CAR_Public/070117.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 12

                            Headlines

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Wins Favorable Ruling in Car Rental Suit
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: April Hearing Set in Mineworkers Injury Suit
CANADA: Claims Filing Deadline in Suit Against AISH Extended
COVAD COMMS: Certain "Khanna" Claims Still Pending in Del. Court
COVAD COMMS: Executives Still Face IPO Allocation Cases in N.Y.

CNL HOTELS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit Over RFS Merger
DOW CHEMICAL: Continues to Face Agent Orange Lawsuit in New York
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Gives Final OK to $1.5M Settlement
EATON VANCE: Court Mulls Motion to Amended Mutual Funds Fee Suit
ECONO LUBE: Faces Deceptive Business Practices Lawsuit in Idaho

ENRON CORP: UC Regents Seek to Drop Ex-chairman, Exec in Suit
FIREPOND INC: Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Suit Settlement
GENERAL TRUCKING: Employees File WARN Violations Suit in Ark.
GLOBAL CROSSING: $15M Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Approved
GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Amended Complaint Filed in Wis. ERISA Lawsuit
HOOVER CO: Fire Hazard Vacuum Cleaners Prompts $750T Fine
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: SC Refuses to Review Ill. Bias Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation for $65M
LAND ROVER: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over LR3's Uneven Tire Wear

LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Mo. City Allowed to Sue Paint Makers
LIGGETT GROUP: Faces Several Tobacco-Marketing Related Lawsuits
LQ CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
MERCK & CO: N.J. Appellate Court Reverses Vioxx Suit Dismissal
NISOURCE INC: Discovery Remains Stayed in N.Y. Royalties Lawsuit

ORANGE 21: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: No Class Certification in Two Mile Run Lawsuit
RED ROBIN: Colo. Court Dismisses "Andropolis" Securities Lawsuit
ROYAL AHOLD: Claimants May Correct Deficiencies in Documentation
SABA SOFTWARE: Court Mulls Final Okay for IPO Suit Settlement

SILICON IMAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Third Amend Stock Complaint
SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to $6M Stock Settlement
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Del. Merger Lawsuit
THOMSON CORP: Antitrust Suit Over BAR/BRI Course Moves Forward
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Lawyers in Tip Sharing Policy Suit Seek $75T


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SUNRISE SENIOR: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Wins Favorable Ruling in Car Rental Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack granted summary
judgment in favor of Affirmative Insurance Co. in a suit over
car rentals, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Evan Schaeffer of Schaeffer and Lamere in Godfrey filed the suit
on behalf of Lanny Darr of Alton, Illinois.  Mr. Darr said he
was involved in an auto accident February 14 with an Affirmative
client.  

Affirmative reportedly agreed to pay for damage to Mr. Darr's
Ford Explorer as the insurer of the party who caused the damage.  
He was told to rent a car through Enterprise at about $19 a day.

Mr. Darr rented a Jeep Grand Cherokee, instead, for $69.95 a
day, $222.44 in three days, including tax.  Mr. Schaeffer filed
a suit for Mr. Darr 16 days after the accident.  He asked and
received reimbursement from Affirmative, but refused to withdraw
the suit.  Mr. Schaeffer wrote in an Oct. 26 brief that
Affirmative sent the $222.44 check as an offer of settlement.  

Mr. Darr amended his complaint twice last year, accusing
Affirmative of common law fraud by misrepresentation.  The
complaint accused the defendant of lying about how much a rental
car cost and how much it would ultimately be willing to
reimburse.

The suit sought orders:

      -- certifying the class of all Illinois residents involved
         in a traffic accident with Affirmative's customers in  
         the past 10 years;

      -- declaring Affirmative's conduct unlawful;

      -- requiring Affirmative to cease and desist all  
         deceptive, unjust and unreasonable practices;

      -- requiring Affirmative to notify and properly disclose  
         to whose they have overcharged; and

      -- an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the  
         suit, including fees of experts and an award of factual  
         and compensatory damages in an amount less that $75,000  
         per class member.

Judge Stack ruled that plaintiff should show actual injury to
pursue the case.

Schaeffer and Lamere on the Net: http://www.riverbendlaw.com/.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: April Hearing Set in Mineworkers Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee of AngloGold
Ashanti Ltd. in South Africa is tentatively set to come before
the Johannesburg High Court on April 10, 2007, according to
South Africa's Mining MX.

The date has yet to be finalized between two sets of counsels
representing both sides this week, the report said.

The suit estimated at ZAR2.6 million ($347,679), was brought by
human rights and occupation injuries lawyer Richard Spoor and
fellow attorney Charles Abrahams and an international alliance
of class action law firms centered in Washington.

The suit highlights the case of former AngloGold worker
Thembekile Mankayi whose health suffered as a result of his
working at the mines.  He was paid ZAR16,300 ($2,178) in
compensation after 16 years at AngloGold Ashanti's Vaal Reef
operations.

Plaintiff lawyers are challenging an Act that limits payouts to
workers who fell ill from working conditions.  

South Africa's Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act protects employers from being sued for injury or
death incurred at the work place by offering payouts to victims.  

The Mineworkers Occupational Diseases in Mineworkers Act,
however, limits the payouts in event of falling ill from working
conditions to just a fraction of that awarded under the other
Act.  

The suit, if successful, is expected trigger thousands of other
similar cases by mineworkers who suffered lung damages as a
result of their work.

AngloGold Ashanti is 41.8% owned by Anglo, and the world's
largest platinum producer Anglo Platinum, which is 79% held by
Anglo.


CANADA: Claims Filing Deadline in Suit Against AISH Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
The Alberta government has extended the compensation deadline
for people claiming the province unfairly treated them while on
social assistance to March 31, 2007, 770chqr.com reports.

On Sept. 21, 2004, Curtis Roth and Donald Fifield filed a
proposed class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against the government of Alberta on their own behalf and as
representatives on behalf of all members of the class.

The lawsuit alleges that the government wrongfully withheld
benefits that the Overpayment Recovery Class members were
entitled to receive under Alberta's Assured Income for the
Severely Handicapped Act, the Social Development Act and the
Widows' Pension Act, and in the manner that it recovered
overpayments from them.  

It also alleges that the Government wrongfully withheld benefits
from the Underpayment Class members under a policy that limited
the correction of underpayments identified in the administration
of their benefits to six months.

In December an agreement was reached awarding $5,000 to each
plaintiff as compensation for initiating the lawsuit.

The classes are:

     -- the Overpayment Recovery Class: persons residents in  
        Alberta and elsewhere in Canada whom the government of  
        Alberta:

        * required between Dec. 1, 1979 and May 1, 1983 to repay  
          income support overpayments exceeding a total of $500;  
          or

        * between May 1, 1983 and April 29, 2004 to repay income  
          support overpayments exceeding a total of $1,000, in a  
          manner other than that provided in an Income Support  
          Repayment Agreement of Income Support Recovery  
          Agreement or a court order; and

      -- Underpayment Class: persons residents in Alberta and  
         elsewhere in Canada who, between Dec. 1, 1979 an March  
         1, 2005, were found to have been underpaid the income  
         support to which they were entitled for longer than six  
         months and those retroactive correction payment was  
         limited to only six months' time.

The settlement entitles Overpayment Recovery Class members to  
$2,323 for recipients under the Assured Income for the Severely  
Handicapped Act, $1,105 for recipients under the Social  
Development Act, and $698 for recipients under the Widows'  
Pension Act.  

Deadline for filing a claim was Jan. 11, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, July 27, 2006).   

The settlement was agreed without admission of fault or
liability by the government.

The Crawford Class Action Services has been designated as claims
administrator (http://www.incomesupportsettlement.ca/).  

Representing the plaintiffs is Philip Tinkler of Fraser Milner  
Casgrain LLP, 2900 Manulife Place, 10180 - 101 St. Edmonto AB  
T5J3V5, Fax: (780) 427-1230.


COVAD COMMS: Certain "Khanna" Claims Still Pending in Del. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation with respect to remaining claims filed by Covad
Communications Group, Inc.'s former general counsel and
secretary Druv Khanna against company executives remains pending
in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle
County, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.  

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
company's general counsel and secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary
duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.

Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna
filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against
the company's current and former directors.  

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two
additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this
action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company
from the individual defendants for their purported breach of
fiduciary duty.  

Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of
directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the
company's proxy statements were misleading.

On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr.
Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives.

On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to the
company's proxy statements.  The court also determined that Mr.
Khanna could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter.  The
litigation with respect to the remaining claims is still
pending, according to the regulatory filing.

Covad Communications Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.covad.com/.


COVAD COMMS: Executives Still Face IPO Allocation Cases in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain directors and officers of by Covad Communications Group,
Inc. continue to face so-called initial public offering (IPO)
allocation cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Several stockholders filed complaints in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of themselves
and purported classes of stockholders, against the company and
several former and current officers and directors in addition to
some of the underwriters in the company's stock offerings.

These lawsuits are so-called IPO allocation cases, challenging
practices allegedly used by certain underwriters of public
equity offerings during the late 1990s and 2000.  

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and
removed the company as a defendant.  Certain directors and
officers are still named in the complaint.

Plaintiffs claim that the company and others failed to disclose
the arrangements that some of these underwriters purportedly
made with certain investors.  

They and the issuer defendants have reached a tentative
agreement to settle the matter.  That settlement, however, has
not been finalized, according to the Covad's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.    

Covad Communications Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.covad.com/.


CNL HOTELS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit Over RFS Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of all remaining claims
in a class action filed in the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, 30th Judicial District against CNL Hotels & Resorts,
in relation to a proposed merger with RFS Partnership L.P.

On May 13, 2003, A. Bruce Chasen, as class representative, filed
the suit against the Company, RFS Partnership L.P. and RFS's
directors. On June 6, 2003, the complaint was amended.  The
amended putative class action complaint alleges, among other
things, that:

      -- the merger consideration to be received by RFS's
         shareholders is significantly less than the intrinsic
         value of RFS,

      -- the RFS directors breached their fiduciary duties to
         shareholders on a variety of grounds including failing
         to ascertain the true value of RFS, failing to
         determine whether there were any other bidders for RFS,
         and failing to avoid certain alleged conflicts of
         interest shared by members of the RFS Board and its
         financial advisor,

      -- the company aided and abetted the RFS Board in
         connection with their breach of fiduciary duties,

      -- the RFS Board violated portions of the Tennessee
         Investor Protection Act, and

      -- the RFS proxy statement is false and misleading.

Among other things, the amended complaint seeks certification of
the class action, an injunction enjoining RFS and the company
from completing the merger, monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, the payment of attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On July 1, 2003, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint setting forth an affirmative defense and its general
denials of the allegations set forth therein. The court denied
the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for
purposes of enjoining the transaction on July 8, 2003.  

On Sept. 13, 2006, the court dismissed all remaining claims
against all defendants.  On Sept. 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal.


DOW CHEMICAL: Continues to Face Agent Orange Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed by
the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVAO) in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit alleges that manufacturers of Agent Orange conspired
with the U.S. government to commit war crimes and crimes against
humanity in connection with the spraying of Agent Orange.

This case was assigned to Judge Jack B.  Weinstein.  On March
10, 2005, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment filed by Monsanto and other defendants in
this case.  Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 2 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent  
Orange/Dioxin et al. v. Dow Chemical Company et al, case no.  
1:04-cv-00400-JBW-JMA," filed in the United States District  
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Jack B.  
Weinstein.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Constantine Peter  
Kokkoris of Abberley & Koolman, 521 Fifth Avenue New York, NY  
10175 Phone: 212-349-9340 Fax: 212-587-8115 E-mail:  
cpk@kokkorislaw.com.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Gives Final OK to $1.5M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
given final approval to a $1.5 million settlement of a
securities fraud lawsuit filed against Dynacq Healthcare Inc.,
according to a Jan. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Nov. 30, 2006.

In the second quarter of 2004, eight class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
alleging federal securities law causes of action against the
company and various current and former officers and directors.

The plaintiffs were persons who purchased shares of the
company's common stock on the open market generally during the
period of Jan. 14, 2003 through Dec. 18, 2003.  Under the
procedures of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs
in the matter.

An amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2004, asserting a
class period of Nov. 27, 2002, through Dec. 19, 2003 and naming
additional defendants, including Ernst & Young, LLP, the
company's prior auditors.

The amended complaint sought certification as a class action and
alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a),
20(A), and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act by publishing
materially misleading financial statements that did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results, and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of Dynacq's stock.

After the company filed its Form 10-K for fiscal 2003 on July
30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
class action complaint on Sept. 30, 2004.  All defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed two of the former officers from the case.  The Court
dismissed the claims against one former officer and Ernst &
Young, LLP, but denied the motions to dismiss the company and
two current officers who are defendants.

                      Settlement Agreement

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in
August 2006 for $1.5 million, and on Oct. 10, 2006 the parties
signed a Stipulation of Settlement setting forth the terms of
their proposed settlement of the action.  The settlement
provides for Dynacq to pay $100,000 within 30 days of final
approval of the settlement by the court and to issue a note for
$1.4 million to be paid in 36 equal monthly installments
beginning 30 days thereafter.

The note shall bear interest at 6% per annum and be secured by a
deed of trust on the Garland Facility.  As a result of this
settlement, the Co. recorded a $1.5 million charge to operations
during 2006.  

The settlement contains provisions releasing the company, its
two executive officers named as defendants and its subsidiaries
from liability and prohibiting the filing of any future claims
by the members of the class relating to this matter.  Dynacq and
its current and former officers and directors did not admit
liability or fault for the matters alleged in the lawsuit.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court signed an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, preliminarily certifying the class,
and approving the form and substance of the notice to class
members.

              January 10 Final Settlement Hearing

At a settlement hearing on Jan. 10, 2007, the court:

      -- approved the settlement as fair, reasonable and
         adequate;

      -- entered an order of final judgment and dismissal; and
        
      -- entered an Order approving the plan of allocation and
         awarding fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

The suit is "Simons v. Dynacq Healthcare, et al., Case No. 4:03-
cv-05825," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Theodore C. Anderson of Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC, 3109   
         Carlisle, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214-969-9099,   
         Fax: 214-953-0133;  

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

     (3) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter, LLP, 830 Apollo   
         Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-  
         907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com;  

     (4) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main  
         Street, 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-  
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:   
         jirvine@porterhedges.com;

     (5) Andrew J. Mytelka of Greer Herz & Adams, One Moody   
         Plz., 18th Fl., Galveston, TX 77550, Phone: 409-797-  
         3200, Fax: 409-766-6424;  

     (6) Andrew M. Schatz of Schatz & Noble, PC, 20 Church St.,  
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292;   

     (7) David R. Scott of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave., P.O.  
         Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,   
         Fax: 860-537-4432; and  

     (8) Andy Wade Tindel of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 112  
         E. Line St., Ste. 304, Tyler, TX 75702, Phone: 903-596-  
         0900, Fax: 903-596-0909, E-mail:   
         atindel@andytindel.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Mark K. Glasser of King & Spalding, 1100 Louisiana,   
         Ste. 4000, Houston, TX 77002-5213, Phone: 713-751-3200,   
         Fax: 713-751-3290; and    

    (ii) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main   
         St., 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-  
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:  
         jirvine@porterhedges.com.


EATON VANCE: Court Mulls Motion to Amended Mutual Funds Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court has yet to rule on plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint in the purported class action, "In Re Eaton
Vance Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."

The 2004 lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against Eaton Vance Corp.; Eaton
Vance Management; Boston Management and Research; Eaton Vance,
Inc.; Eaton Vance Distributors, Inc.; Lloyd George Investment
Management (Bermuda) Limited; OrbiMed Advisors LLC; Lloyd George
Investment Management (B.V.I.) Limited; nine current or past
trustees of 81 Eaton Vance funds named as nominal defendants;
and twelve current or past officers and portfolio managers of
the Funds.  

The plaintiffs were seven alleged shareholders of four of the 81
Funds.  The suit, a purported class action, alleged violations
of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, New York law and the common law, and breaches of
fiduciary duties to the Funds and their shareholders.

On July 29, 2005, the court issued an opinion and order
dismissing the suit in its entirety and rejecting the
plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint.  

On Dec. 6, 2005, the court issued an opinion and order in
response to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and motion to
file a new amended compliant.  The court adhered to its July
order and denied the motion to amend.  

Plaintiffs have appealed.  The appellate court heard oral
argument on Nov. 20, 2006, and the company is awaiting a
decision, according to a Jan. 12, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Oct. 31, 2006.


ECONO LUBE: Faces Deceptive Business Practices Lawsuit in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
Econo Lube N' Tune, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho alleging deceptive
business practices involving a disposal fee collected on oil
changes, The Idaho Statesman reports.

The suit -- filed on behalf of Meridian residents Jack Roper,
Joel Thomas and Alison Eatough -- alleges each was charged a
disposal fee ranging from $4 to $8 at company locations in the
area.

It claims the company collects the fee even though "no state,
federal or governmental agency has imposed any such fee."

The suit further alleges the oil is not discarded but is stored
and "sold to private third party vendors at a profit, and
represents a significant income stream for Econo Lube N' Tune."

"If they were disposing of the oil, they might incur costs. But
they store it, then sell it," said Boise lawyer Phil Gordon, who
filed the lawsuit. "It's a profit item for them."

But not all local Econo Lube N' Tunes impose the fee, said Mike
Hale, manager of the store at 12367 Chinden Blvd. "We do not
charge an oil-disposal fee," he said.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and asks the court to
order the company to return fees collected from consumers.

The suit is "Roper et al v. Econo Lube N' Tune, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-00025-EJL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge Edward J. Lodge.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Philip Gordon of the Gordon Law Offices, 623 W. Hays
         Street, Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208) 345-7100; and
         
     (2) Benjamin Andrew Schwartzman of Greener Banducci
         Shoemaker, 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 900, Boise, ID
         83702, Phone: 208-319-2600, Fax: 208-319-2601.


ENRON CORP: UC Regents Seek to Drop Ex-chairman, Exec in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the securities fraud suit against Enron
Corp. filed a motion to dismiss former chairman Ken Lay and four
other former executives from their class action, The Houston
Chronicle reports.  

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease in July more than a
month after he was found guilty of hiding financial troubles at
Enron.  His conviction was vacated months later (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 26, 2006).

The other executives are Kenneth Rice, Joe Hirko, Kevin Hannon,
and Greg Whalley.

Lawyers for the University of California Board of Regents
emphasized that the dismissals not be considered settlements,
the report said.  

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 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.


FIREPOND INC: Court Mulls Final Approval for 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 in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Firepond, Inc., according to FP Technology, Inc.'s Nov.
14, 2006 Form 10-QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006.

In August 2001, FP Technology's predecessor, Firepond, Inc., was
named as a defendant in a securities class action filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in relation
to its initial public offering in February 2000.  

The lawsuit also named as defendants certain of the underwriters
of the IPO, including:

     -- FleetBoston,
     -- Dain Rauscher, and
     -- SG Cowen, as well as
     -- officers and directors of Firepond, Klaus P. Besier and
        Paul K. McDermott.  

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which have been
included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern
District of New York.  

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from
investors and that some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed
with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Firepond's stock.  

An amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.  Firepond and
the officers and directors identified above were named in the
suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
other related provisions.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified
litigation costs.

In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this litigation was
structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.  

On or about July 30, 2003, a committee of Firepond's Board of
Directors conditionally approved the proposed partial
settlement.  The settlement would provide, among other things, a
release of Firepond and of the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged to be wrongful in the amended complaint.  

Firepond would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against
its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by Firepond's insurance
carriers.

In October 2003, the action involving Firepond was designated
(along with several other actions) as a test or "focus" case for
purposes of class certification and merits discovery in the
actions proceeding against the underwriter defendants.  

The fact that Firepond is a defendant in a "focus" case does not
impact its participation in the settlement, according to FP
Technology's statement.  However, as a "focus" case defendant,
Firepond may be subjected to additional discovery and other
involvement in the proceedings against the underwriter
defendants as compared to other issuer defendants.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  The court granted the
preliminary approval motion on Feb. 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.

The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on Nov.
15, 2005.   The settlement fairness hearing was held on April
24, 2006, and the court reserved decision.   

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


GENERAL TRUCKING: Employees File WARN Violations Suit in Ark.
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Trucking, LLC and Basic Construction Co. lodged a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas over alleged violations of the Workers And Retraining
Notification Act of 1988 (WARN), The Morning News Reports.

Workers contend Gary Combs, owner of General Trucking and Basic
Construction, laid off 93 workers from Basic and 127 workers
from General Trucking, which is enough employees to trigger the
60 days layoffs notice under the federal Workers And Retraining
Notification Act of 1988.

In 2006, four workers laid off from General Trucking and Basic
Construction for failing to notify them ahead of time.

Violating the WARN Act can make the company liable for 60 days
of pay, any health benefits or other benefits due and $500 a day
in civil penalties.

The workers are seeking class action status, to represent all
the workers laid off and attorney fees.

The suit is "Franklin et al v. General Trucking LLC et al., Case
No. 5:07-cv-05002-JLH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, under Judge Jimm Larry Hendren.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) G. Chadd Mason of the Mason Law Firm, P. O. Box 1265,
         224 N. Block Street, Fayetteville, AR 72702, Phone:
         (479) 587-9300, Fax: (479) 587-9339, E-mail:
         chaddmason@aol.com; and

     (2) D. Brent Sterling of the Sterling Law Firm, P.A., 1148
         Stearns Rd., Ste. 3, Fayetteville, AR 72703, Phone:
         (479) 582-4800, Fax: (479) 582-9490, E-mail:
         brents@nwark.com.


GLOBAL CROSSING: $15M Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval in September to a $15 million settlement
of a Multidistrict Litigation over securities fraud against
Global Crossing Ltd.

Following the company's April 27, 2004 announcement that the
Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2003,
eight separate class actions all purporting to be brought on
behalf of company shareholders were commenced against the
company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Courts in New Jersey, New York, and California.

The cases were consolidated and transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Judge Gerard Lynch of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based
on his past involvement in prior cases involving the company.

On Feb. 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class-action complaint against the company and two of its past
and present officers.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company
defrauded the public securities markets by issuing false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose or indicate:

     -- that the company had materially understated its accrued
        cost of access liabilities by as much as $80 million;

     -- that the company lacked sufficient internal controls to
        prevent material misstatements;

     -- that the company lacked sufficient internal controls to
        properly record and report accrued cost of access
        liabilities and operating expenses;

     -- that its financial statements were not prepared in
        accordance with generally accepted accounting
        principles;

     -- that the company did not, contrary to its
        representations, consistently monitor the accuracy of
        its systems that measured cost of access;

     -- that the company's results were materially inflated, and
       
     -- that the company did not have a "clean" balance sheet.

Plaintiffs contend that the company's misstatement or omissions
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock, which
declined when the "true" costs were disclosed.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages as well as other relief.

The company and the lead plaintiffs have signed an agreement to
settle the litigation that would obligate the company to pay $15
million into a settlement fund.  

The company expects that the full $15 million would be paid or
reimbursed by proceeds from one of the company's directors and
officers' liability insurance policies.

On April 17, 2006, the court signed an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and preliminarily
certified a class for purposes of settlement.  

The court also provided that notice of the settlement should be
given to the class, and scheduled a hearing for final approval
of the settlement on Sept. 22, 2006.

In an order and judgment dated Sept. 22, 2006, the court
approved the settlement and dismissed the litigation.  The time
to file an appeal expired on Oct. 25, 2006.

Global Crossing Access Charge Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC,
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040,
Phone: (800) 447-7657, Web site: http://www.gilardi.com.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Qwest Rights-of-Way Litigation faced by subsidiaries of
Global Crossing Ltd. continues in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.  

In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced against
three of Global Crossing's subsidiaries in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  

The complaint alleges that the company had no right to install a
fiber-optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to
certain railroads.

Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corp., the
company has an indefeasible right to use certain fiber-optic
cables in a fiber-optic communications system constructed by
Qwest within the rights-of-way.  

The complaint alleges that the railroads had only limited
rights-of-way granted to them that did not include permission to
install fiber-optic cable for use by Qwest or any other
entities.

The action has been brought on behalf of a national class of
landowners whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad
right-of-way within which the fiber-optic cables have been
installed.  

It seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and alleges that
the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud, malice,
intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and/or
reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.  
As a result, plaintiffs also request an award of punitive
damages.

The company made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify the
company in the lawsuit.  In response, Qwest has appointed
defense counsel to protect the company's interests.

The company's North American network includes capacity purchased
from Qwest on an Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) basis.  Though
the amount of the claim is unstated, an adverse outcome could
have an adverse impact on the company's ability to utilize large
portions of the company's North American network.

This litigation was stayed against the company pending the
effective date of the Plan of Reorganization, and the
plaintiffs' pre-petition claims against the company were
discharged at that time in accordance with the Plan of
Reorganization.

By agreement between the parties, the Plan of Reorganization
preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post- confirmation
claims of trespass or ejectment.  

If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the company could lose its
ability to operate large portions of its North American network,
although it believes that it would be entitled to
indemnification from Qwest for any losses under the terms of the
IRU agreement under which the company originally purchased this
capacity.

As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted
against the company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its
obligations of defense and indemnity to the Company for the
assertions made in this claim.  

In September 2002, Qwest and certain of the other
telecommunication carrier defendants filed a proposed settlement
agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  

On July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action
claims, except those in Louisiana.  

The settlement and the court's injunction were opposed by a
number of parties who intervened and an appeal was taken to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In a decision dated Oct. 19, 2004, the Seventh Circuit reversed
the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction.  The
case has been remanded to the district court for further
proceedings, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Amended Complaint Filed in Wis. ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the purported class action
against Harley-Davidson Inc., alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On Aug. 25, 2005, a class action alleging violations of ERISA
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.  

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered the ERISA action
consolidated with the federal derivative and securities actions
for administrative purposes.

Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the
ERISA plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which
named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- the Harley-Davidson Motor Company Retirement Plans
        Committee,
     -- the company's Leadership and Strategy Council, and
     -- current or former company officers or employees:
        
        * Harold A. Scott,
        * James L. Ziemer,
        * James M. Brostowitz,
        * Gail A. Lione,
        * Joanne M. Bischmann,
        * Karl M. Eberle,
        * Jon R. Flickinger,
        * Ronald M. Hutchinson,
        * James A. McCaslin,
        * W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr., and
        * Donna F. Zarcone.

In general, the ERISA complaint includes factual allegations
similar to those in the shareholder class actions and alleges on
behalf of participants in certain Harley-Davidson retirement
savings plans that the plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties.

The suit is "Bosman v. Harley-Davidson Inc., et al., Case No.  
2:05-cv-00912-CNC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Charles N. Clevert,  
Jr.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Noah M. Golden-Krasner of Law Offices of Noah Golden-
         Krasner, 354 W. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, Phone:  
         608-441-8924, Fax: 608-442-9494, E-mail:  
         noah@mainstreetjustice.com;

     (2) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 5th Ave. -  
         3rd Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-983-1300; and

     (3) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &  
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave. - 10th Fl., New York, NY  
         10016, Phone: 212-545-4762, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-mail:
         rifkin@whafh.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Charles C. Jackson of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77  
         W. Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-
         324-1156, Fax: 312-324-1001, E-mail:  
         charles.jackson@morganlewis.com; and  

    (ii) Nancy J. Sennett and Rebecca E. Wickhem of Foley &  
         Lardner, LLP, 777 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI  
         53202-5300, Phone: 414-297-5522 and 414-297-5681, Fax:  
         414-297-4900 and 414-297-4900, E-mail:  
         nsennett@foley.com and rwickhem@foley.com.


HOOVER CO: Fire Hazard Vacuum Cleaners Prompts $750T Fine
---------------------------------------------------------
Hoover Company Inc., of North Canton, Ohio, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, has agreed to pay a
$750,000 civil penalty.

The penalty, which the Commission has provisionally accepted,
settles allegations that the company failed to report to CPSC
the sale of vacuum cleaners with defective on-off switches that
can overheat and cause the vacuum cleaner to catch fire.

In April 2005, Hoover conducted a recall of 636,000 Hoover Self-
Propelled Upright Vacuum Cleaners because of defective on-off
switches.

In June 2004, after CPSC received notice of several vacuum
cleaner incidents, the Commission staff requested Hoover provide
a full report of incident information.

In July 2004, when Hoover submitted a full report, it had notice
of 260 consumer incidents, of which 141 involved reports of
fire. Additionally, there was one report of a minor burn injury.

Hoover first learned of a vacuum cleaner switch on one of these
units overheating and melting in April 1999.

Federal law requires firms to report to CPSC immediately (within
24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the
conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a
substantial risk of injury to the public, presents an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or violates a
federal safety standard.

These Hoover Self-Propelled Upright Vacuum Cleaners are plastic,
upright vacuums with the brand name "Hoover" and words "Self
Propelled" printed on the front of the product. Only those
Hoover Self-Propelled Upright Vacuum Cleaners manufactured
between May 1998 and November 1999 are included in the recall
that is the subject of this penalty.

Picture of the recalled vacuum cleaners:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07079.jpg

In agreeing to settle the matter, Hoover Company Inc. denies
CPSC's allegations that the company knowingly violated the law.

For additional information, contact Hoover toll-free at (800)
250-6075 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site" http://www.hoover.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: SC Refuses to Review Ill. Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal brought by a
group of International Business Machines Corp. employees in a
federal case accusing the company of discrimination, the English
Business News reports.

In 2003, the district court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, and
proceedings continued as the parties debated how much IBM owes,
and how it must change its plan in future years, as a remedy.

IBM reached a partial settlement in the case in 2004, agreeing
to pay up to $1.4 billion if its appeal failed.

In August 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court in "Cooper,
Kathi v. IBM Pension Plan, Case No. 05-3588," which is a class
action that alleges discrimination by International Business
Machines Corp. against older workers through its adoption of a
cash-balance pension plan (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2006).  The court remanded the suit with directions to enter
judgment in IBM's favor.

Plaintiffs in the class action had contended that IBM's plan
violates a subsection of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act that prohibits age discrimination.  

The suit relates to amendments the company made to switch a
traditional plan to a cash-balance plan, which is generally
thought to benefit younger workers.  

Several age-discrimination lawsuits were filed nationwide,
causing the Internal Revenue Service to stop approving them in
1999.

According to the appeals court ruling, "Like a defined
contribution plan, a cash-balance plan removes the backloading
of the pension formula; older workers (accurately) perceive that
they are worse off under a cash-balance approach than under a
traditional years-of-service-times final-salary plan.  But
removing a feature that gave extra benefits to the old differs
from discriminating against them."

"Replacing a plan that discriminates against the young with one
that is age-neutral does not discriminate against the old."

Consequently, plaintiffs filed a petition asking the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear "en banc" a decision that
favored the company (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2006).

The plaintiffs said the review is necessary because the
appellate decision confused federal laws governing traditional
pension plans and newer models such as 401(k) plans.

The suit is "Cooper, Kathi v. IBM Pension Plan, Case No. 99-829-
GPM" on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy.

Representing the plaintiff is William K. Carr at Law Offices of
William K. Carr, 2222 East Tennessee Avenue, Denver, CO 80209,
Phone: 303-296-6383; and John H. Evans at Hill & Robbins, 1441
18th Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-296-8100,
E-mail: johnevans@hillandrobbins.com.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey G. Huvelle and David H.
Remes at Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-662-6000, E-
mail: jhuvelle@cov.com or dremes@cov.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation for $65M
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp. agreed to a $65 million
settlement in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California for $65 million, The
Phil Law Weblog reports.

The case was brought as a result of IBM's classification of
"Technical Services Professional and Information Technology
Specialists" as highly skilled professionals that it alleged
were exempt from US overtime laws pursuant to legislation known
as the US Fair Labor Standards Act and also under California
labor laws.

The plaintiffs claimed that they were unfairly labeled by IBM
and should have been paid overtime.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed against IBM
on behalf of technical support workers whose primary
responsibilities are or were to install and maintain computer
software and hardware (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2006).

The complaint was subsequently amended on March 13, 2006.  The
First Amended Complaint, among other things, adds four
additional named plaintiffs and modifies the definition of the
workers purportedly included in the class.

The suit alleges the company failed to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and
asserts violations of various state wage requirements, including
record keeping and meal-break provisions.  It also asserts
certain violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.  

Specifically, the suit charges that IBM deprives its employees
who install, maintain, and support computer software and
hardware by unlawfully characterizing them as "exempt" from
state and federal labor law protections.

The proposed classes consist of current and former IBM technical
support workers with the primary duties of installing and/or
maintaining computer software and hardware for IBM who were
wrongly classified by the company as exempt from the overtime
provisions of federal law and/or applicable state wage and hour
laws.

Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401K and
pension plan credits, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In concluding, IBM stated that, "during its 90-year history as a
major employer in the US, it has a long-standing and proven
track record in accurately and appropriately paying many
hundreds of thousands of employees. IBM continues to believe
that its payment practices are fair and comply with all
applicable laws and regulations."

Nationwide IBM Tech Worker Overtime Pay Class Action on the net:
        http://www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstIBM.com.

The suit is "Rosenburg et al. v. IBM Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00430-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
     (1) James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,  
         LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000;  

     (2) Todd F. Jackson of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson,  
         P.C., Phone: 510-839-6824;  

     (3) Steven G. Zieff of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, Phone:  
         415-434-9800 or 800-869-0165;   

     (4) Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: 212-245-
         1000;  

     (5) Ira Spiro of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge,  
         LLP, Phone: 310-235-2468;  

     (6) J. Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel, LLP, Phone: 214-749-
         1400;  

     (7) Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch, PLLC, Phone: 713-877-
         8065;  

     (8) David Borgen of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &  
         Dardarian, Phone: 510-763-9800.

Representing the company is Donna M. Mezias of Jones Day, 555  
California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:  
415-875-5822, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: dmezias@jonesday.com.


LAND ROVER: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over LR3's Uneven Tire Wear
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Mark Anderson filed a purported class action in
California against Land Rover North America on behalf of Lew
Colon and all other 2004 and 2005 Land Rover LR3 owners in
California covered by a technical service bulletin, abc7news.com
reports.

Mr. Colon, a Gilroy, California resident, alleged that his LR3's
loud noise gradually got worse, when he accelerates.  It's a
noise he said is being caused by uneven tire wear.

He claims that the best way to describe the defect is that when
he drives his vehicle, it feels like driving a four-wheel drive
truck with snow tires.  

Mr. Colon said that he first noticed the situation after driving
just 5,000 miles on his new 2005 model.  The company declined to
help him immediately, but eventually agreed to buy him three new
tires.  Mr. Colon would have to pay for one.

However, 6,000 miles later, he noticed the same pattern on his
new tire.  Mr. Colon asserts, "In the tread design you can truly
see it was wearing -- every other one was wearing."

He again complained to Land Rover, but 25,000 miles have passed.
The company so far hasn't offered to replace the second set.

Land Rover did however issue a technical service bulletin
acknowledging concerns about uneven tire wear. The company's
suggested fix -- readjust the alignment to new settings.

But Land Rover has so far not issued a recall -- saying "it
hasn't been confirmed that there is a larger concern."  Dozens
of similar complaints about uneven tire wear on the vehicle
populate a forum on Edmonds.com.

According to attorney Mark Anderson, the vehicles are covered by
the Land Rover factory warranty and when the problem is a defect
in the vehicle, they're obligated to take care of the problem
and pay for the repairs.


LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Mo. City Allowed to Sue Paint Makers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Supreme Court has allowed the city of St. Louis to
pursue a case against six former manufacturers of lead paint,
Legal News Line reports.

In a ruling issued late in December, judges for the Missouri
Court of Appeals sent the case to the state Supreme Court for
consideration whether the paint and pigment makers can be held
responsible absent proof that they made the paint used in the
homes (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2007).

The city is suing the paint manufacturers to make them pay for
the costs to remove the paint in St. Louis homes.

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Benjamin Moore & Co.,
     -- Millennium Chemicals Inc.,
     -- NL Industries Inc.,
     -- XBD Inc.,
     -- PPG Industries Inc., and
     -- The Sherwin-Williams Co.

The city alleges that the companies knew lead paint was
dangerous and unfit for homes.  It said in the suit it could not
identify the manufacturer of any lead paint or lead pigment at
properties where abatement has occurred, but it is enough to
show that the companies substantially contributed to the lead
paint problem in St. Louis to hold them responsible.

The companies had said product identification was necessary to
hold them liable.  A judge initially ruled against the city's
"public nuisance" claim.  The city appealed, and the case was
sent to the state Supreme Court, which ruled against the
defendants.


LIGGETT GROUP: Faces Several Tobacco-Marketing Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., faces
approximately nine actions pending, for which either a class has
been certified or plaintiffs are seeking class certification, as
of March 31, 2006, according to Vector's Nov. 22 form 10-Q/A
filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.

Many of these actions purport to constitute statewide class
actions and were filed after May 1996 when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in the Castano case, reversed a
district court's certification of a purported nationwide class
action on behalf of persons who were allegedly "addicted" to
tobacco products.

The extent of the impact of the Castano decision on smoking-
related class action litigation is still uncertain.  The Castano
decision has had a limited effect with respect to courts'
decisions regarding narrower smoking-related classes or class
actions brought in state rather than federal court.  

For example, since the Fifth Circuit's ruling, a court in
Louisiana (Liggett is not a defendant in this proceeding)
certified an "addiction-as-injury" class action, in the "Scott
v. American Tobacco Co., Inc." case, that covered only citizens
in the state.

In May 2004, the Scott jury returned a verdict in the amount of
$591,000, plus prejudgment interest, on the class' claim for a
smoking cessation program.  The case is on appeal.

                     Broin, Engle Lawsuits

Two other class actions, "Broin, et al., v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al.," and "Engle, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al.," were certified in state court in
Florida prior to the Fifth Circuit's decision.

In May 1994, the Engle case was filed against Liggett and others
in the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  

The class consists of all Florida residents and citizens, and
their survivors, who have suffered, presently suffer or have
died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their
addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine.

Phase I of the trial commenced in July 1998 and in July 1999,
the jury returned the Phase I verdict.  The Phase I verdict
concerned certain issues determined by the trial court to be
"common" to the causes of action of the plaintiff class.  

Among other things, the jury found that:

     -- smoking cigarettes causes 20 diseases or medical
        conditions;
    
     -- cigarettes are addictive or dependence producing,
        defective and unreasonably dangerous;

     -- defendants made materially false statements with the
        intention of misleading smokers;

     -- defendants concealed or omitted material information
        concerning the health effects and/or the addictive
        nature of smoking cigarettes and agreed to misrepresent
        and conceal the health effects and/or the addictive
        nature of smoking cigarettes; and

     -- defendants were negligent and engaged in extreme and
        outrageous conduct or acted with reckless disregard with
        the intent to inflict emotional distress.

The jury also found that defendants' conduct "rose to a level
that would permit a potential award or entitlement to punitive
damages."  

The court decided that Phase II of the trial, which commenced
November 1999, would be a causation and damages trial for three
of the class representatives and a punitive damages trial on a
class-wide basis, before the same jury that returned the verdict
in Phase I.

Phase III of the trial was to be conducted before separate
juries to address absent class members' claims, including issues
of specific causation and other individual issues regarding
entitlement to compensatory damages.

In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $12,704
to the three plaintiffs, to be reduced in proportion to the
respective plaintiff's fault.

The jury also decided that the claim of one of the plaintiffs,
who was awarded compensatory damages of $5,831, was not timely
filed.  

In July 2000, the jury awarded approximately $145,000,000 in the
punitive damages portion of Phase II against all defendants
including $790,000 against Liggett.

The court entered a final order of judgment against the
defendants in November 2000.  The court's final judgment, which
provided for interest at the rate of 10% per year on the jury's
awards, also denied various post-trial motions, including a
motion for new trial and a motion seeking reduction of the
punitive damages award.  Liggett appealed the court's order.

In May 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeals
decertified the Engle class and set aside the jury's decision in
the case against Liggett and the other cigarette makers,
including the $145,000,000 punitive damages award.  

The intermediate appellate court ruled that there were multiple
legal bases why the class action trial, including the punitive
damages award, could not be sustained.

The court found that the class failed to meet the legal
requirements for class certification and that class members
needed to pursue their claims on an individualized basis.  

It also ruled that the trial plan violated Florida law and the
appellate court's 1996 certification decision, and was
unconstitutional.  

In addition, the court further found that the proceedings were
irretrievably tainted by class counsel's misconduct and that the
punitive damages award was bankrupting under Florida law.

In May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the
case, and oral argument was held in November 2004.  If the Third
District Court of Appeal's ruling is not upheld on appeal, it
will have a material adverse effect on the company.

In May 2000, legislation was enacted in Florida that limits the
size of any bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution of
a punitive damages verdict to the lesser of the punitive award
plus twice the statutory rate of interest, $100,000 or 10% of
the net worth of the defendant, but the limitation on the bond
does not affect the amount of the underlying verdict.

In November 2000, Liggett filed the $3,450 bond required by the
Florida law in order to stay execution of the Engle judgment,
pending appeal.  

Legislation limiting the amount of the bond required to file an
appeal of an adverse judgment has been enacted in more than 30
states.

In May 2001, Liggett, Philip Morris and Lorillard Tobacco
Company reached an agreement with the class in the Engle case,
which provided assurance of Liggett's ability to appeal the
jury's July 2000 verdict.  

As required by the agreement, Liggett paid $6,273 into an escrow
account to be held for the benefit of the Engle class, and
released, along with Liggett's existing $3,450 statutory bond,
to the court for the benefit of the class upon completion of the
appeals process, regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

As a result, the company recorded a $9,723 pre-tax charge to the
consolidated statement of operations for the first quarter of
2001.  

The agreement, which was approved by the court, assured that the
stay of execution, in effect pursuant to the Florida bonding
statute, would not be lifted or limited at any point until
completion of all appeals, including an appeal to the United
States Supreme Court.

If Liggett's balance sheet net worth fell below $33,781 (as
determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles in effect as of July 14, 2000), the agreement
provided that the stay granted in favor of Liggett in the
agreement would terminate and the Engle class would be free to
challenge the Florida bonding statute.

               "Lukacs v. Philip Morris, et al."

In June 2002, the jury in a Florida state court action entitled
"Lukacs v. Philip Morris, et al." awarded $37,500 in
compensatory damages in a case involving Liggett and two other
tobacco manufacturers.  

In March 2003, the court reduced the amount of the compensatory
damages to $25,100.  The jury found Liggett 50% responsible for
the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

The Lukacs case was the first individual case to be tried as
part of Phase III of the Engle case; the claims of all other
individuals who are members of the class were stayed pending
resolution of the appeal of the Engle verdict.  

The Lukacs verdict, which was subject to the outcome of the
Engle appeal, has been overturned as a result of the appellate
court's ruling.  

As discussed, class counsel in Engle is pursuing various
appellate remedies seeking reversal of the appellate court's
decision.

                      Other Class Actions

Class certification motions are pending in a number of putative
class actions.  Classes remain certified against Liggett in West    
Virginia (Blankenship), Kansas (Smith) and New Mexico (Romero).  
A number of class certification denials are on appeal.

In August 2000, in "Blankenship v. Philip Morris," a West
Virginia state court conditionally certified (only to the extent
of medical monitoring) a class of present or former West
Virginia smokers who desire to participate in a medical
monitoring plan.

In January 2001, the judge declared a mistrial.  In July 2001,
the court issued an order severing Liggett from the retrial of
the case, which began in September 2001.  In November 2001, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the other defendants.  

In May 2004, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the
defense jury verdict, and it denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing.  

Plaintiffs did not seek further appellate review of this matter
and the case has been concluded in favor of the other
defendants.

   "Brown, et al., v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc. et al."

In April 2001, the California state court in "Brown, et al., v.
The American Tobacco Co., Inc. et al.," granted in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class
comprised of adult residents of California who smoked at least
one of defendants' cigarettes "during the applicable time
period" and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and
advertising activities in California.  

Certification was granted as to plaintiffs' claims that
defendants violated California's unfair business practices
statute.  

The court subsequently defined "the applicable class period" for
plaintiffs' claims, pursuant to a stipulation submitted by the
parties, as June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001.  

In March 2005, the court issued a ruling granting defendants'
motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in
California law.  

In April 2005, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order, which decertified the case.  The
plaintiffs have appealed.  Liggett is a defendant in the case.

                      Simon II Litigation

In September 2002, in "In Re Simon II Litigation," the federal
district court for the Eastern District of New York granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide non-opt-out
punitive damages class action against the major tobacco
companies, including Liggett.  

The class is not seeking compensatory damages, but was created
to determine whether smokers across the country may be entitled
to punitive damages.  

In May 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the trial court's class certification order and remanded
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the decertification
ruling.  In February 2006, the trial court entered an order
dismissing the action effective March 8, 2006.

               "Schwab v. Philip Morris, et al."

Class actions have been filed in a number of states against
individual cigarette manufacturers, alleging that the use of the
terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and
deceptive trade practices.  

One such suit, "Schwab v. Philip Morris, et al.," pending in
federal court in New York against the cigarette manufacturers,
seeks to create a nationwide class of "light" cigarette smokers
and includes Liggett as a defendant.  Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and summary judgment motions by both sides
were heard in September 2005.

In November 2005, the court issued an opinion permitting
plaintiffs to seek fluid recovery damages if class certification
is granted.  

Fluid recovery would permit potential damages to be paid out in
ways other than merely giving cash directly to plaintiffs, such
as establishing a pool of money that could be used for public
purposes.  

Though trial was scheduled to commence in January 2006, the
judge has allowed an additional period for discovery before
deciding the class certification issue.

               "Price, et al., v. Philip Morris"

In March 2003, in a class action brought against Philip Morris
on behalf of smokers of light cigarettes, a state court judge in
Illinois in the "Price, et al., v. Philip Morris" case awarded
$7,100,500 in actual damages to the class members, $3,000,000 in
punitive damages to the State of Illinois (which was not a
plaintiff in this matter), and approximately $1,800,000 in
attorney's fees and costs.  Entry of judgment was stayed.

In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the
lower state court's ruling in Price, and sent the case back to
the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case.  In May
2006, the Illinois Supreme court denied plaintiffs' motion for a
rehearing.

                       Antitrust Lawsuits

Approximately 38 purported state and federal class action
complaints were filed against the cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett, for alleged antitrust violations.  

The actions allege that the cigarette manufacturers have engaged
in a nationwide and international conspiracy to fix the price of
cigarettes in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants' price-fixing conspiracy
raised the price of cigarettes above a competitive level.  
Plaintiffs in the 31 state actions purport to represent classes
of indirect purchasers of cigarettes in 16 states; plaintiffs in
the seven federal actions purport to represent a nationwide
class of wholesalers who purchased cigarettes directly from the
defendants.

The federal class actions were consolidated and, in July 2000,
plaintiffs filed a single consolidated complaint that did not
name Liggett as a defendant, although Liggett complied with
discovery requests.  

In July 2002, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the consolidated federal cases, which decision was
affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

All state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers have been
dismissed, except for two cases pending in Kansas and New
Mexico.  The Kansas state court, in the case of "Smith v. Philip
Morris, et al.," granted class certification in November 2001.

In April 2003, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted in "Romero v. Philip Morris," the case pending in New
Mexico state court.  

In February 2005, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the
trial court's certification order.  Liggett is a defendant in
both the Kansas and New Mexico cases.

Although not technically a class action, a West Virginia state
court has consolidated for trial on some common related issues
approximately 1,000 individual smoker actions against cigarette
manufacturers, that were pending prior to 2001.  

Liggett is a defendant in most of the cases pending in West
Virginia.  Trial has been set for March 2007.  In January 2002,
the court severed Liggett from the trial of the consolidated
action.


LQ CORP: 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 a securities class action against LQ Corp.,
Inc., according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The company is a defendant in certain purported class actions
filed by individual shareholders in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against certain of its former
officers and directors, and various of the underwriters in its
initial public offering and secondary offering.

The suits have been filed by individual shareholders who purport
to seek class action status on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons who purchased the common stock of the company
between July 8, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000.

They allege that certain underwriters of the initial public
offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees
and commissions in connection with that offering.  

It further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the company's initial public
offering which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On or about Oct. 8, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing
the claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions without any payment from these individuals
or the company.

On or about Feb. 19, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice the claims asserted against the company under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

As a result, the only claims that remain against the company are
those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The company entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the
remaining claims in the litigation.  The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the company and its present and former
directors and officers.

It is anticipated that the company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance will handle any payment to the plaintiff
class and their counsel.  Essentially, the company will make no
direct payment.

The parties have negotiated and executed a definitive settlement
agreement.  The proposed settlement provides that the class
members in the class action cases brought against the
participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of
$1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.  

In addition, the company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.

If ultimately approved by the court, the proposed settlement
would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against the company and all of the other issuer
defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon
obtaining approval by the court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the Ccourt
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement at which objections to the proposed settlement were
heard.

The court did not issue a ruling at the fairness hearing.  The
settlement remains subject to a number of conditions, including
final approval of the court.

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


MERCK & CO: N.J. Appellate Court Reverses Vioxx Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division has remanded
a proposed class action brought on behalf of people who took the
Merck & Co. Inc.'s painkiller Vioxx and want the company to pay
for medical monitoring.

The appellate court remanded the suit filed by Phyllis Sinclair
and Joseph Murray to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, for discovery and an evidentiary
hearing.

The suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and others
resident in New Jersey or, alternatively, in the U.S., who had
taken the drug Vioxx in any dose for at least six consecutive
weeks at any time between May 20, 1999 and September 30, 2004.

                Complaint and Relief Sought

The complaint raises claims of negligence, breach of the Product
Liability Act and the Consumer Fraud Act, breach of warranty and
an alleged entitlement to punitive damages.  

Plaintiffs claimed that as a result of their direct and
prolonged exposure to Vioxx, they have an enhanced risk of
sustaining serious, undiagnosed and unrecognized myocardial
infarctions (UMIs) that, in turn, would subject them to the risk
of further, significant, long-term cardiovascular harm.

As a consequence, they sought as relief the establishment of a
court-administered medical screening program, funded by Merck,
"to provide for and/or reimburse medical and diagnostic tests
for each member of the Class to detect [UMIs] and other latent
or unrecognized injuries and, if such injuries are detected and
diagnosed, to educate Plaintiffs about available treatment
strategies."

They also sought to compel a Merck-funded follow-up
epidemiological study of former Vioxx users as compared to
nonusers to further evaluate postcessation risk, as well as the
retention of jurisdiction by the court to enable it to decide
whether the findings of the study justified screening for
"unrecognized or latent injuries" other than UMIs.  

Although plaintiffs claimed no present physical injury, they
alleged that the cost of diagnostic testing represented an
ascertainable economic loss for which they were entitled to
compensation.

An order of May 19, 2005 dismissed on the pleadings a proposed
class action complaint.  The judge ordered the dismissal of
plaintiffs' complaint on failure to state a cause of action for
such monitoring.

Plaintiffs appealed.  The viability of plaintiffs' medical
monitoring claim was the sole focus of Merck's motion to dismiss
and the trial court's opinion, and it is the sole issue on
appeal.  

                    Appellate Court's Ruling

In a decision issued on Jan. 16, the appellate court reversed
the dismissal and remanded the matter for further proceedings.  

The court stated in an order: "In doing so, we express no
opinion as to the ultimate viability of plaintiffs' action.  
However, as we will explain, we find the dismissal to have
prematurely terminated plaintiffs' opportunity to establish the
existence of a legally cognizable claim."

"...plaintiffs' pleadings... do not allege the non-existence of
injury, but instead allege that the two named plaintiffs have
not filed claims for personal injury from exposure to Vioxx and
have not had a diagnostic EKG since commencing to take the drug.  
zPlaintiffs thus must be accorded an opportunity to demonstrate
"harm" cognizable under the Product Liability Act before the
portions of their suit premised on that Act can be dismissed as
legally insufficient."

A copy of the court ruling is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1892

The case is Docket No. A-5661-04T5 in the appellate court and L-
3771-04 in the lower court.


NISOURCE INC: Discovery Remains Stayed in N.Y. Royalties Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still stayed in a suit over royalty payments filed
by Vivian K. Kershaw on behalf of people who own an interest in
oil and gas leases in New York against subsidiaries of NiSource
Inc. in Chautauqua County Court, New York.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in 2000 against:

     -- Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., a former subsidiary;

     -- Columbia Transmission Corp.;
  
     -- Columbia Energy Corp.; and

     -- Columbia Energy Resources, Inc.  

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs own an interest in oil and
gas leases in New York and that the defendants have underpaid
royalties on those leases by, among other things, failing to
base royalties on the price at which natural gas is sold to the
end-user and by improperly deducting post-production costs.

Plaintiffs seek the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive
damages.  The complaint also seeks class-action status on behalf
of all royalty owners in oil and gas leases owned by the
defendants.  

Discovery is currently stayed while the parties seek to
determine if the matter can be settled, according to NiSource's
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.

The suit is "Vivian K. Kershaw et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc., et al."


ORANGE 21: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orange 21 Inc. has reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The settlement will resolve litigation that has been pending
since March 2005.  If the settlement is approved by the court,
following notice to the class, $1.4 million will be paid to the
class of plaintiffs and for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees from
proceeds of Orange 21's directors' and officers' insurance.

Orange 21 has also reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated derivative action that is pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego against
certain of the company's current and former officers and
directors, and against one of the company's stockholders, No
Fear, Inc. This action has been pending since December 2005.

Under the settlement agreement, No Fear and the insurer for the
officer and director defendants have agreed to pay, subject to
court approval, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

In addition, the company has agreed to continue adherence to a
set of corporate governance guidelines.  The settlement is
subject to court approval.  The company will pay no amounts.

Initially, two stockholder class actions were filed.  A
consolidated complaint was later filed on Oct. 11, 2005, which
purported to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged
class of persons who purchased the company's common stock
pursuant to the registration statement filed in connection with
the company's public offering of stock on Dec. 14, 2004 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2006).

The complaint alleged that the company and its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose in the registration statement material information
about plans to make a change in its European operations, its
dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its
products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley,
Inc.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
court granted on March 29, 2006.  The court allowed plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint only with respect to their claim
about a European distribution change.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint dated April 7, 2006.

On May 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss that
amended complaint.  No discovery has been conducted.

The first identified complaint is "Christine Pittman, et al. v.
Orange 21, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
  
     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, (San Diego), 402 West  
         Broadway, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800,
         Fax: 619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;
  
     (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) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,  
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:  
         wfederman@aol.com;
  
     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, 501 West Broadway, Suit  
         1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 877.493.5366, Fax:
         619.238.5425;
  
     (5) 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;
  
     (6) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San  
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,  
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;
  
     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,  
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and
  
     (8) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,  
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:  
         215.638.4867.


PENNSYLVANIA: No Class Certification in Two Mile Run Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Venango County Court of Common Pleas refused to certify as
class action a lawsuit filed by the original owners of the land
that was developed to become Two Mile Run County Park, The
Derrick reports.  

The court, however, allowed original deed holders or heirs to
sign on as plaintiffs in the case.  

Filed on December 2004 in Venango County Court of Common Pleas,
the suit was brought on behalf of about 40 landowners from whom
land was acquired for the park in the late 1960s.  It was filed
by:

     -- Donald M. Plumer, Jr. and Joyce S. Plumer of Oil City,
        and

     -- Richard A. and Annette K. Burgert of Myerstown.

Named as defendants in the case are:

     -- the Venango Park and Natural Resources Authority, and

     -- Parks Unlimited, the firm owned by Marty and Ann
        Rudegeair, which has managed the park since 1998.  

The suit claims that the Venango County failed to get the
approval of the General Assembly when it transferred ownership
of the park property in the late 1960s.

It also charges that some park operations - including timbering
and oil and gas activities and the gate and access fees -
violate Article I, Section 27, of the state constitution, which
"limits and binds the power of government in its use of public
lands," and/or the terms of the deeds granting the land for the
park.

The suit requests:

      -- a permanent injunction voiding the transfer of the park     
         property to the authority or a ruling invoking the
         penalties for improper transfer of Project 70 lands;

      -- that all "commercial activities" associated with oil,
         gas, and timbering operations be prohibited at the
         park;

      -- that the use of the gate and gate fees be prohibited;
         and

      -- attorney's fees and costs.

Judge H. William White is presiding over the case.  Representing
plaintiffs is Michael Hadley of 420 Meadowlark Rd., Santa Ynez,
California, (Santa Barbara Co.).  Jim Greenfield represents the
operators of Two Mile Run County Park.


RED ROBIN: Colo. Court Dismisses "Andropolis" Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Red
Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against Red Robin its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, The
Securities Regulation & Law reports.

Judge Edward Nottingham said that as a whole, the plaintiff's
allegations "strongly suggest that Red Robin fell victim to
corporate mismanagement that, when discovered, led to an
instantaneous and publicly announced change of the guard. With
that change came a significant miscalculation of future profits,
which Red Robin also publicly announced immediately upon
discovery."

According to the court, the complaint "fails to successfully
allege with particularity a single false and misleading material
statement or omission; thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim
for securities fraud under Section 10(b)" of the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act.

On Aug. 15, 2005, Andre Andropolis filed the suit on behalf of
himself and all other purchasers of the company's common stock
during the putative class period of Nov. 8, 2004 through Aug.
11, 2005.  On Sept. 30, 2005, Mark Baird filed a similar
purported class action complaint in the same court on behalf of
himself and the same class of stockholders as defined in the
Andropolis Complaint.  

Both complaints allege that the company and defendants Michael
J. Snyder and James P. McCloskey violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10(b)(5) adopted pursuant to the U.S. Exchange Act by
disseminating false and misleading financial reports on behalf
of the company, by withholding adverse financial information on
behalf of the company from the class, and the individual
defendants were control persons who caused the company to engage
in such acts for their own benefit.

The plaintiffs further allege that, because of the actions of
the company's former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer, the company's stock price became inflated
between Nov. 8, 2004 and Aug. 11, 2005, and on Aug. 12, 2005,
the company's stock price fell sharply following their
departures from their positions with the company.

The class has not been certified and no discovery has occurred.
Lead counsel and lead plaintiff were appointed and have received
an extension to Feb. 28, 2006 to file a consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the lead plaintiff, City of Philadelphia Board
of Pensions and Retirement, filed a consolidated complaint.  In
addition to the allegations in the initial Andropolis complaint
against the company and the company's former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer, the consolidated
compliant:

     -- alleges that the company and the company's current chief  
        executive officer and current chief financial officer  
        violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange  
        Act in connection with the company's announcement on  
        Jan. 10, 2006 that it was lowering its guidance for the  
        quarter ended Dec. 25, 2005; and

     -- alleges claims against the company's former controller  
        and alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S.  
        Exchange Act.  

The consolidated complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
putative class period of Aug. 13, 2004 and Jan. 9, 2006,
inclusive.

All defendants have filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2006).

On Jan. 2, 2007, the court dismissed the consolidated
shareholder class action.

The suit is "Andropolis v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01563-EWN-BNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Edward W.
Nottingham with referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Gerald L. Bader, Jr. and Renee Beth Taylor of Bader &  
         Associates, P.C., 14426 East Evans Avenue #200, Denver,  
         CO 80014-1160, U.S.A, Phone: 303-534-1700, Fax: 303-
         534-1701, E-mail: gbader@bader-associates.com and  
         rtaylor@bader-associates.com; and

     (2) F. James Donnelly of the Law Offices of F. James
         Donnelly, P.C., 6076 South Chester Way, Greenwood
         Village, CO 80111, U.S.A, Phone: 720-493-9814, Fax:  
         720-493-9815, E-mail: fjamesdonnelly@comcast.net;

     (3) Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th  
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:  
         KShuman@DyerShuman.com;

     (4) Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and Jessica Lee Hoff of Charles  
         Lilley & Associates, P.C., 1600 Stout Street #1100,  
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-
         298-8975, E-mail: jhoff@lilleylaw.com and  
         kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com; and

     (5) Sherrie R. Savett of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622  
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A, Phone:  
         215-875-3071, Fax: 215-875-5715, E-mail:  
         ssavett@bm.net.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Andrew Ryan Shoemaker, Thomas Lee Strickland and Coates  
         Lear of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Phone: 720-406-5360, 303-
         899-7300 and 303-454-2479, Fax: 720-406-5301 and 899-
         7333, E-mail: arshoemaker@hhlaw.com,
         tlstrickland@hhlaw.com and CLear@hhlaw.com; and

    (ii) Rachel M. Vorbeck of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525  
         West Monroe Street #1600, Chicago, IL 60661-3693,  
         U.S.A, Phone: 312-902-5200, Fax: 902-1061, E-mail:
         rachel.vorbeck@kattenlaw.com.


ROYAL AHOLD: Claimants May Correct Deficiencies in Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, lead plaintiffs' counsel and The
Garden City Group, the claims administrator appointed by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in the class
action against Royal Ahold N.V. issue this informational release
to clarify certain incorrect statements made by the Dutch
Investors Association (VEB) concerning claims submitted to
participate in the settlement of the suit.

In a statement, the law firm and claims administrator stated
that contrary to the VEB's recent statements to the media,
claimants in the Ahold class action in the Netherlands and all
over the world are provided more than one opportunity to correct
deficiencies in the documentation that they have submitted to
participate in the Ahold settlement.

The First Deficiency Notice, which approximately 16% of Dutch
claimants received, is the first opportunity that such claimants
have to correct the identified problems.  

Most of the noted deficiencies involve forms that do not include
all of the information needed to substantiate the purchases and
sales of Ahold common stock noted on the claimant's form.

The claims administrator had requested that claimants receiving
the First Deficiency Notice submit a response Jan. 8.  Claimants
who do not respond by that date will receive a second
opportunity to correct the information submitted with their
claim forms, but all claimants are encouraged to correct noted
deficiencies as soon as possible to ensure payment.

Claimants must understand that the procedure for addressing and
correcting deficiencies is designed to accomplish the important
goals of:

     -- making sure that claimants with valid claims have an
        opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their claims;
        and

     -- preventing the submission of fraudulent claims.

The process for addressing noted deficiencies proceeds according
to a carefully planned schedule, which remains on track and no
claims have been rejected or will be rejected until each
claimant has at least two opportunities to correct or otherwise
address any noted problems.  Claimants are encouraged to act as
quickly as possible to correct identified problems.

The majority of the identified deficiencies involve incomplete
transaction information.  Contrary to statements made by the
VEB, these problems do not involve the format of the documents
provided by claimants and/or their banks, the law firm and
claims administrator said.  

Instead, these problems arise from incomplete documentation that
does not enable the claims administrator to perform the
arithmetic required to calculate the value of claims.

Despite the volume of statements made in the Dutch press, the
VEB has no official role in the claims process, according to the
statement.  

Instead, each claimant that has received a deficiency letter
must communicate directly with the claims administrator to
resolve his or her claims.  

Anyone that still has a deficient claim as of 8 January 2007
will receive a second letter explaining the remaining deficiency
and providing an additional period of time for the claimant to
resolve any remaining issues directly with the claims
administrator.  

Claimants must understand that the VEB has never had any
approved role in the U.S. class action against Ahold, and the
VEB has no official role in the procedure for correcting
deficient claims submitted in the settlement, according to the
statement.  

The VEB is not authorized to speak to the Claims Administrator
on behalf of any investor, and no claimant should contact the
VEB expecting to resolve deficiencies or to address officially
any other issue regarding the Ahold settlement, the statement
added.  

Instead, all claimants, banks, and other financial institutions
that manage funds or otherwise invest for claimants should act
as quickly as possible to submit all required transaction
information directly to the claims administrator.

For more details, contact The Claims Administrator Phone: 001-
800-1020-4060 or 001-941-906-4864 (International Toll-free call
center), E-mail: Questions@AholdSettlement.com.  The best time
for Dutch claimants to call is between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.


SABA SOFTWARE: Court Mulls Final Okay for 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 in a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against SABA Software, Inc., according to a Jan. 12, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.

In November 2001, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters
of its initial public offering.  

The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of
certain persons who purchased our common stock between April 6,
2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.  

The complaint alleges violations by the company and its officers
and directors of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and other related
provisions in connection with certain alleged compensation
arrangements entered into by the underwriters in connection with
the offering.  

An amended complaint was filed in April 2002. Similar complaints
have been filed against hundreds of other issuers that have had
initial public offerings since 1998.  

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors in the IPO
offering agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares
in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of our stock.

They were later consolidated into a single action. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the actions, including the
action involving the company.  

On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to dismiss the
litigation.  On Feb. 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the claims
against it under Rule 10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the
allegations against the company.  

It also granted the motion of the individual defendants, Bobby
Yazdani and Terry Carlitz, the company's Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board and former Chief Financial Officer and
a member of the Company's board of directors, to dismiss the
claims against them under Rule 10b-5 and Section 20 of the
Exchange Act.  

The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the defendants
in the consolidated cases, including the company.

On July 16, 2003, a committee of the company's board of
directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the company and of the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful in the amended complaint.

The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may
have against its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of
the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the company's
insurers.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  The court granted the
preliminary approval motion on Feb. 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications.  

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  

The court also appointed the notice administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members by Jan. 15, 2006.
The settlement fairness hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and
the court reserved decision.

Plaintiffs have continued to litigate against the underwriter
defendants.  The district court directed that the litigation
proceed within a number of "focus cases" rather than in all 310
cases that have been consolidated.  The company's case is not
one of these focus cases.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases
as class actions.  The underwriter defendants appealed that
ruling, and on Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the district court's class certification
decision.  

Because the company's settlement with the plaintiffs involves
the certification of the case as a class action as part of the
approval process, the impact of the Court of Appeals' ruling on
the company's settlement is unclear.

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


SILICON IMAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Third Amend Stock Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. still seeks the dismissal of a third
consolidated amended complaint in the securities class action,
"Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.

Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit alleged that the company
and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions
of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The consolidated amended complaint no longer named Mr. Gargus as
an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an
individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class
period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
26, 2005.  

Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a
second consolidated amended complaint (second consolidated
amended complaint) on Dec. 8, 2005.  The second consolidated
amended complaint extends the end of the class period from April
22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds additional factual
allegations under the same causes of action against us, Mr.
Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also adds a new plaintiff,
James D. Smallwood.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006
and defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May
19, 2006.

On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint by the court's established deadline of July 21, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated
amended complaint on Sept. 1, 2006 and plaintiffs filed an
opposition to that motion on Nov. 1, 2006.  

Defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opposition is due to be filed
on or before Dec. 1, 2006.  The motion to dismiss is to be heard
on Jan. 5, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aaron H. Darsky of Schubert & Reed, LLP, Three
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-788-4220, Fax: 415-788-0161, E-mail:
         adarsky@schubert-reed.com;

     (2) Merrick Scott Rayle of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP,
         212 Wood Street, Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227, Phone:
         831-333-0309, Fax: 831-333-0325, E-mail:
         mrayle@lshllp.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Speirs of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
         LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010,
         Phone: 212-223-3900.

Representing the defendants is Emmett C. Stanton of Fenwick &
West, LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street,
Mountain View, CA 94041-2008, Phone: 650-988-8500, Fax: 650-938-
5200, E-mail: estanton@fenwick.com.


SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to $6M Stock Settlement  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to the $6 million settlement in the
consolidated securities fraud class action against Sipex Corp.

Beginning on or about Jan. 24, 2005, four securities class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.  

All complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The cases are:

      -- "Keller v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-CV-00331)
         (WHA),"

      -- "Coil Partners LLC v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-
         CV-00392) (WHA),"

      -- "Levy v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-CV-00505)
         (WHA)," and

      -- "Jacobson v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-CV-00712)
         (WHA)."

The securities class actions were filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the company's common stock in various class
periods, beginning on or about April 10, 2003 and ending on Jan.
20, 2005.

Plaintiffs in these cases alleged, among other things,
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under, and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief against all defendants.

Specifically, the complaints alleged that Sipex and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its financial results during the class periods.

On March 25, 2005, four lead plaintiff motions were filed asking
the court to consolidate the class actions.  Prior to the
hearing on the lead plaintiff motions, the Levy and Keller
plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to dismiss their complaints.

On May 12, 2005, the court consolidated the remaining cases
under the caption, "In re Sipex Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-00392."

Defendants Clyde Ray Wallin and Doug McBurnie were voluntarily
dismissed from the action on Aug. 16, 2005, and defendant Phil
Kagel was granted a motion to dismiss on Nov. 17, 2005.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement of the class action.  The settlement provides for a
payment of $6.0 million to the plaintiffs and will be entirely
funded by proceeds from the company's directors' and officers'
insurance policy.

The specific terms for distribution of the settlement fund to
class members were disclosed in a notice, which was sent to the
class members.  

On April 6, 2006, the court approved the final settlement of the
securities class action, according to the company's Nov. 14,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Sipex Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-cv-00392-WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge William H. Alsup.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael M. Goldberg and Susan G. Kupfer of Glancy &
         Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los       
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310/201-9150 and 415-972-
         8160, Fax: (310) 201-9160 and 415-972-8166, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com and skupfer@glancylaw.com; and

     (2) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA
         90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
         mail: elin@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Dale Richard Bish and Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini
         Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA
         94304, Phone: 650-804-4018 and 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-
         565-5100, E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com and
         boris.feldman@wsgr.com; and

    (ii) David A. Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP,
         2000 University Ave., East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248,
         Phone: 650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail:
         david.priebe@dlapiper.com.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Del. Merger Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New
Castle County has yet to give approval to a tentative settlement
in the consolidated class action against SS&C Technologies, Inc.
with regards to a 2005 merger agreement with The Carlyle Group.

In connection with the definitive merger agreement that the
company signed on July 28, 2005 to be acquired by a corporation
affiliated with The Carlyle Group, two purported class actions
were filed against the company, each of its directors and, with
respect to the first matter described below, Sunshine
Acquisition Corp., in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in and for New Castle County.

The first lawsuit, "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N (filed July 28, 2005)," purports
to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the
company's directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that

      -- the merger will benefit the company's management at the
         expense of the company's public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit, "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 1541-N (filed Aug. 3, 2005)," purports to state
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the company's
directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that

      -- the merger will benefit Mr. Stone and Carlyle at the
         expense of company public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         unfair and that the process by which the merger was
         approved was unfair; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
         company stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees, along with such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.  
On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

The settlement agreement is subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the stockholders of
SS&C.

The court held a hearing on Sept. 13, 2006, after which the
court requested supplemental briefing as to the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  

Parties submitted such supplemental briefing on Sept. 27, 2006,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

SS&C Technologies, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ssctech.com.


THOMSON CORP: Antitrust Suit Over BAR/BRI Course Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William Pauley allowed a class action to go
forward against Thomson Corp., owner of Westlaw legal research,
for alleged antitrust law violation, Bloomberg News reports.

The suit was filed in 2005 by test taker Anthony Park in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  It was
filed on behalf of all people who purchased a BAR/BRI course in
47 states since 2001.  

BAR/BRI, a unit of Canadian financial and legal information
conglomerate Thomson Corp. offers a bar preparatory course a
part of which is devoted to the law of a particular state, while
the rest covers law common to all states.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant uses its dominant
position in the market to force state bar examinees to buy both
the state and the multistate course.

Judge Pauley granted on Nov. 11 summary judgment to Mr. Park,
finding both that state-specific and multistate courses were
separate products and that those were the two markets relevant
to an antitrust case, according to New York Law Journal.  He
denied Thomson's motion to dismiss in full.

The suit is seeking unspecified monetary damages.  The case has
not been certified as a class action.  Mr. Park must still show
he was forced into buying the integrated BAR/BRI course, and
that the BAR/BRI's integration of its product was an
exploitation of the company's market power and that it had an
anticompetitive effect.

The suit is "Park v. Thomson Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-02931-WHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge William H. Pauley, III.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brian Philip Murray of Murray,
Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY
10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
bmurray@murrayfrank.com.

Representing the defendant is Steven Francis Molo of Shearman &
Sterling LLP, (New York), 599 Lexington Avenuem, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212)-848-7486, Fax: (646)-848-7456, E-mail:
smolo@shearman.com.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Lawyers in Tip Sharing Policy Suit Seek $75T
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Wynn Las Vegas have filed a motion seeking nearly
$75,000 in attorney's fees after the dismissal in December of a
suit filed against it over its new tip-sharing policy, the
Casino City Times reports.  A hearing on the motion is set Jan.
29, the report said.

Dealers Daniel Baldonado and Joseph Cesarz filed the suit on
Sept. 13, 2006.  It is seeking damages for compensation lost
under the new tip-sharing arrangements, which gave casino
supervisors a share of dealers' tips (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 29, 2006).

Court documents show that the two Wynn Las Vegas dealers believe
the Wynn policy violates Nevada state law covering tip pooling
because employers are sharing in the tips.

The suit asks for class-action status to include more than the
500 dealers affected by the change in the tips policy at the
resort.  

Plaintiffs' lawyer argued that the new tip-sharing policy
violates at least three Nevada laws:

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.100, which requires that  
        dealers be paid what they've earned;

     -- another section of chapter 608 that prohibits improperly  
        withholding earned; and  

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.120 that outlaws charging  
        workers illegal fee or commission to keep their jobs.

According to the lawsuit, the two dealers are seeking the wages
they lost because of the tip pooling and they want the program
stopped.

The suit states that the resort breached contracts of employment
by unilaterally, illegally, and without cause, withholding
certain portions of the casino dealers' tip pool and paying such
portions to other persons who were not casino dealers and were
not entitled to such payments.

The new tip-pooling program, announced to dealers during three
separate shift meetings on Aug. 21, was part of a table-games
division restructuring designed to lessen the wage disparity
between dealers and front-line supervisors.  On Sept. 1, Wynn
Las Vegas began allowing table game supervisors to share in the
tips earned by dealers.

On Dec. 6 Judge Douglas Herndon of the Clark County District
Court dismissed the suit (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2006).  
Judge Herndon ruled that there was no contract of employment
between the dealers and Wynn, which meant that Nevada law allows
an employer to change any tip pooling policies.  He noted that
the company was not taking away tips, only widening the pool of
workers who share in the gratuities.

For more details, contact Mark R. Thierman of Thierman Law Firm,
7287 Lakeside Drive, Reno, NV 89511-7652, (Wahsoe County),
Phone: 775-284-1500, Fax: 775-284-1506, E-mail:
laborlawyer@pacbell.net.  Wynn Las Vegas lawyers are Leon
Greenberg and James Kemp.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

March 15-16, 2007
MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S MASS TORT INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

April 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 25-28, 2007
MEALEY'S 14TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
ROUNDTABLE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

January 31, 2007
WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WINNING NEGOTIATING
TECHNIQUES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

March 6, 2007
MEDICINE FOR LAWYERS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CARDIOLOGY FOR
PHARMA LAWYERS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SUNRISE SENIOR: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm announces that a lawsuit seeking class
action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Sunrise
Senior Living between Aug. 4, 2005 and June 15, 2006.

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

Sunrise provides residential and other services to retirees and
elderly persons through facilities it develops and constructs
and then manages, often through joint ventures.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, its stock option plans, its compensation
practices and its financial results.  

As a result of these false statements, Sunrise's common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period,
reaching a high of $39.68 per share on March 29, 2006.

The individual defendants took advantage of Sunrise's falsified
financial results, the artificial inflation of Sunrise's stock
and the manipulation of its stock option plans by selling shares
of their Sunrise stock for illegal insider trading proceeds of
over $34 million, while Sunrise's top officers pocketed millions
more in unjustified bonus payments enhanced in part by Sunrise's
falsified profits.

The complaint alleges that defendants had previously manipulated
the Company's stock option plans so as to enrich themselves by
"backdating" or "spring-loading" the stock options they were
granted.

Then on May 9, 2006, Sunrise disclosed a delay in reporting its
first quarter 2006 results to allow a review of its financial
statements, and on July 31, 2006, Sunrise revealed it would be
forced to restate its financial statements going back several
years -- at least to 1999 -- and that its prior financial
statements could no longer be relied upon.  

Sunrise also admitted it could not file current period financial
statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2006 and
that when it restated its financial results, at least $100
million of previously reported profits from its joint ventures
and real estate sales would be eliminated.  

As these revelations unfolded, Sunrise's stock fell from $39.62
on May 8, 2006 to as low as $24.40 on July 31, 2006.

For more details, contact Tali Leger, Director of Shareholder
Relations, The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway, Suite 2400, New
York, New York 10006, Phone: (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602,
E-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com or Web site:
http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *