CAR_Public/070118.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 13

                            Headlines

ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Litigation in Tenn.
ADVANCED MARKETING: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal
AFFINION GROUP: Still Faces Several Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
ALSTOM SA: Second Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Stock Suit
ANALOG DEVICES: Faces Suit in Mass. Alleging ERISA Violations

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE INC: N.J. Court Dismisses "Schwartz" Lawsuit
BIOVAIL CORP: N.Y. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Want Complaint Unsealed
CAREMARK RX: Faces Shareholders Suit Over CVS Corp. Merger
CENDANT CORP: N.J. Court Denies Motion in Contract Breach Suit
CHEVY CHASE: Wis. Court Certifies Class in Fraud Litigation

CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiffs in ERISA Lawsuit
COLDWELL BANKER: Miss. Court Mulls Nixing of RICO Claims in Suit
COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses Claim Over Private Placements
COWEN GROUP: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Arbinet-thexchange Suit
COWEN GROUP: Discovery is Still Ongoing in N.Y. "Focus" Suits

DELPHI CORP: Miss. PERS Seeks to Amend Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DIEBOLD INC: Ohio Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
DRIVER PRIVACY LITIGATION: 12 Firms Charged with Privacy Breach
FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Calif. Car Parts Replacement Lawsuit
FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Improper Accounting

GEORGIA: Cobb County Faces Unconstitutional Tax Laws Complaint
GLOBAL CROSSING: Portion of $99M Settlement Expected in 2008
HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Suit in Israel Over "Titulim" Diapers
HILB ROGAL: Va. Securities Fraud Complaint Dismissal Appealed
HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions

HUB INT'L: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
INDONESIA: Trial for Identity Raid Victims' Lawsuit Commences
INPHONIC INC: Mobile Phone User Files Ala. Lawsuit Over Rebates
NEW JERSEY: Settlement Reached in Burlington Flood Litigation
NRT INC: Calif. Court Gives Final Okay to Homebuyers' Settlement

REGENCY AFFILIATES: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Gatz" Lawsuit
SC&E ADMINISTRATIVE: Settles Nev. Vehicle Service Contract Suit
VISTEON CORP: Mar. 9 Hearing Set for $7.6M "Skiles" Settlement
XTO ENERGY: Sued Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments in Okla.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SUNRISE SENIOR: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Colo.


                            *********


ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Litigation in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  The suit was filed against it,
and two former company officers, one of whom is now a director
at Medco Health Solutions.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.  
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated  
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of  
1934.   

The putative class representatives seek to represent a class of
individuals and entities that purchased company's stock from
June 16, 2002 to April 7, 2003 and who supposedly suffered
damages from the alleged violations of the securities laws.  

On June 30, 2004, the court appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP's client the Louisiana School Employees
Retirement System and individual plaintiff Debra Swiman as co-
lead plaintiffs for the class in the consolidated action.  
Bernstein Litowitz was appointed as co-lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 15,
2004.  Plaintiffs' allegations against Accredo and its top
officers arise out of Accredo's overstated fourth quarter 2002
and second quarter 2003 financial statements.  

The alleged false statements relate to the company's inadequate
reserves for nearly $60 million in uncollectible accounts
receivable.

On April 11, 2005, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  Discovery has commenced and
is continuing.  

On March 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued its Report and
Recommendation recommending that lead plaintiffs' motion for
class certification be granted.

On April 19, 2006, the court entered an order adopting the
Report and Recommendation, certifying the class and appointing
Louisiana School Employees Retirement System and Debra Swiman as
class representatives and BLB&G as co-class counsel.  

Separately, on April 13, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a related
class action complaint against Accredo's former auditor, Ernst &
Young LLP.  Lead Plaintiffs' allegations against Ernst & Young
arise out of it audits of Accredo's financial statements during
the class period, including its audits of the company's
inadequate reserves for nearly $60 million in uncollectible
accounts receivable.   Ernst & Young's motion to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' complaint is pending.

The suit is "Ferrari, et al. v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al.,  
Case No. 2:03-cv-02216-BBD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge Bernice B.  
Donald.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Tor Gronborg and Trig R. Smith,
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B St.  
Ste. 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.   

Representing the company are:  

     (1) Douglas F. Halijan and Jef Feibelman, Burch Porter &  
         Johnson, 130 N. Court Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone:  
         901-524-5000, Fax: 524-5024; and  
  
     (2) John H. Goselin, Oni A. Holley, and Peter Q. Bassett,  
         Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree  
         St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000.


ADVANCED MARKETING: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has entered the Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal of the
Action with Prejudice and granted final approval of the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds and
the Request for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses in
the suit "In re Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00121 RTB (AJB)."

The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of Advance Marketing
common stock from Jan. 16, 1999 to Jan. 13, 2004, inclusive.  
The lawsuit arose out of AMS's announcement on Jan. 14, 2004
that it would restate its previously filed financial statements
for the prior five fiscal years.  

The planned restatement resulted from the company's ongoing
review of its cooperative advertising practices and related
accounting, and relates primarily to the timing and
quantification of recognition of revenue and reversal of accrued
liabilities.

Following the announcement of the restatement, the price of
AMS's stock fell 15.2% from $11.97 to $10.15 per share.  
Afterwards, Advanced Marketing and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in these federal securities
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California in:

      -- "Eastside Investors, LLP v. Advanced Marketing
         Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-00121 JM (AJB);"

      -- "Bowen v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04-CV-00139 H (JMA);" and

      -- "Anderson v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04-CV-00324 WQH (AJB)."

The lawsuits alleged that Advanced Marketing and the individual
defendants either knowingly or recklessly made misstatements
concerning the company's reported financial results to
artificially inflate the price of AMS common stock.

On Feb. 24, 2004, the court consolidated the federal securities
actions into a single case.  On May 4, 2004, the court appointed
Detroit P&F, a public pension fund organized for the benefit of
current and retired police and fire personnel from the city of
Detroit, as lead plaintiff, and approved Detroit P&F's selection
of Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel.

In August 2005, the parties participated in a settlement
mediation session with the assistance of retired California
Court of Appeal Justice Charles S. Vogel.  

Following this mediation session, counsel for the parties
continued to discuss settlement.  In February 2006, the parties
reached agreement on the terms of settlement and executed a
Memorandum of Understanding.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the court entered the Order of Final Judgment
and Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice and granted final
approval of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of Settlement
Proceeds and the Request for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Expenses.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator,
         P.O. Box 9000 #6443, Merrick, New York 11566-9000,
         Phone: 1(866) 590-0973, Web site:
         http://www.amssettlement.com;and

     (2) Blair A. Nicholas or Benjamin Galdston of Bernstein
         Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 12481 High Bluff
         Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, Phone: 1
         (888) 924-1888, Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com.


AFFINION GROUP: Still Faces Several Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. is party to a number of lawsuits purporting
to be a class action against it or its affiliates over
allegations of federal or state consumer protection statutes
violations, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

                      August 2005 Litigation

On Aug. 9, 2005, a class action was filed against Trilegiant
Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The claim asserts violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and various California consumer protection statutes.  The
suit seeks unspecified actual damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

                       January 2005 Litigation

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.  

The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection
statutes.  The company filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which was denied by the court.  

The company appealed the court's decision, and the case has been
stayed until the appellate court has ruled on the motion to
compel arbitration.

                       November 2002 Litigation

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court
of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer
fraud and deceptive practices act.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

                      January 2002 Litigation

On Jan. 24, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Trilegiant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, alleging that Trilegiant violated the Credit Repair
Organizations Act in connection with its Creditline product.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the terms of
a class-wide settlement of this case.  Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, Trilegiant has provided notice to the class
members via first class mail advising them of the terms of the
settlement.

All class members have released their claims against Trilegiant
under the settlement.  All class members wanting to receive
benefits under the settlement were required to return a claim
form post-marked by Feb. 16, 2006 and had the option of choosing
a no-cost annual membership in one of three membership programs
offered by Trilegiant.

In lieu of a membership program, class members could elect to
receive a cash payment.  The total cash payments that Trilegiant
has offered to make to the class are capped at $0.5 million.

On March 13, 2006 the Alabama Court signed the final order
approving the terms of the settlement.  The judgment became
final on April 12, 2006.

                      November 2001 Litigation

On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison
County, Illinois against Trilegiant alleging violations of state
consumer protection statutes in connection with the sale of
certain membership programs.

Motions to dismiss were denied and certification of a class of
consumers has been granted; the exact size of the certified
class is not known at this time.

Affinion Group, Inc. on the Net: http://www.affiniongroup.com.


ALSTOM SA: Second Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against French
company Alstom S.A. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have filed a revised second consolidated
amended complaint.

The securities fraud suit is filed on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased Alstom securities on Nov. 18, 1998
through and including June 29, 2003.

On Jan. 7, 2004, Judge Victor Marrero entered an Order
appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP's client,
San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, as co-lead
plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-
lead counsel for the class in this action.

Alstom is a French corporation engaged in the business of power
generation and transport infrastructure markets, including
electrical transmission and distribution, rail transportation,
and marine manufacturing.  Alstom's U.S. headquarters is in
Windsor, Connecticut.  The company is listed on the Paris Stock
Exchange and was previously listed on the New York and London
Stock Exchanges.

The case arises out of a series of disclosures by the company
beginning on Sept. 27, 2001.  On that date, Renaissance Cruises,
which had been operating eight Alstom built cruise-ships, filed
for Chapter 11 protection.  

In connection with this filing, Alstom disclosed for the first
time that it had guaranteed a large portion of the loans that
were issued to Renaissance Cruise to finance the purchase of the
cruise-ships.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Alstom disclosed that its exposure with respect
to the loan guarantees to Renaissance Cruises, and other
undisclosed loan guarantees to other customers for already
delivered cruise-ships, was approximately $1.1 billion.  

As a result of these disclosures, Alstom's American Depository
Shares (ADS) dropped from $22.71 on September 26, 2001 to $12.35
on October 3, 2001.

On June 30, 2003, Alstom disclosed that its wholly owned U.S.
subsidiary, Alstom Transportation, Inc. (ATI) had "significantly
understated" losses in its accounts, in substantial part due to
"accounting improprieties by the understatement of actual costs
incurred."

At that time, Alstom recorded an additional net after tax charge
of 51 million euros for the year ended March 31, 2003.  Then, on
Oct. 15, 2003, Alstom announced that it had increased the charge
to EUR73 million in connection with the financial improprieties
at ATI, and that its investigation of the accounting
improprieties had led the company to take an additional EUR94
million charge for the year ended March 31, 2003 as a result of
"expected contract losses relating to a number of performance
issues."  After the June 30, 2003 announcement of the alleged
ATI accounting improprieties, the ADSs dropped to $3.41 per
share.

                Consolidated Amended Complaint

Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on
June 18, 2004.  Defendants moved to dismiss the case, and Lead
Plaintiffs opposed the motions to dismiss.  

On Dec. 22, 2005, Judge Marrero issued three opinions resolving
the motions and allowing Lead Plaintiffs to continue to
prosecute the case towards trial.

Judge Marrero held that the consolidated amended complaint
adequately alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Alstom, former Alstom chairman and chief
executive Pierre Bilger, and former Alstom chief financial
officer Francois Newey relating to the undisclosed guarantees of
cruise ship purchasers' loans, and against ATI relating to the
understatement of ATI's costs.

Judge Marrero dismissed certain other claims, including claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Alstom's February
2001 secondary offering of common stock, based on statute of
limitations and other defenses.  

The court also ruled that both purchasers of Alstom securities
on U.S. exchanges and non-U.S. purchasers of Alstom securities
on non-U.S. exchanges may be included in the plaintiff class for
the claims relating to the ATI fraud, but only purchasers of
Alstom securities on U.S. exchanges may be included in the
Plaintiff Class for the claims relating to the undisclosed
guarantees of cruise ship purchasers' loans.

             Second Consolidated Amended Complaint

Lead Plaintiffs took limited discovery relating to the ATI
fraud, as ordered in the court's Dec. 22, 2005 opinions, and
filed a motion for leave to file a second consolidated amended
complaint incorporating information from the limited discovery
on Feb. 24, 2006.  

Judge Marrero granted lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
on March 10, 2006.  Certain defendants moved to dismiss the
amended claims against them in the second consolidated amended
complaint.  

Judge Marrero denied the motions to dismiss on Sept. 29, 2006.  
Lead Plaintiffs filed a revised second consolidated amended
complaint on Nov. 29, 2006.  The parties are now commencing fact
discovery.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on the Net:
http://www.blbglaw.com/. Contact firm partner William  
Fredericks and associate Jai Chandrasekhar.


ANALOG DEVICES: Faces Suit in Mass. Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the company's Nov. 20,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 28, 2006.

On Oct. 13, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
on behalf of participants in the company's Investment
Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000 to the present.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain officers
and directors, and the company's Investment Partnership Plan
Administration Committee.

The complaint alleges purported violations of federal law in
connection with the company's option granting practices during
the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including breaches of
fiduciary duties owed to participants and beneficiaries of the
company's Investment Partnership Plan under ERISA.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.  

The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873-
NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing plaintiffs are Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G.
Shapiro both of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-
mail: ted@shulaw.com or tshapiro@shulaw.com.


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE INC: N.J. Court Dismisses "Schwartz" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
Arbinet-Thexchange, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class-action
complaint filed by lead plaintiffs Sandra Schwartz, the
Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System, The New Jersey
Law Journal reports.

Filed in 2005, plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
registration statements made in defendant's issuance of an
initial public offering.

In accordance with the IPO, Arbinet issued a registration
statement and prospectus (Offering Materials) detailing, among
other things, historical facts about the company, its goals and
the risks inherent in investing in Arbinet.

In particular, Arbinet warned investors that the company has
'incurred significant losses since its inception' and that
investment in Arbinet stock 'involves a high degree of risk.'
Nevertheless, plaintiffs seek to link the subsequent drop in
stock price, precipitated by the revised revenue projections, to
material omissions in the offering materials.

Plaintiffs argue that 'in the weeks and months preceding the
IPO,' Arbinet knew of various adverse trends that could have a
future impact on the company's revenues, yet failed to disclose
such trends and their potential effects in the offering
materials.

The court finds that the statements in question are not
actionable, and merely state the obvious.  Inter alia, a
reasonable investor would understand, based on the information
disclosed in the offering materials, as well as the admittedly
public information on the average duration of wireless calls,
that an increase in wireless calling could lead to a decrease in
Arbinet's revenues.

Further, none of the statements cited by plaintiffs are rendered
misleading by the omission of the purported problems carriers
faced in integrating the Arbinet exchange with their existing
infrastructures.

Between Aug. 11, 2005 and Sept. 26, 2005, the company was named
defendant in four purported securities class actions that were
filed in state and federal courts in New Jersey against the
company and certain of its officers, current and former
directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering
(Class Action Reporter, April 10, 2006).

The suits were:

      -- "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         MID-L-5874-05 (N.J. Sup. Ct.);

      -- "Harish Grover v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04404 (D. N.J.);

      -- "Sandra Schwartz v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04444 (D. N.J.);" and

      -- "James Bendrick v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04664 (D. N.J.)."

These suits alleged violations of the registration and anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged
statements in and omissions from the company 's initial public
offering registration statement, as well as statements made by
the company following the IPO.  The complaints sought, among
other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation.

On Sept. 27, 2005 defendants removed the Crowell action to U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it has been
docketed as "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 05-CV-4697."

On Dec. 6, 2005, Sandra Schwartz was appointed lead plaintiff in
the class action securities litigation.  The separate securities
class actions that were filed in the federal courts in New
Jersey were consolidated into the action entitled, "In re
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-
04444-JLL_RJH (D. N.J.)"

On Feb. 17, 2006, the consolidated and amended complaint was
filed with the court.  The amended complaint continued to allege
violations of the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws due to alleged statements in and
omissions from the company's initial public offering
registration statement.  The amended complaint sought, among
other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation.

The suit is "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jose
L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;
         and

     (2) J. Erik Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail:
         erik@blbglaw.com.


BIOVAIL CORP: N.Y. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Want Complaint Unsealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud filed against
Biovail Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York filed a motion to unseal an amended
complaint designated "Confidential."

This is a securities fraud class action filed on behalf of all
investors who purchased the common stock of Biovail Corp.
between Feb. 7, 2003 and March 2, 2004.  

Defendants include the company and certain of its former senior
officers and directors, including Eugene N. Melnyk, Biovail's
chairman and former chief executive.  Biovail is a
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Canada, with significant
operations in the U.S.

On March 3, 2004, Judge Richard Owen of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York consolidated all pending
securities class actions against Biovail, appointed Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP client Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board as a lead plaintiff, and appointed Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel.

On June 18, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.  The consolidated amended class action
complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements in connection with the company's launch of a new
drug, Cardizem LA.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action complaint and, on Dec. 20, 2004, the court denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety.  Since that time,
the case has been in active discovery.

    Lead Plaintiffs File Second Amended Complaint Under Seal

On Aug. 25, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed under seal a
consolidated second amended class action complaint, which, among
other things, added as a named defendant Rolf Reininghaus,
former senior vice president and member of the company's
executive committee.  The consolidated second amended class
action sets forth a number of new allegations based on the
discovery obtained to date.  Specifically, the consolidated
second amended class action alleges that defendants:

     -- made false statements about the efficacy and purported
        unique medical benefits of Cardizem LA in an effort to
        bolster sales of the drug;

     -- artificially stimulated demand for Cardizem LA by paying
        doctors to write prescriptions; and

     -- concealed manufacturing problems which negatively
        impacted sales of the drug.

The consolidated second amended class action complaint further
alleges that defendants improperly booked millions of dollars of
earnings on sales of Cardizem LA in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

It also addresses - and refutes -- the highly publicized claims
Biovail made in an action the company filed on Feb. 22, 2006 in
New Jersey Superior Court against 22 separate defendants.

In that lawsuit, Biovail alleges that the decline in the price
of the company's stock during the class period was not due to
the fraud alleged by lead plaintiffs, but to a supposed
conspiracy between certain short-selling hedge funds and
financial analysts, who allegedly conspired to manipulate the
market by issuing false negative reports about the company.

On March 26, 2006, Biovail's chairman and former chief executive
officer, Eugene Melnyk, appeared on 60 Minutes, and reiterated
to a national television audience the allegations that Biovail
made in its action against the hedge funds.  

The consolidated second amended class action complaint rebuts
Biovail's allegations by showing that the decline in the price
of the stock that occurred during the class period was not the
result of the supposed hedge fund conspiracy, but the fraud
alleged by lead plaintiffs, and that much of what the analysts
wrote about Biovail was accurate.

Lead plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint under seal
because it quotes from documents that defendants designated as
"Confidential" pursuant to the protective order entered in this
action.  

Because lead plaintiffs do not believe that the information
defendants have designated is "Confidential," and further
believe that the class is entitled to have access to the
consolidated second amended class action complaint, on Sept. 26,
2006, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to unseal the second
amended complaint.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on the Net:
http://www.blbglaw.com. Contact firm partner Steven Singer,  
Senior Counsel Rochelle Feder Hansen and associate Javier
Bleichmar.


CAREMARK RX: Faces Shareholders Suit Over CVS Corp. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc. and its executives are facing a lawsuit in
Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County, (C.A. No. 2635-
N), seeking to enjoin the company from consummating a merger
with CVS Corp.

On Nov. 1, 2006, CVS and Caremark Rx announced that their
respective boards of directors had entered into an agreement to
merge the two companies.  

The merger agreement contained numerous "deal protection"
devices intended to ensure that the shareholder approve the
deal.  

On Dec. 18, 2006, a competing bidder (Express Scripts, Inc.)
publicly indicated its willingness to buy Caremark for a price
offering $5 billion in value to Caremark shareholders above the
deal offered by CVS.  

The initial complaint was filed on Dec. 21, 2006.  The amended
class action complaint, filed on Jan. 5, 2007, seeks to
invalidate the deal protections and enjoin Caremark and the
company's board of directors from consummating a merger between
the company and CVS.

The action, brought by plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated Caremark shareholders, seeks to hold the
directors of Caremark accountable for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties owed to the class in connection with the
proposed CVS/Caremark merger.  

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the Caremark
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Caremark
shareholders by putting their own personal interests ahead of
those of the class in the sale of control of Caremark and by
failing to maximize shareholder value in that sale.  

The amended complaint further alleges that as a result of the
alleged breaches of duty, Caremark agreed to be acquired by CVS
for slightly over $20 billion -- a price that offers zero
premium to Caremark's shareholders.

Further, just one day after the Express Scripts offer, on Dec.
19, 2006, Caremark and CVS issued a preliminary joint proxy
statement announcing that the Caremark directors unanimously
recommended to the Caremark shareholders the adoption of the
merger agreement and the approval of the merger with CVS,
pursuant to the terms as announced on Nov. 1, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction until such time as the Caremark
Board has fully complied with its duties to fully and fairly
consider all offers for the company and to maximize shareholder
value in connection with any sale/ merger of the company.

The suit was filed by Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System and the R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted
Masons of Pennsylvania against:

      -- Edwin M. Crawford;
      -- C.A. Lance Piccolo;
      -- Edwin M. Banks;
      -- C. David Brown, II;
      -- Colleen Conway-Welch;
      -- Harris Diamond;
      -- Edward L. Hardin, Jr.;
      -- Kristen E. Gibney-Williams;
      -- Roger L. Headrick;
      -- Juan-Pierre Millon;
      -- Michael D. Ware;
      -- Caremark Rx, Inc.; and
      -- CVS Corp.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on the Net:
http://www.blbglaw.com/. Contact firm partners Salvatore  
Graziano and Jerry Silk, and associates Mark Lebovitch, Stephen
Foytlin and Noam Mandel.


CENDANT CORP: N.J. Court Denies Motion in Contract Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court L. Div.,
Morris County, New Jersey, denied a motion for leave to appeal
the denial of class-action status to the suit, "Frank K. Cooper
Real Estate #1, Inc. v. Cendant Corp. and Century 21 Real Estate
Corp."

Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed the class action
against Cendant Corp., now know as Avis Budget Group Inc., and
its subsidiary, Century 21 Real Estate Corp.  Cendant and
Century 21 were served with the complaint on March 14, 2002.

The class action alleges breach of certain provisions of the
Real Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between Century 21
and the plaintiffs, as well as the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing, and certain express and implied fiduciary
duties.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that Cendant diverted money and resources from Century
         21 franchisees and allotted them to NRT Inc. owned
         brokerages;

      -- Cendant used Century 21 marketing dollars to promote
         Cendant's Internet website, Move.com;

      -- the Century 21 magazine was replaced with a Coldwell
         Banker magazine;

      -- Century 21 ceased using marketing funds for yellow page
         advertising;

      -- Cendant nearly abolished training in the areas of
         recruiting, referral, sales and management; and

      -- Cendant directed most of the relocation business to
         Coldwell Banker and ERA brokers.

On Oct. 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding a count against Cendant as guarantor of Century
21's obligations to its franchisees.  

In response to an order to show cause with preliminary
restraints filed by the plaintiffs, the court entered a
temporary restraining order limiting Century 21's ability to
seek general releases from its franchisees in franchise renewal
agreements.

On June 23, 2003, the court determined that the limitations on
Century 21 obtaining general releases should continue with
respect to renewals only.

Consequently, as part of any ordinary course transaction other
than a franchise renewal, Century 21 Real Estate Corp. may
require the franchisee to execute a general release, forever
releasing Century 21 Real Estate Corp. from any claim that the
Century 21 franchisee may have against Century 21 Real Estate
Corp.  

The court also ordered a supplemental notice of the progress of
the litigation distributed to Century 21 franchisees.

Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify a class on Oct. 1,
2004.  The parties conducted discovery on the class
certification issues.

On Jan. 31, 2006, defendants filed their opposition to the class
motion.  Plaintiffs' reply to the class motion was filed on May
2, 2006.

The court heard oral argument on the motion on May 26, 2006.
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and defendants' cross
motion to strike the class demand were denied on June 30, 2006.

On Aug. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the denial of class certification.  On Aug. 24, 2006, the
Appellate Division denied plaintiff's motion for leave to
appeal, according to the Realogy Corp.'s Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


CHEVY CHASE: Wis. Court Certifies Class in Fraud Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin granted class-action status to a lawsuit
alleging that Chevy Chase Bank violated the federal Truth-In-
Lending Act by misleading borrowers into thinking they were
getting rates lower than those actually charged, The Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel reports.

The judge also ruled that the Cedarburg couple that sued could
rescind their adjustable-rate mortgage with Chevy Chase Bank,
because the bank failed to clearly explain how the loans would
work.

According to the judge's decision and order document:

     "When the Andrewses took out a refinance loan of about
     $190,000 with Chevy Chase Bank in 2004, they believed the  
     interest rate of 1.95% was fixed for five years, as was the
     $701 minimum monthly payment. However, that rate turned out
     to be a "teaser" rate that applied only to the first month,
     and the rate then increased every month. As a result, an
     "ever-increasing" portion of the minimum monthly payment
     was needed to cover interest, and the payment itself soon
     became insufficient to cover interest that accrued."

According to Milwaukee attorney Kevin J. Demet, who represented
homeowners Susan and Bryan Andrews of Cedarburg in the case,
people who took out the loans will be able to get back closing
costs and the payments they made to the bank.

"The significance of the ruling, of course, is that all of their
documents became invalid because they didn't make the proper
disclosures," Mr. Demet said.

In 2005, Bryan and Susan Andrews filed a lawsuit seeking class
action status filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee against
Chevy Chase Bank, alleging that their lender, violated the
federal Truth-In-Lending Act by misleading borrowers into
thinking they were getting rates lower than those actually
charged (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2005).

The suit, which was filed last April 20, 2005, revolves around
so-called option ARMs, an adjustable-rate mortgage that carries
an introductory rate of as low as 1 percent and gives borrowers
multiple payment choices.

These choices typically include a minimum payment, which is set
at the start of each year, an interest-only payment and the
standard payment on a 15-year or 30-year mortgage.

Many borrowers have been attracted to option ARMs by the low
introductory rate, which is used to set the minimum payment for
the first year.

However that teaser rate is in effect for only a short period,
typically one to three months. After that, the rate on the loan
can jump above 5 percent or 6 percent and continue to rise as
short-term interest rates move higher.

Option ARMs are considered particularly risky because borrowers
who elect to make the minimum payment can see their loan balance
grow, also known as negative amortization. Some borrowers say
they weren't clearly informed of these features.

Mrs. Andrews, a registered nurse, and her husband, Bryan, a
carpenter, refinanced their $191,000 mortgage into an option ARM
last year after receiving a promotional mailing offering a
mortgage with a 1.95 percent rate.

The suit is "Andrews et al v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No.
2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge Lynn Adelman.

Representing plaintiffs are Donald M. Demet and Kevin J.
Demet of Demet & Demet, SC, 815 N. Cass St., Milwaukee, WI
53202, Phone: 414-291-0800, Fax: 414-291-9560, E-mail:
ddemet@demetlaw.com and KDemet@Sprintmail.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Michael J. Aprahamian of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 777 E.
         Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300, Phone: 414-
         297-5516, Fax: 414-297-4900, E-mail:
         maprahamian@foley.com; and

     (2) David J. Cynamon of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman,
         LLP, 2300 N. St. NW Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 202-
         663-8492.


CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiffs in ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motions for
summary judgment in "In re Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA
Litigation."  The court denied summary judgment for defendants.

Michael Lonecke, Raymond Duffy, Anne Nelson, Robert S. Fash and
Craig A. Harris on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated individuals, filed consolidated actions alleging that
the Citibuilder Cash Balance Plan violates the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Plaintiffs lodge three challenges against the Plan:

     -- they challenge the legality of the Plan's accrual
        formula;

     -- they assert that because Plan participants never
        received adequate notice of Plan amendments in 2000 and
        2002, those amendments never took effect as a matter of
        law; and

     -- they argue that the Plan unlawfully discriminates on the
        basis of age.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege in Counts I and II respectively,
that the Plan is impermissibly backloaded due to insufficient
interest credits and that even if this backloading is cured, the
Plan will produce an illegal accrual phenomenon known as a
"whipsaw."  

In Count III, plaintiffs allege that the Plan's "fractional
test" method of computing accrued benefits is precluded under
ERISA and in the alternative the test is being wrongfully
applied.  

In Counts IV and V, plaintiffs allege that the Plan
discriminates based on age.  Count VI has been withdrawn.  In
Count VII, plaintiffs allege that Citigroup Inc., and its Plans
Administration Committee failed to provide Plan participants a
proper notice that the 2000 and 2002 cash balance amendments
would reduce the rate of future benefit accrual.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment on all counts.  Summary judgment for plaintiffs is
granted on Count I for impermissible backloading, count III for
violations of ERISA's minimum accrual tests, Count V for age
discrimination, and Count VII for failing to meet statutory
notice requirements.  Summary judgment for plaintiffs on Count
II, alleging whipsaw, is denied without prejudice.  

Summary judgment for defendants is denied.  Defendants are
ordered to reform the Plan to comply with ERISA.  Other
appropriate remedies have yet to be determined, in relation to
the several claims for relief alleged in the Amended Complaint
filed Sept. 21, 2005.  

A copy of the order is available for free at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1896

Representing the defendants is Myron Rumeld, Esq. at Proskauer
Rose LLP, 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036-8299, Phone:
(212) 969-3021.  Plaintiffs' counsel includes Brad N. Friedman,
Esq. at Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP.


COLDWELL BANKER: Miss. Court Mulls Nixing of RICO Claims in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) in the
case, "Cleveland, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp.,
Case No. 4:05-cv-00010-MPM-JAD."

On Jan. 11, 2005, a putative class action was commenced relating
to allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the purchase of
residential real estate in Leflore County, Mississippi.

Specifically, plaintiffs have sought certification of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or sold property within
the state of Mississippi while utilizing the services of
Coldwell Banker First Greenwood Leflore Realty, Inc., who were:

     -- misled about the value or condition of the property, or

     -- misled by Coldwell Banker or its agents concerning the
        sales price of the real property, or

     -- promised repairs and/or renovations to the property
        which were not made or completed, or

     -- with the active involvement of Coldwell Banker or its
        agents entered into loans, secured by collateral in the
        form of real property, were charged excessive and/or
        unnecessary fees, charges and related expenses.

The complaint asserts claims for false advertising, breach of
fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, deceptive sales practices,
fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, breach of public policy, negligence, gross
negligence, and fraud.  It thus seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On April 15, 2005, Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Corp. filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

To date, the court has not ruled on plaintiffs' motion, however,
the court has entered an order staying all discovery, pending a
ruling on this motion.

On June 20, 2006, counsel submitted to the court a proposed
consent order dismissing class allegations, allowing plaintiffs
to proceed with individual claims, and granting plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint by July 21, 2006.

The court entered the order on July 13, 2006 and the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on July 21, 2006 and a second amended
complaint on Aug. 1, 2006, adding RICO claims and withdrawing
its claims to seek class certification.  

Coldwell Banker filed an answer and a motion to dismiss the RICO
claims on Aug. 14, 2006, according to the Realogy Corp.'s Nov.
14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Cleveland, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Corp., Case No. 4:05-cv-00010-MPM-JAD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi under
Judge Michael P. Mills with referral to Judge Jerry A. Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lawrence E. Abernathy, III of
Lawrence e. Abernathy, III, Attorney, P.O. Box 4177, Laurel, MS
39441, Phone: (601) 649-4529, E-mail:
MHinton@abernathylawoffice.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Christopher A. Shapley of Brunini, Grantham, Grower &
         Hewes, P.O. Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205-0119, Phone:
         (601) 948-3101, E-mail: cshapley@brunini.com;

     (2) F. Ewin Henson, III of Upshaw, Williams, Biggers,
         Beckham & Riddick, P.O. Drawer 8230, Greenwood, MS
         38930-8230, Phone: (601) 455-1613, E-mail:
         ehenson@uwbbr.com; and

     (3) April D. Reeves of Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis,
         P.A., P.O. Box 427, Jackson, MS 39205-0427, Phone:
         (601) 949-4900, E-mail: areeves@watkinsludlam.com.


COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses Claim Over Private Placements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
dismissed the only claim against a predecessor of Cowen Group,
Inc. in a class action against HealthSouth Corp. over private
placements.

The company was named as defendant in a purported class action
over the involvement of the predecessor of Cowen as one of the
managing underwriters for certain HealthSouth private
placements.

The complaint alleges that the offering materials for each
private placement were deficient, in violation of federal
securities laws, by failing to disclose HealthSouth's
subsequently revealed accounting irregularities.

The predecessor company to Cowen participated as an "initial
purchaser" in only one of the private placements at issue -- the
March 1998 private placement of $567.75 million principal amount
of 31.4% Convertible Subordinated Debentures due 2003.

On June 8, 2006, the district court, among other things,
dismissed the claims arising out of the March 1998 private
placement -- the only claims against Cowen.  

The dismissal is not yet a "final" judgment from which
plaintiffs may take an appeal, according to the company's Nov.
14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Cowen Group, Inc. on the Net: http://www.cowen.com/.


COWEN GROUP: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Arbinet-thexchange Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action "In
re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation," which names
Cowen Group, Inc. as one of the defendants.

The company is one of several named defendants in a putative
securities class action filed by plaintiffs seeking to recover
losses allegedly caused by misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the December 2004 initial public offering of
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., an electronic marketplace for trading,
routing and settling telecommunications capacity.

The lawsuit alleges that these misrepresentations and omissions
inflated the price of Arbinet's securities and that following
disclosure in May and June 2005 of the true state of Arbinet's
market and its business, Arbinet's securities lost more than 60%
of their value.

The underwriter defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and the briefing process is still underway, according
to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jose
L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;
         and

     (2) J. Erik Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail:
         erik@blbglaw.com.


COWEN GROUP: Discovery is Still Ongoing in N.Y. "Focus" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in "focus" class actions that are pending
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Cowen Group, Inc. and other defendants.

The company is one of many financial institutions and
corporations named as defendants in a number of putative
securities class actions relation to numerous initial and other
public offerings of common stock from approximately 1998 through
2000.

The various complaints allege that a number of financial
institutions that were underwriters of initial public offerings,
including Cowen, made material misrepresentations and omissions
to purchasers of the stock sold in the initial public offerings,
and thereby inflated the value of the stock.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed
to disclose, among other things, the purported existence of
improper tie-in and compensation arrangements they had with
certain purchasers of the stock and alleged conflicts of
interest relating to research published by the underwriters, all
in violation of federal securities laws.

The district court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify certain
"focus" cases as class actions.  Cowen is defendant in four of
these "focus" cases.  

Cowen appealed the class certification decision to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on June 6,
2006.  

In the meantime, discovery is ongoing in the "focus" cases,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

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


DELPHI CORP: Miss. PERS Seeks to Amend Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the securities litigation pending against
Delphi Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, filed a motion for leave to amend a consolidated
class action complaint.

The securities fraud class action was filed on behalf of a class
of persons and entities who purchased or acquired the securities
of Delphi Corp. between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005.

        Bernstein Litowitz Objects to Compensation Plan

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, on behalf of co-lead
plaintiff the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
(Mississippi PERS) and the class, filed an objection to Delphi's
proposed Key Employee Compensation Plan on Nov. 22, 2005.  

      Consolidated Class Complaint in Delphi Scandal Filed

On June 27, 2005, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald appointed the
Mississippi PERS as co-lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.  A
complaint was filed on Sept. 30, 2005 in federal court in New
York.

Lead plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws by:

      -- Delphi Corp. and certain trusts it had established to
         sell securities;

      -- certain of Delphi's former officers and directors;

      -- Delphi's outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP;

      -- a number of investment banks that underwrote Delphi
         securities; and

      -- certain third parties [Setech, BBK, and Bank One (since
         acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase)] that entered into sham
         transactions intended to falsely inflate Delphi's
         reported financial results.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements because, at the time they made
these statements, the defendants failed to disclose the
following adverse facts that, among others:

     -- the company booked Information Technology (IT) service
        provider and non-IT supplier rebates and credits to
        income before they were earned;

     -- the company improperly treated payments for IT services
        as assets instead of as expenses;

     -- the company improperly treated financing transactions
        involving inventory as sales and disposition of
        inventory;

     -- the company improperly treated financing transactions
        involving "indirect materials" as sales of these
        materials;

     -- the company improperly accounted for payments made to
        and credits received from General Motors as warranty
        settlements and obligations; and

     -- the company's financial statements were not prepared in
        accordance with GAAP.

As a result of the company's alleged accounting violations, the
company's reported revenue, net income and financial results
were materially overstated during the class period.  

Indeed, on June 30, 2005, Delphi restated its earnings for the
past five years.  Delphi's Restatement reduced 2001 retained
earnings by $265 million; reduced 2002 net income by $24
million; narrowed its 2003 net loss by $46 million; and widened
its 2004 loss to $4.8 billion from the $36 million originally
reported.

Delphi declared bankruptcy on Oct. 8, 2005.  Litigation over the
bulk of the Debtors' proposed Key Employee Compensation Plan, an
employee retention and bonus plan which Debtors initially
submitted for approval in October 2005, has been suspended in
Bankruptcy Court.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order consolidating the securities litigation
to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Michigan under
Judge Gerald Rosen.  On March 10, 2006, defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on a variety of grounds.

Lead plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss
was filed on May 12, 2006, and defendants filed reply briefs on
June 12, 2006.  Motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and
before the court.  

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
discovery stay provision formal discovery cannot begin until the
defendants' motions to dismiss are resolved.

On Oct. 17, 2006, Judge Rosen affirmed the appointment of
Mississippi as co-Lead Plaintiff.  On Oct. 30, 2006, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud claims
against Delphi, nine former Delphi executives, including
defendants Battenberg, Dawes, Blahnik and Free and four
employees of outside firms.

The SEC's claims corroborate the legal theories propounded in
lead plaintiffs' complaint and provide further details
concerning its central factual allegations.  

In light of the SEC action as well as information uncovered by
lead plaintiffs' ongoing investigation and other significant
developments, including developments in Bankruptcy Court, on
Nov. 28, 2006 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corporation Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-
01725-GER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing the lead plaintiffs are Sean Coffey and associates
Hannah Greenwald and Matthew Moehlman of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP -- http://www.blbglaw.com/.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Stuart Baskin of Shearman & Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4000, Fax:
         212-848-7179, E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com; and

    (ii) Joseph E. Papelian, Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive, Troy, MI 48098-2815, Phone: 248-813-
         2000, E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com.


DIEBOLD INC: Ohio Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter C. Economus of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted parties motion to consolidate
securities, Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations
suits, and derivative suits against Diebold Inc. as:

      -- "In Re: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:05 CV
         2873,"
   
      -- "In Re: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06 CV
         0170," and

      -- "In Re: Diebold Derivative Litigation, Case No. 5:06 CV
         0233."

The actions involve allegations against Diebold, Inc. and/or its
current and former directors and officers and related parties
relating to alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by
officers and directors at Diebold.  Each of the Actions falls
into one of three categories:

     -- five of the actions assert federal securities claims on
        behalf of shareholders of Diebold;

     -- four of the actions assert claims pursuant to the ERISA
        Act by purported participants in the Diebold 401(k)
        Savings Plan, on behalf of themselves and others
        similarly situated; and

     -- two of the actions assert derivative claims on behalf
        of Diebold against certain Individual Defendants.

There are currently a series of putative class actions pending
in this court naming Diebold and related parties as defendants
in claims brought under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 and related theories based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions during the same class periods.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions allege that
misrepresentations or omissions caused artificial inflation in
Diebold's stock price during the class period, and seek relief
on behalf of people who acquired Diebold stock in the open
market.

This court also approves Diebold Lead Securities Plaintiff's
selection of Scott + Scott, LLC and Milberg Weiss Bershad and
Schulman LLP as lead counsel and Strauss & Troy as liaison
counsel.  

With respect to the designation of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, this court appoints Recht and Wietschner as the
"Diebold Lead Derivative Plaintiff Group."  

The court also approves Diebold Lead Derivative Plaintiff
Group's selection of Federman & Sherwood and Bull & Lifshitz,
LLP as lead counsel and Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., LPA as
liaison counsel for the consolidated derivative actions.


DRIVER PRIVACY LITIGATION: 12 Firms Charged with Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve corporations are named defendants in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for
alleged violation of privacy laws a mere 240 million times by
buying a database containing more than 20 million motor vehicle
records from the Texas Department of Public Safety, The
Courthouse News Service reports.

Named in the suit are:

     -- ACS State & Local Solutions,

     -- Centerpoint Energy International,

     -- FEDCHEX,

     -- Global 360 BGS,

     -- Gila Corp. dba Municipal Services Bureau,

     -- American Electric Power Service Corp.,

     -- Houston Lighting & Power Co.,

     -- the Industrial Foundation of America,

     -- TXU Business Services Co.,

     -- Southwestern Bell Telephone dba Southwestern Bell
        Telephone Co.,

     -- Reliant Energy aka Reliant Resources, and

     -- the Texas Motor Transportation Association.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behlaf
of all similarly situated individuals whose "personal
information" is contained in any "motor vehicle record"
maintained by the State of Texas, within the meaning of DPPA, 18
U.S.C. Section 2725(1) and (3), who have not provided "express
consent," within the meaning of the DPPA 18 U.S.C. Section
2725(5) to the State of Texas for the distribution of their
"personal information" for purposes not enumerated by the DPPA,
18 U.S.C. Section 2721(b), and whose "personal information" has
been knowingly "obtained" and used by the defendants within the
meaning of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724.

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

      -- whether defendants obtained improperly and/or used
         "personal information" from the "motor vehicle records"
         of members of the class, within the meaning of the
         DPPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724(a); and

      -- whether defendants' obtaining and use of "personal
         information" from the "motor vehicle records" of
         members of the class was done knowingly, within the
         meaning of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724(a).

Plaintiffs demand judgment on his behalf and on behalf of the
other members of the class to the following effect:

      -- declaring that this action be maintained as a class
         action;

      -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the other
         members of the class against the defendants in the
         amount of $2,500 for each instance which the defendants
         obtained or used personal information concerning the
         plaintiff and members of the class;

      -- punitive damages should be the court find that the
         defendants acted in willful or reckless disregard of
         the DPPA;

      -- requiring the defendants to destroy any personal
         information illegally obtained from motor vehicle
         records; and

      -- such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1874

The suit is the latest of several recent lawsuits claiming
violations of the Driver Privacy Protection Act.

The suit is "Taylor et al v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00013-TJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge T. John
Ward.

Representing plaintiffs are Thomas Mathew Corea and Jeremy Reade
Wilson both of The Corea Firm, PLLC, 325 N St Paul St., Suite
4150, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 953-3900, Fax: 214-953-
3901, E-mail: tcorea@corealaw.com or jwilson@corealaw.com.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Calif. Car Parts Replacement Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached on Dec. 14, 2006 between Farmers
Insurance Group and a nationwide class of plaintiffs who sued to
resolve claims that certain "non-Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) crash parts" did not meet the quality standards required
by the company's insurance policies.  

In addition, plaintiffs claimed that Farmers breached its
insurance policies by using those parts to determine how much
money to pay on an insurance claim.

The settlement will provide cash payments to customers of
Farmers between June 15, 1996 and Nov. 1, 2006 who were insured
by Farmers Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Co. and
other entities affiliated with Farmers.  

Eligible members of the class will receive payments of between
$20 and $40 per part, depending on the portion of the car that
was replaced.

In addition, class members have a full warranty on non-OEM
replacement auto parts for as long as they own their car or
truck.  

If there is a problem with the non-OEM part, the part will be
replaced at no cost to the class member.  Class members are
encouraged to monitor their automobiles for signs of decay or
other damage caused by the use of non-OEM parts.

After years of court battles and a trial, class members will
finally receive what they paid for when they bought their
insurance policies.  Eligible class members will receive cash
payments, and anyone who has a problem with an imitation part
will be able to have that part replaced under Farmers' warranty.

Claim fling deadline is June 1, 2007.  Send claim form to:

    Non-OEM Parts Settlement Administration Center
    Post Office Box 1445
    Minneapolis, MN 5440-1445

Generally, "non-OEM crash parts" are the sheet metal exterior of
a car or truck, such as hoods and fenders that were not made by,
or for, the vehicle's original maker.

OEM parts are those parts that have been designed and
manufactured to exacting standards established by the car and
truck manufacturers, and meet rigorous quality and safety
requirements.  Many non-OEM parts, or "imitation" parts do not
meet these standards.

Although they may look fine when the car or truck is first
repaired, problems often arise later.  The parts may not fit
correctly, the finish on the parts may not look as good or wear
as well as the rest of the car, the parts may cause rain or wind
to channel incorrectly, causing problems with noise and
visibility, the parts may rattle, dent more easily or improperly
vibrate, known as "oil canning."

Non-OEM parts that do not have the appropriate amount of paint
or rust coating may also rust earlier than OEM parts.  Non-OEM
parts may also not be fastened properly to the car or truck, or
may rust out easier at the fastening points.  Non-OEM hoods may
also present serious safety concerns.

A claim form and other information are available at
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?189c.

The suit is "Remigio Lebrillia et al. v. Farmers Group, Inc.
d/b/a Farmers Underwriters Association et al., Case No. 00-CC-
07185," filed in the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of Orange.

For more details, contact Jon J. Stoia, Jr., Timothy G. Bloo,
Amelia F. Burroughs at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619/2331-1058, Fax: 619/231-7423.


FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Improper Accounting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forward Industries Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and alleging improper financial accounting practices
between July 25, 2005 and Feb. 2, 2006, according to the
company's Nov. 20, 2006 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the company during the purported
class period made certain misrepresentations of fact, or failed
to disclose certain material facts, and violated certain
generally accepted accounting principles in the presentation of
its financial statements included in its periodic reports filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Exchange Act.

The summons and complaint was served on the company on Oct. 3,
2006.  It was filed on behalf of some of the company's clients.

The suit is "Lynn Finkelstein v. Ball, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
21922-UU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Julie Prag Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, 2499 Glades
         Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-392-
         4750, Fax: 392-4775, E-mail: jvianale@vianalelaw.com;
         and

     (2) Barbara Podell of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, Phone: 215-875-
         3000, Fax: 875-4673.

Representing the plaintiffs is Charles Christian Kline of White
& Case, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900, Miami, FL 33131-
2352, Phone: 305-371-2700, Fax: 358-5744, E-mail:
ckline@whitecase.com.


GEORGIA: Cobb County Faces Unconstitutional Tax Laws Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Webb and The Webb Law Group, LLC, filed a class-action
complaint in the Superior Court of Cobb County in Georgia
against the county, claiming it is unconstitutionally taxing
lawyers for working in their profession, The Courthouse News
Service reports.

Mr. Webb claims the county's business license and occupation tax
of $1,000 violates the Georgia Constitution and a state law
under which "local governments are prohibited from subjecting
lawyers to regulatory fees."

He says he paid the fee under protest and under threat of
indefinite incarceration.  Mr. Webb also claims the fee is
illegal, whether charged to allow him to practice law, or
assessed as fines for contempt of court.

Plaintiffs and other taxpayers similarly situated are entitled
to relief from the county's unconstitutional assessment and
collection of Business License and Occupation Taxes, wherefore
asking for:

     -- for this court to enjoin the county's enforcement of its
        Business License and Occupation Tax Ordinances against
        attorneys practicing in Cobb County;

     -- for the court to order defendants to refund to
        plaintiffs and others similarly situated all illegally
        assessed and collected Business License and Occupation
        Taxes;

     -- for an award of such damages as are authorized by law;

     -- for the creation of a common fund of refunded taxes in   
        which others may share with plaintiffs;

     -- for the recovery of all reasonable attorneys' fees and
        costs expended by plaintiffs from a common fund
        comprised of refunded Business License and Occupation
        Taxes;

     -- for a trial by jury on any issue that should not be
        resolved by the court as a matter of law; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and equitable.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?189d

The suit is "Web et al v. Cobb County et al., Case No. 07-1-
00259-99," filed in the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

Representing plaintiffs are E. Adam Webb and G. Franklin Lemond,
Jr., both of The Webb Law Group, LLC, 2625 Cumberland Parkway,
S.E. Suite 220, Atlanta, Georgia 30339, Phone: 770-444-0773,
Fax: 770-444-0271, E-mail: webbllc@bellsouth.net.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Portion of $99M Settlement Expected in 2008
------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of the proceeds from the partial settlement of the
Global Crossing securities fraud class action will not occur
until early-2008 at the earliest, according to a statement by
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved a $99 million settlement in the Global Crossing
securities fraud class action on Oct. 27, 2006.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is paying $16.5 million
toward the settlement.  The other settling financial
institutions are paying the remaining $82.5 million.

The settlement covers all persons, entities, or legal
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Feb. 1,
1999 to Dec. 8, 2003, purchased, sold, exchanged, acquired,
disposed of, transferred or made any other investment decision
involving Global Crossing or Asia Global Crossing securities.

This lawsuit involves the demise of Global Crossing and Asia
Global Crossing, which were global telecommunications companies.  
Global Crossing was founded in 1997 and Asia Global Crossing in
1999.  Global Crossing became a public company on Aug. 13, 1998.  

Asia Global Crossing became a public company on Oct. 12, 2000,
although Global Crossing retained a 51% ownership interest in
Asia Global Crossing.  

The settlement provides for the payment of $99 million to settle
claims brought by persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing
securities during the class period.  

The settlement would result in the dismissal and/or release of
certain claims by all class members in the action as to the
persons and entities included within the definition of
"Releasees" in the settlement agreement.  

The Releasees include the "Underwriter Defendants":  

      -- Goldman, Sachs & Co.;

      -- Merrill Lynch & Co.;

      -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;

      -- CIBC World Markets Corp. (CIBC WM);
  
      -- Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.;

      -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.;

      -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.;

      -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (including the
         former Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.);

      -- Morgan Stanley; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.;

      -- Lehman Brothers Inc.;

      -- ABN AMRO Rothschild LLC;

      -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.;

      -- Wachovia Securities (formerly First Union Securities,
         Inc.);

      -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.;

      -- Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein-Grantchester, Inc.
         (formerly Wasserstein Perella Securities, Inc.);

      -- Advest, Inc.;

      -- Harris Nesbitt Gerard, Inc. (formerly Gerard Klauer
         Mattison & Co., Inc.);

      -- Guzman & Co.; Kaufman Bros., L.P.;

      -- McDonald Investments, Inc.;

      -- Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., Inc.;

      -- Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc.;

      -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc.;

      -- Scott & Stringfellow, Inc.; and

      -- Stephens Inc.

The Releasees also include two Asia Global Crossing underwriters
that were not named in the action:

      -- The Robinson-Humphrey Co. LLC, and
      -- Williams Capital Group, L.P.

as well as the "CIBC Defendants":

      -- Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC),
      -- CIBC WM,
      -- CIBC Capital Partners, and
      -- CIBC Capital Partners (Cayman).  

In this settlement, the Underwriter Defendants and CIBC
Defendants are collectively referred to as the "Settling
Defendants."   

Since February 2002, over 50 putative class actions alleging
securities law violations have been filed against employees of
Global Crossing and other defendants, including the Settling
Defendants, on behalf of putative classes of holders of Global
Crossing securities.  

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized all
of these actions before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  

In December 2002, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and
appointed Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. as lead counsel in the
action.    

The settling defendants have denied violating any laws and have
raised or could raise numerous defenses, including that the
underwriters conducted appropriate due diligence to verify the
accuracy of the disclosures and reasonably relied on audited
financial data.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. and Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
         of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Chase Manhattan Centre,
         1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, Delaware
         19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100; and

     (2) Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Financial
         Institutions Partial Settlement, c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6152,
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-866-808-3497, E-mail:
         http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com.


HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Suit in Israel Over "Titulim" Diapers
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Israeli Paper Mills Ltd. announced that a petition for
approval of a class action was filed against Hogla-Kimberly
Ltd., an affiliated company.

According to the petition, 3.5 years ago H-K reduced the
quantity of wipes in the baby wipes packages of its "Titulim
Premium" brand and thus misled the public according to the
Israeli Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff estimates the scope of the class action to be
approximately $6.6 million.

H-K rejects the claims and intends to defend itself against the
action. At this early stage, H-K is not able to assess the
chances of the class action and its influences.

For more information, contact Philip Y. Sardoff, of American
Israeli Paper Mills Ltd., Phone: +1-908-686-7500.


HILB ROGAL: Va. Securities Fraud Complaint Dismissal Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of an amended complaint
in the purported securities fraud class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. and certain of its officers.

The Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund has filed a putative
class action complaint against the company and Andrew L. Rogal,
Martin L. Vaughan, III, Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert
W. Blanton, Jr. and Robert B. Lockhart.

The plaintiff alleges violations by each of the defendants of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2005, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
putative class action complaint.  On April 27, 2006, an order
was entered granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  On May 23,
2006, the plaintiff appealed this order.  

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal &
Hobbs Co. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Benjamin Joseph Weir of Finkelstein Thompson &
         Loughran, 1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
         (202) 337-8000; and

     (2) Harvey B. Cohen of Miles & Stockbridge, PC, 1751
         Pinnacle Dr., Suite 500, McLean, VA 22102-3833, Phone:
         (703) 903-9000.

Representing the defendant is Terence James Rasmussen of Hunton
& Williams, LLP, 951 E. Byrd St., Riverfront Plaza, Richmond, VA
23219, Phone: (804) 788-8200.


HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. and its affiliates remain defendants in
a class action filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  

The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its
professional liability insurance through the company's Chicago
office of what is now HUB Midwest.  The suit claims that the
company received an undisclosed contingent commission with
respect to its policy.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the company denied this and the other allegations of the
complaint and said it intended to vigorously defend this case.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Marren Hogan v. Hub International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2005-CH-01355," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois under Judge Philip L. Bronstein.  

Representing the plaintiff is Nisen & Elliott, 200 W. Adams
#2500, Chicago IL 60606, Phone: (312) 346-7800.  

Representing the company is Lowis & Gellen, 200 W. Adams St.,
#1900 Chicago IL, 60606 Phone: (312) 364-2500.


HUB INT'L: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUB International Ltd. continues to face a lawsuit over its use
of contingent commission structure for insurance brokers.

The company was first named as a defendant in a federal class
action lawsuit in October 2004.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants used the contingent commission structure to deprive
policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage services,
as well as free and open competition in the market for
insurance."

A number of substantially similar federal class actions were
filed against the company and many other defendants.  On Feb.
17, 2005, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred these and other class actions in which we were not
named to the District of New Jersey.  

In August 2005 and February 2006, amended complaints were filed
in the consolidated federal court proceedings pending in New
Jersey under the caption, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation."

The case has now been divided into two cases, one for employee
benefits and the other for commercial insurance.  Certain of the
company's subsidiaries have been named as additional defendants.

A small number of allegations specifically pertaining to Hub
have been added, but remain vague.  The judge in these actions
has permitted discovery to take place, which is continuing,
according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.  


INDONESIA: Trial for Identity Raid Victims' Lawsuit Commences
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Jakarta District Court heard a class action filed
against the city administration over arrest following identity
checks in 2006, The Jakarta Post reports.

Presiding Judge Kusriyanto said he would first attempt to
mediate the resolution of the dispute.  He invited the following
five plaintiffs to address the court:

     -- market worker Slamet, 50,
     -- mechanic Nuhroman, 20,
     -- private employee Budi Pahlevi, 26,
     -- beggar Jumi, 52 and
     -- three-in-one jockey Sugiarti, 37.

Plaintiffs claim they had been poorly treated and lost income
because they were unable to work during the detention period.

They are seeking for $47,445 remuneration each for income losses
resulting from their days-long stint in a city-run
rehabilitation center.

Because no city officials attended the hearing, the panel of
judges agreed to adjourn it until next week.


INPHONIC INC: Mobile Phone User Files Ala. Lawsuit Over Rebates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Vincent of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District for the Northern District of Alabama against
InPhonic Inc., saying one of the largest Internet sellers of
wireless devices failed to follow through on promised rebates,
The Birmingham News reports.

Mr. Vincent alleges that InPhonic routinely refuses to send
promised rebates after customers buy phones or services.

At the heart of the dispute is a $150 rebate Vincent says he was
promised for buying a new Motorola Razr V3 phone and calling
plan. He bought both from an InPhonic Web site called
CellularChoices.net. After almost one year and two attempts to
get the rebate money, Vincent has gotten nothing but
aggravation, the suit says.

According to Mr. Vincent's suit, InPhonic has knowledge of
statistics that prove after one or more failed attempts to claim
a rebate, customers will eventually give up and stop their
pursuit.

It goes on to state that instead of honoring its obligations as
promised, the defendant has chosen to make the process of
claiming a rebate so time-consuming and frustrating that
consumers give up.

The suit says it's common for the company to offer a rebate if
correct forms are sent within a specified time.  Collecting them
is the problem, lawyer Keith Belt said.

The suit is seeking class-action status.  Mr. Belt said that as
many as a half-million people might have never gotten their
rebates.

Spokesman Trip Donnelly acknowledged the fast-growing InPhonic
has faced challenges over rebates, and said the company has
reduced its use of them, settled a lawsuit over them with the
District of Columbia attorney general and hired more people to
monitor rebate compliance.

Mr. Donnelly said the company has hired a new company to process
its rebates, and that it's offering far fewer of them.

InPhonic sells phones at a discount in cooperation with wireless
providers and manufacturers through its Web sites, which include
Wirefly.com, Wireless-World.com and Cellular-one.com.

The suit is "Vincent v. InPhonic, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-00090-
RDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama under Judge R. David Proctor.

Representing plaintiffs are Keith T. Belt, Jr. and Morris
Lilienthal both of the Belt Law Firm PC, 2151 Highland Avenue,
Suite 310, Birmingham, AL 35205, Phone: 205-933-1500, Fax: 205-
933-5500, E-mail: keithb@beltlawfirm.com or
morrisl@beltlawfirm.com.


NEW JERSEY: Settlement Reached in Burlington Flood Litigation  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated class action filed by flood victims
along Rancocas Creek reached a tentative settlement for the
case, The Burlington County Times reports.

Owners of six dams have reached a tentative settlement with 180
property owners who filed damage suits after a "1,000-year"
storm in Burlington County resulted in numerous dam failures and
widespread flooding.

Defendants who have agreed to the settlement are:

     -- the municipalities of Southampton, Medford and Medford
        Lakes;

     -- the Medford Board of Education;

     -- the Rancocas Cranberry Co. in Southampton; and

     -- the Union Mill Lake Colony Club in Medford.

Under the settlement, the dam owners and a contractor that
reconstructed one of the dams will pay the plaintiffs a total of
$285,000.

E. Sambol Corp. of Toms River, Ocean County, the principal
building contractor on the Vincentown Mill Dam, agreed to pay
$50,000.

According to Edward Petkevis, whose Florence law firm is one of
three representing property owners, the six dams involved in the
settlement were either minor structures or were not major
factors in the flooding.

The settlement does not involve numerous other dam owners named
in the class-action lawsuit or other dams owned by any of the
parties in the tentative agreement.

Company vice president Jerry Grasso said it was the decision of
the company's insurance carrier to settle the suit.  He pointed
out they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, being
downstream from a major flood.

Hinchman Dam was the only one of the six dams that failed, Mr.
Petkevis said.  The others overtopped, meaning that water
exceeded the height of the dam.

The defendants have agreed to pay amounts ranging from $20,000
to $80,000 each.  Mr. Petkevis explains that a judge must
approve the settlement before it becomes final.

Harold B. Wells III, a retired Superior Court assignment and
state Appellate Division judge who is overseeing the case, has
scheduled a hearing for Feb. 1.

In 2004, Judge Wells consolidated three flood lawsuits into one
class action (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005), two of
which were filed on behalf of residents seeking compensation for
damages sustained during the floods in Burlington County.  

A third "companion" lawsuit names utility companies as
defendants, including Public Service Electric & Gas, Verizon,
South Jersey Gas and Jersey Central Power and Light (Class
Action Reporter, July 31, 2006).

Plaintiffs allege dam failures or water spilling over dams
caused flood damage on July 12 to 13, 2004, when up to 13 inches
of rain fell in less than 24 hours.  It accused defendants of
not properly maintaining the dams.

The judge ruled then that more property owners might file for
damages if they live in the Rancocas Creek watershed, including
the northern and two southern branches of the creek.  Judge
Wells also appointed three plaintiff lawyers: Mr. Petkevis,
Carlo Scaramella and Ronald P. Heksch.

Mr. Petkevis said about 200 plaintiffs are included and the
overall class is estimated at as many as 800 property owners.  
Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of funds that were paid out
under the National Flood Insurance program, according to Mr.
Petkevis.  Total damages are estimated at between $10 million
and $250 million.

Previously, municipal government lawyers argued that not all
properties were affected by both rain and dam water.   
   
Among the defendants are:  

     -- Medford,  
     -- Evesham and Medford Lakes,  
     -- Medford Lakes Colony Club,  
     -- YMCA Camp Ockanickon,  
     -- Girl Scouts of Camden County,  
     -- Evesham Municipal Utility Authority,  
     -- Medford Board of Education, and  
     -- several homeowners associations.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Ronald P. Heksch of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 125
         Half Mile Road, P.O. Box 190, Middletown, New Jersey
         07748 (Monmouth Co.), Phone: 732-741-3900, Fax: 732-
         224-6599, Web Site: http://www.ghclaw.com;

     (2) Edward R. Petkevis, 1380 Hornberger Ave., Roebling, New
         Jersey 08554-1309, Phone: (609) 499-4300; and

     (3) Carlo Scaramella of Cureton Caplan, P.C. by Mail: 950 B
         Chester Avenue, Delran, New Jersey 08075 (Burlington
         Co.), Phone: 856-824-1001, Fax: 856-824-1008.


NRT INC: Calif. Court Gives Final Okay to Homebuyers' Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego gave final approval to the purported class action filed by
Rajeev P. Shrestha against:

     -- NRT, Inc.,
     -- Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp.,
     -- Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.,
     -- Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc.

The original complaint (Case No. GIC 798126) was filed on Oct.
15, 2002.  Rajeev Shrestha filed the class action on behalf of
all buyers of real estate who paid a "Transaction Coordinator
Fee" or "Documentation Compliance Fee" to Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage Co. at any time since Oct. 16, 1998.

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for breach
of fiduciary duty and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
seq.

The causes of action are based on the allegation that defendants
would charge homebuyers a "Transaction Coordinator Fee" or a
"Documentation Compliance Fee" in addition to a commission on
the sale.

The suit argues that clients were misled about the nature of the
fee, and also that the fee constitutes unfair "double-charging"
for services.

The San Diego Superior Court initially denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the appellate court reversed
and remanded.  On Sept. 14, 2005, the San Diego Superior Court
granted a renewed motion for class certification.

A settlement was reached on April 20, 2006, which must be
approved by the court.  On July 21, 2006, the court
preliminarily approved the settlement.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, according to the Realogy Corp.'s Nov. 14, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


REGENCY AFFILIATES: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Gatz" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported derivative and class action, "Gatz
et al. v. Ponsoldt, Sr., et al., C.A. No. 174-N," have filed a
notice of appeal with regards to the dismissal of all claims in
the case by the New Castle County Court of Chancery in Delaware.

The suit was filed on Jan. 20, 2004 by two dissident Regency
Affiliates, Inc. shareholders, Edward E. Gatz and Donald D.
Graham, against current and former directors of the company.

Their suit named as defendants certain current and former
directors of the company, Royalty Holdings, LLC and certain of
its affiliates, Statesman Group, Inc. and, nominally, the
company.

The complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by
the former directors and Statesman, and that Royalty and its
affiliates knowingly participated in certain of the alleged
breaches.  

In November 2004 the court dismissed all but one claim alleged
in the complaint.  The company was not a defendant with respect
to the sole surviving claim, which related to the 2001 sale of a
cache of previously quarried and piled aggregate rock by
National Resource Development Corporation to Iron Mountain
Resources, Inc. (the Aggregate Sale).

On Oct. 16, 2005, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' sole remaining
claim for failure to state a claim for relief.  The dismissal
was without prejudice and the plaintiffs were given leave to
file an amended complaint attacking the Aggregate Sale.

On Jan. 30, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
challenging the Aggregate Sale and alleging that the Aggregate
Sale negatively impacted the consideration the company received
in connection with the October 2002 restructuring transactions.

The company was not a defendant with respect to this claim.
Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $5,400,000 with respect
to the claim related to the Aggregate Sale.  

On May 16, 2006, the court dismissed the sole remaining
complaint alleged in the complaint determining that the sole
remaining complaint was derivative in nature and could therefore
not be maintained by the plaintiffs.  

On June 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
appealing the court's rulings.


SC&E ADMINISTRATIVE: Settles Nev. Vehicle Service Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the "Reuben J. Rocker, et al. v. SC&E Administrative
Services, Case Nos. A-458551 & A-470558," class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada agreed on
a proposed class action settlement of the class claims and
assigned claims against:

     Berkley Insurance Company,
     formerly known as Signet Star                    $1,633,500
     American Safety Insurance Services, Inc.,
     American Safety Resources, Inc. and American
     Safety Reinsurance Ltd.                           1,050,000
     Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd.                    291,667
     Milliman, Inc.                                    1,050,000
     KPMG LLP                                            408,380

plus any related interest to which the proposed class might be
entitled under the settlement agreement with KPMG LLP, and Don
Erway, Pro Distributors, Inc., Randall Erway, the estate of Neva
Erway and related entities for $436,500.

Class Counsel will seek 25% of the settlement fund as fees plus
costs.

The Settlement will resolve the pending suit in the Clark
County, Nevada District Court in which plaintiffs allege that
the Settling Defendants are liable.

The class is defined as all persons who bought or possessed a
Vehicle Service Contract "VSC" for which the obligations of the
issuer were insured by National Warranty Insurance Risk
Retention Group (NWIG) that was purchased directly or indirectly
from SC&E, APA or Triad prior to June 6, 2003 pursuant to which
there is an unreimbursed claim incurred during the term of the
VSC, or for which there remained an unexpired term on June 6,
2003, or otherwise purchased their VSC from one of the Settling
Car Dealers (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 21, 2005), for which
the obligations of the issuer were insured by National Warranty
Insurance Risk Retention Group (NWIG) that was purchased
directly or indirectly from:

      -- SC&E Administrative Services, Inc. (SC&E),
      -- American Prime Asset (APA), or
      -- Triad Marketing, LLC (Triad).

The plaintiffs generally alleged that certain car dealers and
retailers sold VSCs insured by NWIG that proved to be worthless
as a result of a Ponzi scheme which led to NWIG's inevitable,
and foreseeable bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Settling Defendants are
accountable for participating in this scheme. The Settling
Defendants deny any liability for these claims.

Deadline to for exclusion is no later that March 5, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is no later than March 20, 2007.
The court will hold on April 10, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. a final
approval hearing.

For more information, contact Norman B. Blumenthal of Blumenthal
& Markham, Phone: 858-551-1223.


VISTEON CORP: Mar. 9 Hearing Set for $7.6M "Skiles" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Avern Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Michigan will hold on March 9, 2007 a final
approval hearing in the $7.6 million settlement of the class
action, "Skiles v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
71205-AC-DAS," the Detroit News reports.

The settlement covers 10,023 Visteon workers who participated in
retirement plans between July 1, 2000, and July 15, 2006, that
involved direct or indirect investments in Visteon stock.

Under the settlement, the employees will split about $5 million
after attorneys' fees and costs; they had suffered an estimated
loss of about $12.3 million, according to Lynn Sarko, a Seattle-
based attorney who is the lead council for the employees.

Visteon spokesman Jim Fisher said the settlement was determined
to be in the best interest of the company and its stakeholders.
He adds that the company, which did not admit wrongdoing, will
fund the settlement through an insurance policy.

Mailings detailing the settlement went out to employees and
retirees involved in the lawsuit, last week.  Deadline to file
any objections to the settlement is set on Feb. 19, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2006).

                      Case Background

In March and April 2005, the company and a number of current and
former employees, officers and directors were named as
defendants in three class actions brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In September 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that: the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA during
the class period by among other things:

     -- continuing to offer the company stock as an investment   
        alternative under the Visteon Investment Plan;  

     -- failing to disclose complete and accurate information   
        regarding the prudence of investing in the Visteon   
        stock;  

     -- failing to monitor the actions of certain of the   
        defendants; and   

     -- failing to avoid conflicts of interest or promptly   
        resolve them.   

The consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of a named
plaintiff and a putative class consisting of all participants or
beneficiaries of the Plans whose accounts included Visteon stock
at any time from July 20, 2001 through May 25, 2005.

In November 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

In December 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan preliminarily approved a $7.6 million
settlement of a class action brought under ERISA against Visteon
Corp.

The settlement with Visteon Corp. will provide for payments to
the Visteon Investment Plan and the Visteon 401(k) Savings Plan
(formerly known as the Visteon Investment Savings Plan for
Hourly Employees) and for allocation of those payments to the
accounts of members of the settlement class who had portions of
their Plan accounts invested in Visteon stock.

The suit is "Skiles v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
71205-AC-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn with referral to  
Judge Donald A. Scheer.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback (Phoenix), 3101 N.
         Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600,
         Phone: 602-248-2822, E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com;
         and   

     (2) Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S.
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail:
         esimon@esimon-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:   

     (i) Gabor Balassa and Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis,
         Phone: 312-861-2186 and 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200
         and 312-861-2200, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com;

    (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and

   (iii) Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. of Steptoe & Johnson
         (Washington), 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington,
         DC 20036-1795, Phone: 202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902,
         E-mail: pondrasik@steptoe.com.


XTO ENERGY: Sued Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended petition for a class action, "Beer, et al. v. XTO
Energy Inc.," was filed in January 2006, in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells
in Oklahoma.  

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted
to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled
and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other
products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the
natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the
monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited
number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.

A hearing on the class certification has not been scheduled,
according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SUNRISE SENIOR: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on behalf of two institutional investors and all those
who purchased publicly traded securities of Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc. period between August 4, 2005 and June 15, 2006.

The class includes those who owned Sunrise common stock from
2000 through 2006 at the time Sunrise's 2000-2006 Proxy
Statements were circulated to shareholders to solicit their
votes on various matters.

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

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 further 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.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Sunrise publicly traded securities.

For more information on the suit, contact William Lerach or
Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.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  * * *