---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 17

                            Headlines


BANK ONE: Continues to Face Ill. Stock Suit Over 1998 Merger
BOEHRINGER INGHELHEIM: Pharma Rep Sues in Conn. for Overtime Pay
CALIFORNIA: LAHA Faces Litigation Over Rent Subsidy Reductions
COLES AND WOOLWORTHS: Suit Planned Over Petrol Discount Dockets
DOWNER EDI: Shareholders to Lodge Suit Over Share Price Plunge

EBEK INC: Recalls Dietary Supplement Due to Undeclared Content
ELKCORP: Tex. Court Issues Order Enjoining Carlyle Group Deal
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Highchairs to Repair Locking Mechanism
GREAT LAKES: Still Faces Litigation in La. Over MRGO Dredging
HEALTH NET: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Veterans' Medical Care

HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: Ill. Court Dismisses Complaint in "Schnebel"
IMPSAT FIBER: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement
INDIAN TRUST: "Cobell" Assigned to D.C. Judge James Robertson
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Appeals Court Allows Surestep Suit
MARIANA ISLANDS: CNMI, Finance Face Suit Over $24M Tax Rebates

MIDWEST AIR: Faces Shareholder's Suit in Wis. Over "Poison Pill"
PREMIUM STANDARD: Still Faces Complaints Over Swine Farms in Mo.
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Accused of Receiving 401(k) Plan Kickbacks
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Col. Court Refuses to Certify "Rathbun"
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Col. Court Vacates ERISA Lawsuit Trial

SALTON INC: Still Faces N.Y. Injury Litigation Over Teakettles
STATE FARM: Chiropractors File Suit Over Reduced Reimbursements
TELLABS INC: Supreme Court to Hear Ill. Securities Suit Appeal
UNITED STATES: N.Y. Judge Junks Claims Against Firms in WTC Suit
US TOY: Steps up Recall of Necklaces with High Lead Content

WEBMETHODS INC: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement

* Seyfarth Shaw: 2006 Class Action Trends to Continue in 2007


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SECURE COMPUTING: Federman Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
SUNRISE SENIOR: Announces Securities Suit Filing in D.C. Court


                            *********


BANK ONE: Continues to Face Ill. Stock Suit Over 1998 Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP announced that
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
an order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, the securities class action filed
against Bank One Corp. has not been settled and continues to be
litigated.

The class includes all persons or entities who purchased shares
of Banc One Corp. (Old Banc One) common stock from Aug. 6, 1998
through Oct. 1, 1998, both dates inclusive, and received Bank
One Corp. (Bank One) common stock through the conversion of Old
Banc One common stock to Bank One common stock issued in
connection with the merger between Old Banc One and First
Chicago NBD Corp. (First Chicago) effective Oct. 2, 1998.

Excluded from the Class are:

     (a) all Bank One common stock of former Old Banc One
         shareholders which were sold prior to Aug. 30, 1999;
         and

     (b) the Individual Defendants, officers and directors of
         Bank One, members of the Individual Defendants'
         immediate families, any entity in which any defendant
         has a controlling interest, and the legal
         representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any
         such excluded person.

The litigation is a consolidated class action under the federal
securities laws concerning the Merger of First Chicago and Bank
One in October of 1998.  Plaintiffs allege that Bank One and the
other defendants made material misstatements and omissions in
connection with that transaction.  Defendants deny all
allegations of wrongdoing, deny any violations of the securities
laws, maintain that they acted properly in all respects and make
no admission of fault, liability or damages in connection with
the proposed Settlement or otherwise (Class Action Reporter,
April 5, 2005).

According to the law firm, the Old Banc One Shareholders' claims
arise under Section 12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933
(Section 12(a)(2)) on behalf of all shareholders of Old Banc One
securities whose shares were converted to Bank One securities
pursuant to the merger.

Plaintiffs allege that the Proxy/Prospectus related to the
merger between Old Banc One and First Chicago NBD (which was
consummated on Oct. 2, 1998) was materially false and misleading
because the financial statements contained therein
misrepresented the growth of Old Banc One's subsidiary credit
card division, First USA.

The reality was that First USA was in violation of The Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z prior to the merger, and
therefore, the reported income and revenue contained in the
Proxy/Prospectus were inflated.  Bank One issued public
announcements in the summer and fall of 1999 revising its
financial outlook due, in part, to First USA's discontinuance of
its improper conduct in booking late fees and interest charges
to which it was not entitled.

Bank One has virtually conceded that for approximately 20 months
-- from January 1, 1998 though Aug. 31, 1999 -- there had been
improper charges to its credit card customers of late fees,
interest and other penalties.

The evidence available to date illustrates the existence and
extent of credit card payment processing problems within the
First USA credit card segment of Banc One Corp. throughout 1998,
which materially impacted Old Banc One.  Plaintiffs thus claim
that the Prospectus contained materially false and misleading
statements for which the defendants are liable.

Subsequently, in a purported effort to remediate its credit card
customers, Bank One settled a class action (Mangone), which was
brought on behalf of certain First USA customers to recover
improper charges in violation of TILA for approximately $36.1
million.

However, that settlement did not correspond to the full extent
of the improper recognition of income and revenue for the fiscal
periods involved.  It is plaintiffs' position that the
defendants under-remediated these customers by several million
dollars due to improper methods in calculating the remediation.

The action is pending against Bank One, and former officers and
directors, John McCoy, Richard Lehmann, Michael McMennamin,
William Boardman, David Vitale and Verne Istock.

The consolidated action is "In re Bank One Shareholders
Litigation, Case No. 1:00-cv-00767," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Wayne R.
Andersen.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robin F. Zwerling, Esq. and Hillary Sobel, Esq. both of
         Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue,
         Suite 2225, New York, New York 10010, Website:
         http://www.zsz.com;and                 

     (2) Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. and Leigh Handelman Smollar,
         Esq., both of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
         LLP, One North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602,
         Website: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Ronald Steven Betman of Winston & Strawn LLP, 35 West
         Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         (312) 558-5600, E-mail: rbetman@winston.com;

     (2) Joel Alan Blanchet of Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago),
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 977-4400, E-mail: jblanchet@kirkland.com;
         and

     (3) Walter C. Carlson, William F. Conlon and James Wallace
         Ducayet all of Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-7000, E-
         mail: wcarlson@sidley.com or wconlon@sidley.com or
         jducayet@sidley.com.


BOEHRINGER INGHELHEIM: Pharma Rep Sues in Conn. for Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. faces a purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut by one of its former employees seeking back pay
for unpaid overtime wages.

The suit, filed by Luann Ruggeri, alleges violation of federal
and state wage and hour laws.

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

     -- sales representative,
     -- senior sales representative,
     -- executive sales representative, and
     -- senior executive sales representative

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

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

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

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

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

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

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        are unlawful under FLSA;

     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 216(b);

     -- designation of plaintiffs as representatives of the FLSA
        Collective Action;

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

     -- penalties available under applicable law;

     -- costs of action incurred, including expert fees;

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

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

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

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18d3

The suit is "Ruggeri et al. v. Boehringer-Ingelheim Corp.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) J. Daniel Sagarin, David A. Slossberg and Andrew W.
         Skolnick all of Hurwitz, SAgarin, Slossberg & Knuff,
         LLC, 147 North Broad Street, Milford, CT 06460, Phone:
         (203) 877-8000, Fax: (203) 878-9800, E-mail:
         DSagarin@hssklaw.com or DSlossberg@hssklaw.com or
         ASkolnick@hssklaw.com;

     (2) Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP, 757 Third
         Avenue, Suite 2500, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         688-5640, Fax: (212) 688-2548; and

     (3) Eric B. Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, 16133 Venture
         Blvd., Suite 1200, Encino, CA 91436, Phone: (818) 990-
         8300, Fax: (818) 990-2903.


CALIFORNIA: LAHA Faces Litigation Over Rent Subsidy Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Housing Authority (LAHA) faces a purported class
action over an allegation it illegally raised the rent of some
200,000 poor residents, according to KESQ.

The suit was filed on Jan. 16 by a coalition of lawyers and
civil rights groups, charging that the city did not give a
required year's notice before decreasing residents' Section
Eight rent subsidies.  

Triggered by LAHA's reduction of the subsidies by about $121 per
month per family in 2004, the suit specifically claims that the
agency sent tenants a "nondescript" flier that "failed to convey
any useful information."  

In addition, attorneys allege that the residents had their rents
unfairly increased so the agency could make up for a funding
shortfall.

However, agency executive director Rudy Montiel denied that
allegation.  He explains that the increases were done at the
request of the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development and that the residents received sufficient notice.


COLES AND WOOLWORTHS: Suit Planned Over Petrol Discount Dockets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is facing
pressure to pursue legal proceedings against Coles and
Woolworths for possible manipulation of petrol prices.  

The consumer watchdog earlier ordered the supermarket chain to
cut petrol prices in line with falls in the international price.  

Coles and Woolworths had lifted its petrol discount dockets to
10c a liter.  It denied inflating pump prices through alliances
with petrol stations to accommodate the docket discounts.

A Sydney human rights lawyer told the Sydney Morning Herald he
thinks the ACCC should file a case against the company if there
is proof it manipulated prices.

George Newhouse said that if the ACCC fails to do so he would
begin a class action in the Consumer Trade and Tenancy Tribunal
to seek damages for consumers on the grounds of misleading and
deceptive conduct by the supermarkets, according to the report.

"The so-called discounts are completely illusory if petrol
prices are being inflated to absorb them," Mr. Newhouse said,
according to the report.  The National Roads and Motorists'
Association is reportedly supporting the plan.


DOWNER EDI: Shareholders to Lodge Suit Over Share Price Plunge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Slater & Gordon is set to launch a class action on
behalf of shareholders hit by a 30 percent plunge in the Downer
EDI Ltd. share price after the company revealed in August that a
projected $125 million profit would in fact be a $25 million
loss.

The class action will represent investors who bought shares in
Downer EDI between Jan. 1 2006 and Aug. 8, 2006, including
shares acquired via the share purchase plan, dividend
reinvestment plan, and institutional placement.

On Aug. 8 2006, Downer EDI announced a $199 million provision in
respect of the contract to construct Iluka Resources' Douglas
Mineral Sands Project in Victoria.  This was the first profit
guidance issued by Downer EDI since its half-year financial
report six months earlier predicted a $125 million annual net
profit.

Slater & Gordon partner Lisa Nichols says shareholders are angry
that the company failed to fully inform the Australian Stock
Exchange about its financial position "Our investigations
indicate that there is a strong basis to allege that Downer EDI
engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct when issuing its
February profit guidance," Ms. Nichols said.

"Further, there is also the strong possibility that the company
acted in breach of its continuous disclosure obligations
regarding the status of the Iluka dispute and its financial
impact.

"A preliminary estimate of the losses suffered by shareholders
places the losses well in excess of $100 million."

The $199 million provision was the result of an ongoing
contractual dispute between Downer EDI and Iluka Resources
Limited over late completion of the Douglas Mineral Sands
Project.

Both companies advised the ASX in January 2006 that the dispute
was proceeding to arbitration.

On Feb. 23, 2006, Downer EDI released its half year reports,
estimating a net profit of about $125 million.  Between April 11
and May 29 2006, Downer EDI raised more than $150 million
through an Institutional Placement ($8.40), a Share Purchase
Plan ($8.40), and a Dividend Reinvestment Plan ($7.82).

On Aug. 8 2006, Downer EDI called a trading halt with shares
valued at $7.40.  After the markets closed, Downer EDI released
preliminary unaudited results that allowed for the $199 million
provision and estimated a net $25 million loss for the financial
year ending 30 June 2006.

The next day shares resumed trading and the price fell more than
30 per cent or $2.25 to close at $5.15, after hitting a low of
$4.91.  A total of 22,422,988 shares were traded during the day,
with many investors realizing substantial losses.

For more information, contact Slater & Gordon, Phone: 1800 555
777.


EBEK INC: Recalls Dietary Supplement Due to Undeclared Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ebek, Inc. of 3921 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 307, Los Angeles,
California, is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of the
company's supplement product sold under the name c.

The company has been informed by representatives of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration that lab analysis by FDA of Liviro3
samples found the product contains tadalafil, an FDA-approved
drug used to treat erectile dysfunction, making Liviro3 an
unapproved drug.

FDA advised that this poses a threat to consumers because
tadalafil may interact with nitrates found in some prescription
drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to
dangerous levels.

According to the FDA, consumers with diabetes, high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take
nitrates.  FDA advises that erectile dysfunction is a common
problem in men with these conditions, and they may seek products
to enhance sexual performance.  FDA advises that tadalafil, may
cause side effects, such as headaches and flushing.

The recalled Liviro3 is sold in 10-tablet boxes or 20-tablet
plastic bottles.  The product label warns consumers with high
blood pressure not to ingest the product but does not state it
contains tadalafil.

Consumers who have Liviro3 in their possession are advised to
stop using it immediately and contact their physician if they
experienced any problem that may be related to taking this
product.  The public is encouraged to submit a report of any
serious adverse events that occur with the use of Liviro3 to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm,Phone: 1-800-FDA-1088,  
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 or by returning the postage-paid FDA form
3500, which may be downloaded from
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm,or by mail: MedWatch,  
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787.

Ebek has taken this voluntary action because it is committed to
providing accurate information about its products and because of
concern for the health and safety of consumers.  Ebek is working
with the FDA in the recall process.  It sincerely regrets any
inconvenience to customers.

No illnesses have been reported to the company to date in
connection with this product.

Consumers are advised to return any unused Liviro3, for a refund
of the full purchase price or price for the unused portion, to
the retail location where it was purchased or to Ebek directly
at (213) 480-0316 or by E-mail: recall@liviro.com to receive
further instructions for returning the product or with any
questions.


ELKCORP: Tex. Court Issues Order Enjoining Carlyle Group Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas County Court issued an order temporarily enjoining
ElkCorp from implementing its shareholder rights agreement and
certain provisions of the merger agreement between ElkCorp and
The Carlyle Group, including a $29 million termination fee,
according to Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.  

The order will be in place until Feb.5, 2007, when the court
will hold a hearing to determine whether further injunctive
relief is appropriate.

The enjoined provisions are part of a merger agreement between
ElkCorp and The Carlyle Group signed in December 2006 and
amended as recently as Jan. 22, 2007.  

The Carlyle Group is attempting to acquire ElkCorp for $42.00
per share via a tender offer, which will expire on Feb. 14,
2007.  

In order to facilitate The Carlyle Group's acquisition of
ElkCorp, ElkCorp agreed to waive its poison pill as part of the
merger agreement.  

Another suitor, Building Materials Corp. of America, has
initiated a competing tender offer for ElkCorp, also offering
$42.00 per share.  

The offer from Building Materials, which has repeatedly outbid
The Carlyle Group, is contingent on ElkCorp waiving its
shareholder rights agreement (poison pill), which absent such a
waiver would prevent Building Materials from accepting shares
that might be tendered.

Pursuant to the order signed by Judge King Fifer, pending a
hearing scheduled for Feb. 5, 2007 on whether a preliminary
injunction should be issued, ElkCorp is temporarily restrained
from:

      -- implementing its poison pill in response to any
         competing unsolicited offer to acquire the company,
         including the outstanding offer from Building
         Materials;

      -- paying a termination fee of $29 million to The Carlyle
         Group; and

      -- granting The Carlyle Group the option to purchase
         additional shares from ElkCorp in connection with its
         tender offer that would allow it to reach a 90%
         ownership threshold needed to effectuate a short-form
         merger.

Judge Fifer granted the order in the suit, "Wetzel v. Karol,
Case No. CC-06-18562-B," a derivative and class action pending
in Dallas County Court, which alleges breach of fiduciary duty
in connection with ElkCorp's proposed sale to The Carlyle Group.

The order also requires ElkCorp to produce documents relevant to
the sales process and to make available certain defendants and
third parties for deposition prior to the hearing.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Highchairs to Repair Locking Mechanism
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Children's Products Inc., of Exton, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 100,000 units of Graco Contempo highchairs.

The company said the highchair can collapse if it is not fully
opened and locked into place from the storage position prior to
use.  If the highchair collapses, a child occupying the
highchair can be injured.

The firm has received 18 reports of the highchair collapsing.  
There has been one report of an 18-month-old male who suffered a
bruise on his foot.  Additionally, there have been two reports
of the highchair collapsing outside of the U.S.

The Contempo highchairs have an "A" frame design.  The
highchairs feature six height adjustment positions and three
recline positions.  The recalled highchairs have model numbers
that begin with 3800, 3803, 3804, 3805, 3810 and 3811 followed
by a three-letter fashion code.

Model numbers included in the recall:

     3800COU, 3800DRB, 3800FMT, 3800GGG, 3800GRM, 3800HEM,    
     800JEN, 3800LEG, 3800MNS, 3800OWD, 3800SND, 3800TFE,
     3800RIT, 3803HRL, 3804CNR, 3805BDA, 3810PEW, 3810PST and
     3811PST.

The highchairs were manufactured from Oct. 27, 2005 through Nov.
22, 2006.  The model number and manufacturing date are printed
underneath the snack tray of these highchairs.

These recalled highchairs were manufactured in China and are
being sold by Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Target, Target.com,
Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart.com, Burlington Coat Factory, Shopko, AAFES,
USA Baby and various specialty retailers nationwide from
December 2005 through December 2006 for between $100 and $130.

Pictures of the recalled highchairs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07084.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact the firm to obtain instructions
on how to receive a free repair kit.  Consumers can continue to
use the highchair until the repair kit is received but must make
sure it is fully opened first.  Consumers should open the
highchair until they hear a "click" which indicates the hub is
locked into place.

For more information, contact Graco toll-free at (877) 445-1312
anytime or go to the firm's Web site: http://www.gracobaby.com.


GREAT LAKES: Still Faces Litigation in La. Over MRGO Dredging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. remained a defendant in a
purported property damage class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with
regards to the dredging operation at the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet (MRGO).

On April 24, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on
behalf of citizens of Louisiana who suffered property damage
from the waters that flooded New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina
hit the area.

The suit names the company along with numerous other dredging
companies who have completed projects on behalf of the Army
Corps of Engineers in the MRGO, and the federal government as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that dredging of MRGO caused the
destruction of the Louisiana wetlands, which provide a natural
barrier against storms and hurricanes.

This loss of natural barriers then contributed to the failure of
the levees upon the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which allowed
the floodwaters to damage plaintiffs' property.

The company is accused of negligence in violation of the Water
Pollution Control Act, among others.  The amount of damages was
not stated.  

The company reported no 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 "Reed v. USA et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02152-SRD-
JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana under Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. with referral to
Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Camilo Kossy Salas, III of Salas & Co. L.C., 650
         Poydras St., Suite 1650, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
         504-799-3080, E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com;

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

     (3) John Francis Nevares of John F. Nevares & Associates,
         P.O. Box 13667, San Juan, PR 00908-3667, Phone: 787-
         722-9333, E-mail: jfnevares-law@microjuris.com.

Representing the defendants is James H. Roussel of Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 201 St. Charles Ave.,
Suite 3600, New Orleans, LA 70170, Phone: 504-566-5278, E-mail:
jroussel@bakerdonelson.com.


HEALTH NET: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Veterans' Medical Care
----------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals in Michigan and Vermont lodged a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware against Health Net Inc., claiming the managed care
provider owes more than $100 million for veterans' medical care,
the Los Angeles Business Journal reports.

Named plaintiffs are:

     -- Northern Michigan Hospitals Inc., of Petoskey, Michigan;
        and
     -- Gifford Medical Center Inc., of Randolph, Vermont.

Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to the reimbursements under
the Tricare program, which covers retired military personnel and
dependants, a Bloomberg News report said.

Health Net is one of three U.S. health insurers that offer the
Tricare program.

According to the complaint, Health Net has failed to pay the
hospitals, in violation of its contract.

The suit asks for class-action status and restitution for
hundreds of hospitals.

The suit is "Northern Michigan Hospitals Inc. et al v. Health
Net Federal Services Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00039-UNA," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Representing plaintiffs is Matt Neiderman of Duane Morris LLP,
1100 North Market Street, Suite 1200, Wilmington, DE 19801,
Phone: (302) 657-4900, E-mail: mneiderman@duanemorris.com.


HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: Ill. Court Dismisses Complaint in "Schnebel"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois has dismissed a third
amended consumer complaint against subsidiaries of Heritage
Worldwide, Inc.

In November of 2003, Jessica Fischer Schnebel and 15 other women
filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint
against Poly Implant Protheses, S.A. (PIP), PIP/USA, Inc. and
III Acquisition Corp. d/b/a PIP.America in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois.

The second amended consolidated class action complaint contains
counts alleging product liability, breach of the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and a
contract claim alleging third-party beneficiary status.

Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and attorneys
fees and costs are sought.  Motions to dismiss filed by PIP and
PIP.America remains pending and discovery is underway.

Plaintiffs have not sought to date to certify any putative
class.  The company's U.S. distributor has tendered this case to
PIP, for defense and indemnity pursuant to the distributor
agreement.

A hearing was held on Nov. 1, 2006 on III Acquisition's motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint.  The court dismissed it
with leave to re-plead.


IMPSAT FIBER: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 14,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Nov. 1, 2001, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company,
certain individuals who were then officers and directors of the
company, and the underwriters to the company's initial public
offering.

This suit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all
shareholders that the company and its underwriters violated
various provisions of the securities laws in connection with the
IPO in February 2000.

Pursuant to the plan, the plaintiffs in the IPO class action
received in connection with their claims the assignment of any
insurance proceeds, which the company receives in connection
with the litigation, but otherwise the claims of the plaintiffs
against the company or any of its other assets, have been
discharged as part of the Chapter 11 proceedings.

Pursuant to a court order in August 2001, the suit was
consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92," an intra-district
proceeding involving approximately 900 lawsuits relating to the
initial public offerings of approximately 310 companies.

In July 2002, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which was denied as to the company and one
individual officer in February 2003.

In April 2003, the company was advised that global settlement
discussions between the plaintiffs and its insurer, on behalf of
the company and the individual defendants, to resolve
plaintiffs' claims against all 310 companies had reached an
advanced stage.

Among other things, the proposed settlement would result in a
broad release of claims against the company, its officers and
directors, and other issuers, and their officers and directors
without a direct financial contribution by the company.

Settlement papers seeking preliminary approval of the settlement
and certification of the investor class were submitted to the
court in June 2004.  

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposal settlement.  Final approval of the settlement is
pending.

The suit is "In Re IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

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

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


INDIAN TRUST: "Cobell" Assigned to D.C. Judge James Robertson
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan has assigned the case
"Cobell v. Norton," which is now known as "Cobell v. Kempthorne"
to Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in
Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  It seeks to force
the federal government to account for billions of dollars
belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians and their
heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.  

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest
form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to
surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR."
     
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;  
  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;  
  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:  
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and
  
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:  
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.  

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact

     (1) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

     (2) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and
   
     (3) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Appeals Court Allows Surestep Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court of appeal in Canada refused a request by defendants in a
lawsuit over Surestep to challenge the dismissal of their motion
to appeal the suit's certification, according to an update by
the law firm of Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

The law firms of Sutts, Strosberg LLP in Windsor and Toronto and
Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto have acted together to prosecute a
lawsuit against:

     * Johnson & Johnson,
     * LifeScan Inc., and
     * LifeScan Canada Ltd.

on behalf of persons who purchased a SureStep home blood glucose
monitor manufactured before August 1997 and/or the related
SureStep test strips manufactured prior to March 1998.

This action concerns the design, development, testing,
manufacturing, licensing, assembly, distribution, marketing and
sale of the SureStep Meter and Strips, and the failure of the
defendants to report significant defects in the SureStep Meter
and Strips to regulatory authorities and to disclose defects
known to them to the public.

Because of the alleged defects present in the SureStep Meter and
Strips, their use in measuring diabetics' blood glucose levels
could produce grossly inaccurate results.  The plaintiffs plead
that the SureStep Meter and Strips were dangerously defective
devices that could cause personal injury, even death.

A similar class action brought on behalf of SureStep users in
the U.S. settled in November 2001.  The defendants in that
action have agreed to pay the U.S. class members $45,000,000.  
The settlement does not affect Canadian class members.

The certification motion was heard in Toronto on April 7 and 8,
2004.  Mr. Justice Cullity is the case management and class
action judge.

On July 6, 2004 Mr. Justice Cullity released his reasons
certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the decision of Mr.
Justice Cullity.  On Oct. 15, 2004, Mr. Justice Ground granted
leave.  

On Jan. 31, 2006, the Divisional Court heard the defendants'
appeal of Mr. Justice Cullity's certification order and reserved
its decision.  On June 15, 2006, the Divisional Court dismissed
the defendants' appeal.  

The defendants sought leave to appeal the June 15, 2006 decision
of the Divisional Court.  On Oct. 16, 2006, the Court of Appeal
dismissed the defendants' application for leave.

Representing the plaintiffs is Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Toll Free
Line: 800.229.5323.

Representing the defendants are: McCarthy Tetrault LLP, Suite
4700, Toronton Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6; Michael
E. Barrack, Phone: (416)601-7894; Caroline Zayld, Phone
(416)601-7768, Fax: (416) 868-0673.


MARIANA ISLANDS: CNMI, Finance Face Suit Over $24M Tax Rebates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and its
Department of Finance were named as defendants in a purported
federal class action for allegedly failing to pay over $24
million in tax rebates from 2002 to 2005, The Saipan Tribune
reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern Mariana Islands on behalf of Amanda Armstrong, Hui Min
Zhao, Xiu Zhen Qi, Mei Lian Chen, Edward Lieberman, and 24
unnamed co-plaintiffs.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Alexis Fallon, her clients
bring the court action on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated who paid income taxes in the CNMI and who
have been denied payment and return of their rebates, accrued
interest and or a meaningful offset against present and future
tax liabilities.

Specifically, the alleges that, not only has the government
failed to pay some authorized tax rebates going back to 2002, it
has also failed to pay any interest on rebates past due or
promulgate any procedure to permit wage earners to offset their
rebates with accrued interest against their future income tax
liabilities, thus violating federal and local laws in the
process.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that interest is owed
on the rebates and that taxpayers are entitled to either an
offset the money owed to them against taxes owed on wages or
payment.  They also asked the court to bar the CNMI government
from expending funds set aside in the Special Rebate Trust
Account.

In addition, plaintiffs want the court to declare that the 2002
through 2005 income tax returns they have already filed
adequately exhaust administrative remedies such that they and
class members are entitled to bring a tax refund action to
recover rebates and interest.

They also asked the court to issue an order requiring the
government to notify them and all class members of their
entitlement to an offset in their present tax liability and
establish a procedure and schedule for such remedy to be made.

The suit is "Armstrong et al v. CNMI et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
Mariana Islands under Judge Alex R. Munson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Alexis Fallon of Fallon Law
Offices, PMB 504 P.O. Box 10000, Saipan, MP 96950, Phone: (670)
323-0061, Fax: (670) 323-1061, E-mail: alexisfallon@usa.net.


MIDWEST AIR: Faces Shareholder's Suit in Wis. Over "Poison Pill"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder of Midwest Air Group Inc. filed a purported class
action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin in
relation to a takeover attempt of the company by AirTran
Holdings Inc., The BizTimes Daily reports.

Linda Garrett, a resident of Lufkin, Texas, filed the suit last
week, seeking class-action status against Midwest Air in a bid
to force the board to drop the "poison pill" provision.

Ms. Garrett is represented in the case by Gregory Nespole of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York City, and Noah
Golden-Krasner of the Progressive Law Group LLC in Madison, who
will serve as a local counsel.

The board of directors of Midwest Air Group, the Oak Creek-based
parent company of Midwest Airlines, adopted a "poison pill"
provision in February 2006 as a tool to thwart hostile takeover
bids.  

In essence, the provision would allow the Midwest board to issue
additional stock shares to make a takeover of the company
virtually unfeasible.

The report cited Mr. Nespole saying that the Midwest board is
"hiding behind the poison pill," which poses an "unreasonable
impediment" to an outside buyer.

He adds that through their suit, they seek to have the company
either terminate the poison pill or make it inapplicable to the
AirTran offer.

The "poison pill" would kick in when any person or institution
acquires 15 percent of the company's outstanding stock shares.

Mr. Nespole describes Ms. Garrett as simply an individual
shareholder who owns "a fair amount of shares," and she has "no
axe" to grind against the company, the report said.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Gregory M. Nespole, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
         York 10016, Phone: 212-545-4657, Fax: 212-545-4758, Web
         site: http://www.whafh.com;and

     (2) Noah M. Golden-Krasner of Progressive Law Group, LLC,
         354 Main St., Madison, WI 53703, Phone: (608) 258-8511,
         Web site: http://www.progressivelawgroup.com.


PREMIUM STANDARD: Still Faces Complaints Over Swine Farms in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Standard Farms, Inc. continues to face a suit filed in
the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri by
people living near the company's swine farms in northern
Missouri.

The suit was filed against ContiGroup Companies, Inc., Premium
Standard Farms, Inc., and PSF Group Holdings, Inc.

Two suits based on the law of nuisance,

     * "Steven Adwell, et al. vs. PSF, et al.," and
     * "Michael Adwell, et al. vs. PSF, et al."

were filed against ContiGroup Companies, Inc. and Premium
Standard Farms, Inc. in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Kansas City, Missouri.

A jury trial involving six plaintiffs in the Steven Adwell case
resulted in a jury verdict of compensatory damages for those six
plaintiffs in the amount of $750,000 each for a total of $4.5
million.  The jury also found ContiGroup and the company liable
for punitive damages, however, the parties agreed to settle for
the amount of the compensatory damages and the plaintiffs waived
punitive damages.

There are 29 plaintiffs remaining in the "Steven Adwell, et al.
vs. PSF, et al." case as well as 24 plaintiffs remaining in the
"Michael Adwell, et al. vs. PSF, et al." case.  

Two other nuisance lawsuits,

     * "Fred Torrey, et al. vs. PSF, et al.," and
     * "Doyle Bounds, et al. vs. PSF, et al."  

were filed in March of 2004 by the same attorneys.

Two additional nuisance suits were filed in May 2004 in Daviess
County Circuit Court, Gallatin, Missouri entitled,

     * "Vernon Hanes et al. v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc. et
        al.," and
     * "Steve Hanes et al. v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., et
        al."

The same lawyer who represents Mr. Hanes has filed another
nuisance lawsuit in June 2005 entitled, "William J. Engel, III,
et al. vs. PSF, et al."

There are multiple plaintiffs in each suit, who claim to live
near swine farms owned or under contract with the company.  
Plaintiffs allege that these farms interfered with the
plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their respective properties.

On May 2004, the same lead lawyer who filed the Adwell, Bounds
and Torrey lawsuits filed a class action,

     "Daniel Herrold, et al. v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc,
      Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and PSF Group Holdings,
      Inc."

in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri.

The action seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within
10 miles of the company's farms in northern Missouri, including
contract grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered
interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective
properties.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 23, 2006.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Accused of Receiving 401(k) Plan Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group is facing a lawsuit filed by the
trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan in
Illinois over allegations that the company received secret
kickbacks from mutual funds, the DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis in
December.  It accuses the company's subsidiary Principal Life
Insurance Co. in Des Moines, Iowa of receiving the payments from
mutual funds that were in its 401(k) plan.  The practice
allegedly violated Principal's responsibility to negotiate fees
that mutual funds charge, according to the report.

Fairmount Park is seeking class-action status for the suit.  
Principal has denied wrongdoing.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Col. Court Refuses to Certify "Rathbun"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marlys Rathbun and Leroy Rathbun, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, is appealing to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit an order denying
certification to "Rathbun v. Qwest Communications International,
Inc."

On Oct. 18, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and denied
their motion for partial summary judgment.  

The plaintiffs are suing:
     * Qwest Communications International Inc., and
     * Qwest Telephone Concession Plan

on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries for the Qwest
Savings and Investment Plan for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking:

     -- reformation of the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan and
        the documents governing it to comply with ERISA;

     -- an Order requiring Qwest to fund the Qwest Telephone
        Concession Plan, as reformed, in accordance with ERISA's
        funding provisions;

     -- the appointment of an independent fiduciary to
        administer the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan and
        manage its assets including its right to receive
        contributions from Qwest in compliance with ERISA; and

     -- an Order requiring the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan
        to reinstate the benefits to Plaintiffs and other class
        members consistent with the terms of the Qwest Telephone
        Concession Plan, as reformed.

The lawsuit also seeks a determination that the Plan is a
defined benefit pension plan covered by ERISA, seeks to reform
the Plan so that it complies with ERISA and also seeks to
restore telephone concession benefits to retirees of Qwest (or
its predecessors, such as U.S. West) and its employees who were
vested in the Plan pursuant to ERISA.

Since March 2002, putative class actions were filed under ERISA
against Qwest Communications International, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries for the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans, or the Plan from March
7,1999 to the present.

                          Allegations

The ERISA suits allege, among other things that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and
beneficiaries by allegedly:

     -- allowing excessive concentration of the Plan's assets in
        Qwest's stock;
  
     -- requiring certain participants in the Plan to hold the
        matching contributions received from Qwest in the Qwest
        Shares Fund;

     -- failing to disclose to the participants the alleged
        accounting improprieties that are the subject of the
        consolidated securities action;

     -- failing to investigate the prudence of investing in
        Qwest's stock;

     -- continuing to offer Qwest's stock as an investment
        option under the Plan;

     -- failing to investigate the effect of the Merger on Plan
        assets and then failing to vote the Plan's shares
        against it;

     -- preventing Plan participants from acquiring Qwest's
        stock during certain periods, and,

     -- as against some of the individual defendants,
        capitalizing on their private knowledge of Qwest's
        financial condition to reap profits in stock sales.

In December of 2003, Qwest announced that, beginning in January
of 2004, it would no longer provide the Telephone Concession to
retirees and employees after they retired, who had been
receiving the Telephone Concession, and lived outside the Qwest
service area.

A copy of the amended complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d03.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the District Court granted Qwest motion for
summary judgment on the ground that the concession Program is
not an ERISA plan, and entered judgment in Qwest's favor on all
claims, with cost.

A copy of the Oct. 18 court order is available for free at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18d9

The suit is "Rathbun v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00711-LTB-MJW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T.
Babcock, with referral to Judge Michael J. Watanabe.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laurie B. Ashton of Keller Rohrback, PLC, 3101 North
         Central Avenue, #900 Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248-
         0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail:
         lashton@kellerrohrback.com;

     (2) Robert Joseph Barton and Whitney R. Case both of Cohen,
         Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC-Washington, DC, 1100
         New York Avenue, NW, West Tower #500, Washington, DC
         20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, E-
         mail: jbarton@cmht.com and wcase@cmht.com; and

     (3) John F. Head of Head & Associates, P.C., 730
         Seventeenth Street, #740 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-
         623-6000, Fax: 303-623-4211, E-mail:
         jfhead@headlawyers.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael Brian Carroll and Christopher J. Koenigs both
         of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- Denver, U.S.
         District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth Street, #3000
         Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-299-8474 and 303-299-8458,
         Fax: 303-298-0940, E-mail: mcarroll@sah.com and
         ckoenigs@sah.com; and

     (2) Stephanie J. Quincy of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.-
         Phoenix, 1850 North Central Avenue, #500 Phoenix, AZ
         85004, Phone: 602-636-2000, Fax: 602-234-7979, E-mail:
         squincy@sah.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Col. Court Vacates ERISA Lawsuit Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado vacated a
four-day trial set for Jan. 22-25, 2007 in the pension death
benefit litigation "Kerber et al. v. Qwest."

The suit was filed by Edward J. Kerber, Nelson B. Phelps, Joanne
West, Nancy A. Meister, Thomas J. Ingemann, Jr. individually,
and as representative of plan participants and plan
beneficiaries of the Qwest Pension Plan, against:

     -- Qwest Pension Plan,
     -- Qwest Employees Benefit Committee,
     -- Qwest Pension Plan Design Committee, and
     -- Qwest Communications International, Inc.

The case was brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by the plaintiffs.  A second amended complaint
charges that Qwest Defendants have wrongfully re-classified the
Pension Death Benefit as a "welfare" or mere take-a-way benefit
and wrongfully amended the Qwest Pension Plan so as to cease
paying Pension Death Benefits to the beneficiaries of plan
participants who retired after Jan. 1, 2004.  

In September 2006, plaintiffs moved the court to certify the
suit as class action against the Qwest defendants on behalf of a
class of all Qwest Pension Plan participants (and beneficiaries
thereof) who retired and are receiving either a service pension
annuity or disability pension annuity, and all those persons
(and beneficiaries thereof) who retired on or after Jan. 1, 2004
and received a lump sum distribution of their service pension
annuity, minus the lump sum present value of the Pension Death
Benefit.

The plaintiffs also asked for the appointment of Curtis L.
Kennedy as class counsel.

Class Certification Motion: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1359
Final Pre-trial Order: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18d8

The suit is Civil Action No. 05-cv-00478-BNB-PAC filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The QWest defendants are represented by:

     (1) Elizabeth I. Kiovsky, Esq. and Beth Doherty Quinn, Esq.
         at Baird & Kiovsky, LLC, 2036 E. 17th Ave. Denver, CO
         80206-1106, Phone: 303-813-4500, Fax: 303-813-4501,
         E-mail: BethK@bairdkiovsky.com or BDQ@bairdkiovsky.com;
         and

     (2) Sherwin S. Kaplan, Esq. of The Len Reid & Priest LLP,
         701 Eighth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001, Phone:
         202.508.4218, Fax: 202.654.1845, E-mail:
         skaplan@thelenreid.com.

Representing the plaintiffs is Curtis L. Kennedy, 8405 East
Princeton Avenue, Denver, CO 80237-1741, Phone: 303-770-0440,
Fax: 303-843-0360, E-mail: CurtisLKennedy@aol.com.


SALTON INC: Still Faces N.Y. Injury Litigation Over Teakettles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York
State Supreme Court seeking damages for claims that plaintiffs
were injured by water contaminated with lead from teakettles the
company sold under its Russell Hobbs brand.

The suit, "DiNatale v. Salton, Inc.," filed on or about Oct. 27,
2004, seeks unspecified damages.  The plaintiffs' attorney was
asking to convert the lawsuit into a class action, but no class
action has since been filed, according to the company's Form 10-
Q Nov. 14, 2006 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) -- http://www.saltoninc.com.


STATE FARM: Chiropractors File Suit Over Reduced Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois chiropractors filed a class action complaint in Madison
County Circuit Court against State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
claiming the company uses improper managed-care tactics to
reduce reimbursement to health-care providers, the Madison
County Record reports.

The class consists of all licensed health-care providers in
Illinois who were reimbursed Preferred Provider Organization
(PPO) payments for regular medical services by State Farm.

Named chiropractor plaintiffs, Frank Bemis, D.C. and Richard
Martis, D.C., say State Farm systematically takes improper
Preferred Provider Organization network reductions on its
payments for medical treatment.

According to the complaint, this "improper" practice is known in
the insurance industry as a "silent PPO," and State Farm reduced
the payments by claiming PPO benefits without any evidence that
PPO agreements actually existed.

A PPO is a managed care technique that involves a network of
health care providers who offer discounted rates for their
services in exchange for a higher volume of patients.

The plaintiffs claim they did not know beforehand that their
patients were even covered by a health plan or that their health
plan would seek PPO discounted rates, and that even if State
Farm had a valid PPO agreement, it did not live up to its end,
by failing to refer patients to the plaintiffs.

They are seeking individually and on behalf of the class for the
court to award them and the class members their individual
damages and attorneys' fees and allowable costs, but in no event
shall it exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest.

The class is represented by:

     (1) The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229, Wood
         River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127 or (800)
         851-5523 (Toll Free);

     (2) Campbell & McGrady Law Office, 104 E Chestnut St.,
         Gillespie, IL 62033, Phone: 217-839-2129; and

     (3) Donald Birner, 2613 Mayflower Dr., Pekin, IL 61554,
         Phone: (309) 347-7058, Fax: (309) 347-7059.


TELLABS INC: Supreme Court to Hear Ill. Securities Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by Tellabs Inc.
against a decision by a U.S. appeals court in Chicago allowing
the case to go forward, according to Stanford Securities.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.  
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against  
Tellabs Inc., Michael Birck, and Richard Notebaert, the
company's former chief executive, president and director.  

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine
of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the company's current or former officers and/or directors.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period -- Dec. 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001 -- the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products,
and reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in
the company's financial statements.  

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the company pertaining to these
matters.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the
consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead.  

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.  On Feb.
19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and
dismissed the action with prejudice.   

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on Jan. 21, 2005.  On Jan. 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and
reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and
remanding for further proceedings.  

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.    
On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to
file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by
the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  

On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion.  On Sept.
22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to
dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.  

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme  
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-04356," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.

Representing defendant Tellabs, Inc. is David F. Graham at  
Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-7000, E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com.  

Representing plaintiff Thomas Johnson is Steven G. Schulman at  
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.


UNITED STATES: N.Y. Judge Junks Claims Against Firms in WTC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alvin Hellerstein dismissed claims against:

     * Consolidated Edison Co., and
     * Silverstein Properties,

but allowed claims to stand against New York, its contractors
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in a suit
related to the cleanup of the World Trade Center after the Sept.
11 terrorist attack in the U.S., according to the Web site of 9-
11 Research http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html.   

Two class actions have been filed on behalf of individuals
exposed to Ground Zero toxins.  One suit was filed in March 2004
by Berger & Montague, naming as defendants the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

In September 2004, the law firm of Worby, Groner, Edelman, &
Napoli, Bern, LLP initiated the first major class action on
behalf of Ground Zero cleanup workers and others against
managers, owners, controllers and leasors of the World Trade
Center complex.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for victims and to establish
funding for medical testing for all those exposed to these
poisons.

On Oct. 17, 2006, federal judge Alvin Hellerstein dismissed
claims against Consolidated Edison Co. and Silverstein
Properties, but allowed claims to stand aginst the city, its
contractors and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The second suit is "Aalbue et al. v. 1 World Trade Center LLC et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-04702-AKH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K.  
Hellerstein.  Representing the defendants is James E. Tyrrell of  
Patton Boggs LLP, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone:  
(973) 868-5600, Fax: (973) 639-7298.

Representing the plaintiffs is David E. Worby of Worby Groner  
Edelman LLP, 11 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York  
10606,Phone: 914-686-3700 or 212-732-3410, Fax: 914-686-8080.


US TOY: Steps up Recall of Necklaces with High Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Toy Co. Inc., of Grandview, Missouri, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
113, 800 children's butterfly necklaces, with an additional
29,000 necklaces that were recalled in December 2006.

The company said the pendant on the necklace contains high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled necklaces have pendants shaped as butterflies that
are painted in various colors.  The pendants hang from a black
cord.  The necklace's package is blue cardboard with images of
flowers and butterflies and the words "Butterfly Necklace"
printed on the front and "Item#JA298" on the back.

The butterfly necklaces were manufactured in China and are being
sold at U.S. Toy Co. retail stores and children's and small
discount stores nationwide and online: http://www.ustoy.comfrom  
August 2006 through December 2006 for about $5 per dozen.

Picture of the recalled butterfly necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07082.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take this jewelry away from
children. Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to the
store where purchased for a free replacement product, or contact
U.S. Toy Co. for information on returning recalled necklaces
purchased on the Web site.

For additional information, contact U.S. Toy Co. at (800) 832-
0224 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday, or
visit: http://www.ustoy.com.


WEBMETHODS INC: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to give final approval to the settlement of a
consolidated securities class action against webMethods, Inc.,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

A purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York in 2001 that named the
company and several of its executive officers at the time of its
initial public offering and the managing underwriters of its IPO
as defendants.

This action made various claims, including that alleged actions
by underwriters of its IPO were not disclosed in the
registration statement and final prospectus for its IPO or
disclosed to the public after its IPO, and sought unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of its
common stock between Feb. 10, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.

This action was consolidated with similar actions against more
than 300 companies as part of "In Re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  

Claims against the company's executive officer defendants have
been dismissed without prejudice.  The company considered and
agreed with representatives of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated proceeding to enter into a proposed settlement,
which was amended in March 2005 and preliminarily approved by
the court in late Aug. 2005.

A fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006, and a motion for
final approval of the settlement is currently under submission
before the court.

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and
release their claims against the company in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the
consolidated action and assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs by the settling issuers of certain claims that may be
held against the underwriter defendants, plus reasonable
cooperation with the plaintiffs with respect to their claims
against the underwriter defendants.

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


* Seyfarth Shaw: 2006 Class Action Trends to Continue in 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
The third Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report by
national law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP examining leading class
action and collective action decisions in 2006 involving
workplace issues definitively notes that the leading trends that
defined 2006 will continue in 2007:

     -- federal and state courts faced a myriad of new theories
        and defenses in ruling on class action and collective
        action litigation issues; and

     -- employment class action and collective action litigation
        has become more sophisticated and will remain a source
        of significant financial exposure to employers well into
        the future.

The Seyfarth Shaw report is organized on a circuit-by- circuit
and state-by-state basis of class action and collective action
rulings involving claims brought against employers in all fifty
state court systems, including decisions pertaining to
employment discrimination laws, wage & hour laws, and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act actions.

The key class action settlements are analyzed both in terms of
gross settlement dollars in private plaintiff and government-
initiated lawsuits as well as injunctive relief provisions in
consent decrees.  In total, the report analyzes 407 rulings
issued over the past 12 months.

As an additional benefit, this year's report also includes
important federal and state court rulings in non- workplace
cases which are significant in their impact on the defense of
workplace class action litigation.

As in past years, Seyfarth Shaw analyzes the impact of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 on workplace litigation, and its
effects on litigation strategy and the structuring of class
actions filed against employers.

"This report, which has become an expected resource of analysis
from Seyfarth Shaw, is a guide for corporate counsel to navigate
through the increasingly litigious environment of workplace
law," stated Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., general editor of the
report and co-chair, Complex Discrimination Litigation Practice
Group of Seyfarth Shaw.

"It is a useful and comprehensive guide for corporate decision-
makers to understand and apprehend the key trends and leading
rulings of the past year to strategically plan ahead."

The report, authored by Seyfarth Shaw's employment attorneys,
underscores and highlights the strategies of the private
plaintiffs' bar and government enforcement attorneys in their
pursuit of class action and collective action litigation against
employers.

Mr. Maatman noted, "While shareholder and securities class
action filings decreased dramatically in 2006, employment-
related class action filings increased significantly.
Anecdotally, surveys of corporate counsel confirmed that
workplace litigation -- and especially class action and
multiple-plaintiff lawsuits -- is the chief exposure driving
corporate legal budget expenditures.  The need to presciently
identify, address, and remediate class action exposure must
remain at or near the top of every corporate counsel's priority
list for 2007."

Conveniently organized, the report is divided into chapters that
highlight the year in review;

     -- significant federal employment discrimination class
        actions and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
        (EEOC) pattern or practice rulings;

     -- significant class action and collective action rulings
        under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
        the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Employee
        Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974; and

     -- a host of other federal statutes applicable to workplace
        issues.

"It is a fact of the modern American workplace that class action
and collective action litigation is very attractive to the
plaintiffs' bar," stated J. Stephen Poor, Managing Partner of
Seyfarth Shaw.

"The stakes in such litigation can be extremely significant, as
the financial and operational impact of such cases are enormous.
Consistently, we are seeing that workplace class actions can
adversely affect the market share of a major corporation and can
prejudice its reputation in the marketplace."

Highlights of this year's report include:

     -- If trials of class actions were rare, settlements of
        class actions in 2006 reflected a continuing trend from
        past years where significant monetary payments were made
        in mega-class actions.

Settlements in FLSA collective actions and ERISA class action
outpaced employment discrimination class action settlements in
terms of overall settlement values. Of particular note were a
series of ERISA settlements stemming from the meltdown of Enron.

     -- FLSA collective action litigation increased again in
        2006 and far outpaced employment discrimination class
        action filings.

While plaintiffs continued to achieve certification of wage &
hour claims, employers also secured several significant
victories in defeating conditional certification and obtaining
decertification of A 216 (b) collective actions.  Of particular
significance were a series of FLSA collective actions in the
financial services industry.  Big impact FLSA collective actions
are expected to continue this trend in 2007.

     -- There were no class action rulings in 2006 quite like
        the certification order in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart
        Stores, Inc., which certified a Title VII gender
        discrimination claim challenging pay and promotions
        involving 1.5 million class members.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard argument
on the appeal of the Dukes certification order on August 8,
2005.  Many expected a ruling in 2006, but none came.  The Ninth
Circuit's future ruling in Dukes -- and further appellate
proceedings thereafter -- likely will be one of the top class
action developments in 2007 and beyond.  

At the same time, the certification order in Dukes, et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. impacted many class action developments in
2006.  The plaintiffs' bar increasingly used the theories in the
Dukes case to seek certification of "punitive damages" only
classes under Rule 23(b)(2), as well as pressing for
certification of mega-classes involving pay and promotion claims
of employees in multiple facilities on a nationwide basis.  
Employers fought these theories with good success, as 2006
witnessed may pro-employer victories in class certification
battles.

     -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission became
        increasingly activist on the litigation front in 2006.

The Commission announced a new strategic enforcement and
litigation plan in April of 2006; that plan centers on systemic
discrimination cases with broad impact and affecting large
numbers of workers, such that prosecution of pattern or practice
lawsuits is now an agency-wide priority.  As a result, the EEOC
is focusing its investigations and resources on systemic
discrimination issues, and institution of EEOC pattern or
practice lawsuits increased dramatically in 2006.

Employers are likely to face even more such claims in 2007.

     -- Congressional enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act
        of 2005 was a significant development for employers
        facing class action litigation.  

The CAFA was intended to address the abuses of state court
judges certifying class actions involving plaintiffs from
numerous states in jurisdictions with a reputation for a lack of
fairness toward out-of-state defendants.  As a result, the CAFA
allows defendants to remove what were formerly "non-diverse"
state law-based class actions if one member of the class and one
defendant are citizens of different states, the class involves
more than 100 people, and the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

The statute's impact over the past year has been significant.  
More class actions are being filed in federal courts, and more
intrastate class actions are being heard in federal courts
through the removal mechanisms under the CAFA.  

Because the law's provisions are designed to prevent plaintiffs'
counsel from keeping class actions in state court that are more
appropriately litigated in federal court, the CAFA forecloses
the pleading tactic of requesting damages of less than $75,000
per class member (i.e., the jurisdictional limit for a federal
court to hear a claim involving plaintiffs and defendants of
different states) to stymie a defendant from removing the
lawsuit to federal court.

Over the last year, employers repeatedly and successfully
invoked the statute to effectuate the removal of class actions
filed in state court to federal court. In turn, federal courts
issued a myriad of rulings on novel issues arising under the
CAFA.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP contact: Terence Gordon, Director of
Communications - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Phone: (212) 218-5273, E-
mail: tgordon@seyfarth.com, Website: http://www.seyfarth.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success
CM098
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SECURE COMPUTING: Federman Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Jan. 19, 2007, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Secure Computing Corp.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from May 4, 2006 through July 11, 2006.

Interested parties may move for appointment as lead plaintiff no
later than March 20, 2007.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Announces Securities Suit Filing in D.C. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Sunrise
Senior Living, Inc. (SRZ) between Aug. 4, 2005 and June 15,
2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

Case Contact: Evan J. Smith, Esquire Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire
Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004 E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com, or by calling toll free
877-LEGAL-90.


                            *********


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  * * *