. "Since June 2005, Paragon Gardens earned 57
notices of deficiencies, all of which were Type A violations,
considered to be the most serious.  On its web site Sunwest
Management claims to operate 150 'communities' nationwide. How
many Paragon Gardens do they have?"

The lawsuit alleges that Sunwest and its facilities deliberately
understaff its "communities" by forcing each facility to operate
under a budget, approved and directed by Sunwest Management and
the directors of the individual facilities, that would increase
business profits by charging for services that were not
provided, such as adequately staffing the residential care
facility as it advertises that it does.

"Bascially, we believe that Sunwest's corporate strategy, policy
and practice is to maximize profit at the expense of the elderly
and vulnerable people it claims to serve," says Mr. Garcia. "The
claims this company makes on its web site and in its promotional
materials are a far cry from the reality where facilities are
understaffed and have a long history of citations for
deficiencies."

This is not Sunwest Management's first problem in California:

     * The California Department of Social Services is currently
       suing to prevent the for-profit assisted living
       operator's top seven executives -- including:
           
            Jon Harder - president;
            Darryl Fisher - chief operating officer; and
            Deana Altman Nelson - senior vice president
      
       -- from operating elder care communities in the state of
          California.

     * Troy K. Nelms, 71, suffering from Alzheimer's was allowed
       to open a malfunctioning locked door at Paragon Gardens
       on June 5, 2006, without anyone realizing he was gone
       until early morning. Mr. Nelms remains missing and is
       presumed dead by sheriffs.

     * In August 2005, the California Department of Justice
       seized records and shut down Sunwest Management's
       corporate offices due to the company's noncompliance in
       providing records regarding allegations of neglect at one
       of its California facilities. The investigation is
       ongoing.

     * In August 2006, at Sunwest's Yreka, Calif., facility,
       three families of elderly residents have sued for
       resident deaths they attribute to understaffing and
       negligence. Trial is set for spring 2007.

     * The opening of the Fortuna, Calif., facility was delayed
       for several months due to inadequate staffing and
       management turnover, according to media reports.

     * The Portland Business Journal reported (Robin J. Moody),
       that a review of the California Sunwest facilities in
       2004 showed that four of its facilities were under
       "correction plans" with the state for repeated citations.

The suit is "Bury et al. v. Sunwest Management, Inc., et al,
Case No. 07CC00005," filed in Orange County Superior Court.

For information about the class action suit, contact Stephen
Garcia at The Garcia Law Firm, Phone: 800-281-8515, Website:
http://www.lawgarcia.com.


TELXON CORP: Final Distribution of $67.9M Settlement Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP has distributed settlement
checks to Telxon Corp. Shareholders who filed valid claims in
the securities class action "Hayman v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers
LLP, No. 1:01 CV 1078," in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The settlement fund in the PwC action totaled $27.9 million, and
was in addition to the $40 million settlement previously reached
in the related action "In re Telxon Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 5:98 CV 2876," in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio.

The two actions alleged that Defendants' material false and
misleading statements artificially inflated the price of Telxon
securities, and that, as a consequence, purchasers of Telxon
securities suffered damages.

As a result of the combined $67.9 million settlement, Telxon
Shareholders who filed valid claims recovered between $0.30 and
$0.74 per dollar of their recognized loss, an outstanding
recovery. Settlement of these securities fraud class actions
would not have been possible without the unrelenting efforts of
lawyers at the Zwerling Schachter law firm.

                        Case Background

Certain alleged stockholders of Telxon filed the suit on behalf
of themselves and purported classes consisting of Telxon
stockholders, other than the defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased stock during the period from May 21, 1996 through
Feb. 23, 1999, or various portions thereof, alleging claims for
"fraud on the market" arising from alleged misrepresentations
and omissions with respect to Telxon's financial performance and
prospects and an alleged violation of generally accepted
accounting principles by improperly recognizing revenues.  

The named defendants are the company, its former president and
chief executive officer, Frank E. Brick, and its former senior
vice president and chief financial officer, Kenneth W. Haver.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud investors through improper revenue recognition practices
and concealment of material adverse conditions in Telxon's
business and finances.  

The amended complaint seeks certification of the identified
class, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 13, 2003, Telxon and the plaintiff class reached a
tentative settlement of all pending shareholder class actions
against Telxon.  Under the settlement, Telxon anticipated that
it would pay $37,000 to the class.  As a result of anticipated
contributions by Telxon's insurers, Telxon expected that its net
payment would be no more than $25,000.

On Dec. 19, 2003, the settlement received preliminary approval
from the court.  On Feb. 12, 2004, the court granted its final
approval of the settlement.  On Feb. 27, 2004, the company paid
$25,000 to the class in accordance with the settlement.

Fact discovery was completed on Dec. 19, 2003.  Expert discovery
was concluded on April 16, 2004.  On April 20, 2004, PwC made a
supplemental production of documents to Telxon, which included
thousands of pages of materials never previously produced in the
litigation.  

Because fact and expert discovery had already closed, Telxon
filed a motion for sanctions against PwC, requesting, among
other things, the entry of default judgment against PwC for
discovery misconduct.  

The district court referred the motion to the magistrate judge
for a report and recommendation.  On July 2, 2004, the
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the
district court enter default judgment on liability against PwC
and in favor of Telxon.

PwC filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation on July 19, 2004.

Shortly thereafter, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio approved the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Telxon Corp., "In re
Telxon Corporation Securities Litigation," (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 04, 2004)

The suit is "In re Telxon Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:98-cv-02876-KMO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge Kathleen M.
O'Malley.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard A. Speirs of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, 41
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-
         3900, Fax: 212-371-5969, E-mail: rspeirs@zsz.com;

     (2) Brett S. Krantz of Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz -
         Cleveland, 20th Floor, One Cleveland Center, 1375 East
         Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-696-8700,
         Fax: 216-621-6536, E-mail: bk@kjk.com;

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy of the Law Office of Bruce G. Murphy,
         265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963-3252, Phone: 772-
         231-4202, Fax: 772-234-0440, E-mail:
         brucemurphy_attorney@yahoo.com; and

     (4) Susan Salvetti of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, 6th
         Floor, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-223-3900.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Geoffrey F. Aronow of Heller Ehrman, 1717 Rhode Island
         Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-912-2110,
         Fax: 202-912-2020, E-mail: garonow@hewm.com;

     (2) Keith L. Carson of Thompson Hine, 3900 Key Center, 127
         Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-566-
         5599, Fax: 216-566-5800, E-mail: kcarson@thf.com;

     (3) Robert M. Cooper and John D. Daley both of Arnold &
         Porter, 555 Twelfth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004-
         1206, Phone: 202-942-5000, Fax: 202-942-5999, E-mail:
         Robert_Cooper@aporter.com or john_daley@aporter.com;

     (4) Pete C. Elliott of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
         Aronoff - Cleveland, 2300 BP Tower, 200 Public Square,
         Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-363-4684, Fax: 216-363-
         4588, E-mail: pelliott@bfca.com;

     (5) Stephen W. Funk of Roetzel & Andress, 222 South Main
         Street, Ste. 400, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-849-6602,
         Fax: 330-376-4577, E-mail: sfunk@ralaw.com;

     (6) Mark S. Gregory of Kelley Drye & Warren, Two Stamford
         Plaza, 281 Tresser Blvd., Stamford, CT 06901, Phone:
         203-324-1400, Fax: 203-964-3188, E-mail:
         mgregory@kelleydrye.com;

     (7) Mark A. Kornfeld and Eric J. Lobenfeld both of
         Clifford, Chance, Rogers & Wells, 200 Park Avenue, New
         York, NY 10166-0153, Phone: 212-878-8000, Fax: 212-878-
         8375, E-mail: Mark.Kornfeld@cliffordchance.com or
         Eric.Lobenfeld@cliffordchance.com;

     (8) Steven J. Miller of Goodman Weiss Miller, 27th Floor,
         100 Erieview Plaza, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-
         696-3366, Fax: 216-363-5835, E-mail:
         miller@goodmanweissmiller.com; and

     (9) Richard S. Mitchell of Roetzel & Andress, 10th Floor,
         One Cleveland Center, 1375 East Ninth Street,
         Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-623-0150, Fax: 216-623-
         0134, E-mail: rmitchell@ralaw.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CELESTICA INC: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Celestica, Inc.
securities during the period between July 27, 2006 and Dec. 12,
2006, inclusive.

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

Celestica provides electronic manufacturing services to original
equipment manufacturers in the computing, telecommunications,
aerospace and defense, automotive, consumer electronics, and
industrial sectors in Asia, the Americas, and Europe.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period,
defendants issued numerous statements describing the company's
financial performance and future prospects, which they
attributed, in part, to success of the company's restructuring
activities and improvements in the Mexican and European
operations.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading when made because defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

      -- that the company was experiencing declining demand in
         its Mexican operations and that division was carrying
         significant amounts of unneeded inventory which would
         have to be written off;

      -- that the company was experiencing declining demand in
         its Information Technology (I.T.) and communications
         market segments as its larger customers scaled back
         purchases; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
         basis to project adjusted earnings per share ranging
         from $0.12 to $0.20.  

When this undisclosed information later became public, shares of
Celestica common stock declined.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/celestica/.


                            *********


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  * * *