CAR_Public/070130.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 21

                            Headlines

AMERICANWEST BANK: Seeks to Decertify Ex-Worker's Suit in Wash.
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles for Injury, Death Risks
BOTTEGA VENETA: Settles Lawsuit by Calif. Credit Card Holders
CAPITAL GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
DETOUR CORP: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Electrocution Hazard

DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Settles S.C. Priest Abuse Suit for $12M
DITECH COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Complaint
ELECTRONIC DATA: Fifth Circuit Vacates, Remands Tex. ERISA Case
EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Fla. Court Considers Dismissal of Inmates' Suit
EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Discovery Proceeds in Trading Practices Suits

FALL RIVER: Faces Mass. Suit Over Fair Housing Act Violations
GUIDANT CORP: Ind. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion
HOLMES GROUP: Recalls Oscillating Tower Fans Due to Fire Hazard
HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Hepa A Exposure in Ill.
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Objector Appeals Orders in "Nuanes" Deal

INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates Stock Grants Suits
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Class Certification Sought for Stock Lawsuit
MASTEC INC: Fla. Judge Approves $10M Securities Suit Settlement
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wis. Judge Chooses Stock Suit Lead Plaintiff

MICROSOFT CORP: Question on Plaintiff-Lawyer Relation Rejected
PC MALL: Faces Calif. Workers' Suit Over "Exempt" Classification
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Supreme Court Remands Suit Over DVD Player
PRIMUS FINANCIAL: Tenn. Court to Mull Final OK for "Borlay" Deal
REPUBLIC COS: No Class Certified in La. Katrina-Related Suit

REPUBLIC FIRE: No Class Certified in La. Insurance Policy Suit
SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face IPO Suit in N.Y. Court
SEI INVESTMENTS: Md. Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal in "Carey"
SPARK NETWORKS: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in "Adelman" Case
STATE FARM: Judge Rejects $50M Settlement of Katrina Claims

TJX COS: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Client Information Leak
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Settles Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
VERMONT ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Over Fiber Optic Cable Installation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in La.


                            *********


AMERICANWEST BANK: Seeks to Decertify Ex-Worker's Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmericanWest Bank seeks to decertify a class action filed by
Dean Bellamy, a former loan officer who claims that the bank
breached employment agreement when it discontinued an incentive-
based compensation plan, The Journal of Business reports.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Feb. 16 in Spokane
Superior Court in Washington.

The class members are former and current loan officers at
AmericanWest who worked under a two-year compensation plan,
which was dumped shortly after a new management took over.

Kevin W. Roberts, Mr. Bellamy's attorney, contends that new
AmericanWest President and CEO Robert M. Daugherty abruptly
curtailed the compensation plan that loan officers had been
promised would last for two years.

Mr. Bellamy alleged that in early 2005, the bank refused to pay
wages owed him under the incentive program.  He contends that
the bank's breach of compensation agreement resulted in him
being "constructively discharged."

The suit seeks damages fro breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, wrongful discharges and other alleged
improprieties.

Stephen Matthews, one of the lawyers representing AmericanWest
told The Journal that the bank acted appropriately and fairly.  

He also said that the language of the 2004 incentives in which
Mr. Bellamy's claim is based, gave the bank officials unlimited
discretion over incentives and clearly outlined the bank's right
to discontinue the program altogether.

For more details, contact Kevin W. Roberts of Dunn & Black,
P.S., North 10 Post, Ste. 200, Spokane, WA 99201-0705, Phone:
(509) 455-8711, Fax: (509) 455-8734, Web site:
http://www.dunnandblack.com/.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles for Injury, Death Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 1,500 units of 90cc DVX and Utility model all-terrain
vehicles (ATVs).

The company said that on the recalled ATVs, the handlebar base
mounting bolts, tie-rod ends and tie-rod adjustment locking nuts
may not have been tightened to the proper torque during the
production process.  Operating an affected ATV could cause
components to loosen resulting in loss of steering control.  
This condition could result in loss of vehicle control, which
could result in injury or death.

Arctic Cat has received no reports of loose steering components
or of injury related to this condition.

The recall includes 2007 model 90cc DVX youth model ATVs within
the VIN range of RFB07ATV07K6F0243 through RFB07ATVX7K6F0752,
and 90cc Utility youth model ATVs within the VIN range of
RFB07ATV07K6D1367 through RFB07ATVX7K6D2400.  

The range refers to the last six characters of the VIN.  These
models are designed for used by operators 12 years old and
older.  

The 90cc DVX model is available in Lime Green or Red, and has
the model name DVX 90 on each side of the fuel tank, and Arctic
Cat on each side of the seat.  

The 90cc Utility model is available in Marsh Green or Red, and
has the name Arctic Cat on each side of the fuel tank and 90 on
each side panel near operator's leg position.

These recalled ATVs were manufactured in Taiwan and are being
sold by Arctic Cat dealerships nationwide from August 2006
through January 2007 for about $2,200.

Pictures of the recalled ATVs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07523a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07523b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these ATVs immediately.  
Registered owners have been notified about this recall by mail.  
Consumers with a recalled ATV should contact their local Arctic
Cat ATV dealer to schedule a free repair.

For additional information, contact Arctic Cat at (800) 279-6851
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or go to the
firm's Web site: http://www.arctic-cat.com.


BOTTEGA VENETA: Settles Lawsuit by Calif. Credit Card Holders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bottega Veneta, Inc. reached a settlement in a lawsuit filed by
credit card holders in California who accused the company
violating California Civil Code Section 1747.08.

The suit claims that the company is in violation of the statute
by requesting or requiring that credit card customers provide
personal information, such as address, phone number, or e-mail
address, in situations where doing so was prohibited.  

The action seeks an award of civil penalties against Bottega
Veneta, Inc. as a result of this alleged conduct.

The class is defined as all persons who:

     -- purchased merchandise with a credit card from a
        Bottega Veneta store in California between June 8,
        2004 and June 8, 2005 and whose purchase did not
        involve Shipping or Delivery of the merchandise, an    
        Alteration or Repair, a Special Order, or a Customer
        Contact Request; and

     -- for whom Bottega Veneta has a database entry containing
        the person's address, phone number, or e-mail address.

                     Settlement Benefits

The proposed settlement provides class members with a $40.00
credit certificate.  Credit Certificates are valid only for in-
store purchases (not online or phone purchases) of full price
merchandise (not services) at the Bottega Veneta stores in Costa
Mesa, Beverly Hills, and San Francisco only, and may not be
redeemed for cash or a gift card. Credit Certificates cannot be
used in conjunction with any other offer, sale, or discount.

Credit Certificates expire six months after date of mailing, are
not transferable, and are limited to one per transaction and one
per customer.  The Credit Certificate must be used in one
transaction.  Benefits currently expire April 30, 2007.

The deadline for filing claims is on July 10, 2006.

The suit is "Janet Sarnoff, et al. v. Bottega Veneta, Inc., Case
No. BC 334709," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

For more details, contact The Bottega Veneta Settlement
Administrator, c/o Class Action Administration, Inc., P.O. Box
6848, Broomfield, CO 80021-0015, Phone: 1888-540-4426, Web site:
http://www.classactionadmin.com/projects/bottega/index.htm.


CAPITAL GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased one or more of the funds identified
below which were distributed by American Funds Distributors (AFD
Funds) during the period Jan. 1, 2000 through March 23, 2005.

The suit generally alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to
The Stanford Securities Class Action Clearing House.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Capital Group Companies, Inc.,
     -- Capital Research and Management Co., and
     -- American Funds Distributors Inc.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose a
deceitful and unlawful course of conduct in which they
participated in an illicit kickback scheme, which operated to
the detriment of investors in the AFD Funds.

Specifically, according to the complaint, during the class
period, defendants participated in an illicit kickback scheme,
which operated to the detriment of investors in the AFD Funds.

Defendants actively concealed their use and improperly used
hundreds of millions of dollars in assets of the AFD Funds for
the payment of illicit incentives and illegal kickbacks to cause
broker-dealers to actively promote AFD Funds.

Plaintiff further alleges that defendants actively concealed
these conflicts of interest involving AFD Funds from plaintiff
and other members of the class, thereby depriving them of
necessary information for making investment decisions.

The first identified complaint is "Edward Shaftan v. Capital
Group Companies Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00333-R-CW," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Manuel L. Real, with referral to Judge
Carla Woehrle.

Representing plaintiffs are Nicholas J. Licato and Arthur L
Shingler, III both of Scott and Scott, 600 B Street, Suite 1500,
San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-233-4565, E-mail:
licatolaw@att.net.


DETOUR CORP: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Electrocution Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Detour Corp., doing business as Version-X, of Studio City,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 18,000 units of Travel'N Baby
Mini Hair Dryers.

The company said these electric hair dryers are not equipped
with an immersion protection plug to prevent electrocution if
the hair dryer falls into water.  Electric shock protection
devices are required by industry standards for all electric
hand-held hair dryers.  If the hair dryer falls into water
during use and is not equipped with this safety device, it can
pose a shock and/or an electrocution hazard to consumers.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled hair dryers are made of plastic and are red, blue
or green. The hair dryer's handle folds up. The words "Travel'N
Baby" are printed on one side of the hair dryer.

These recalled mini hair dryers were manufactured in China,
distributed by Metropolis Beauty Inc., of Los Angeles,
California and being sold by independent beauty supply stores
and beauty salons nationwide and online at
http://www.metropolisbeauty.comfrom January 2004 through  
January 2005 for about $20.

Picture of recalled mini hair dryers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07087.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these hair dryers
immediately and contact Version-X for a replacement hair dryer
equipped with an immersion protection plug.

For more information, call Version-X at (800) 871-6824 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the recall Web
site: http://www.metropolisbeauty.com.


DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Settles S.C. Priest Abuse Suit for $12M
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Diocese of Charleston reached a $12 million
settlement in a class action filed by four men alleging sexual
molestation by priests, The Insurance News West reports.

The case was settled before a mediator.  Under the deal, the
diocese is to set up a $12 million fund, which includes a $5
million amount by a Letter of Credit and an additional $7
million if the credit amount is drawn down to $1 million (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2006).

The Diocese also agreed to pay a total of $460,000 to the four
plaintiffs.  One of the plaintiffs, John Morris, who joined the
other plaintiffs in the case two years ago, received $160,000.

The settlement allows compensation for sexual abuse victims born
before Aug. 30, 1980.  Larry Richter, an attorney for the
victims explains that the 1980 date was negotiated between them
and the diocese to assure the settlement would cover victims who
are barred to sue by the statue of limitations in South
Carolina.

With the settlement, victims could get anything from $10,000 to
$20,000 while spouses and parents would receive $20,000.  An
arbitrator will validate claims and determine the amount of
compensation.  

A final hearing on the settlement is set on early March.  The
Diocese told Insurance News West that it is encouraging anyone
who may have been a victim to contact an attorney.

For more details, contact Lawrence E. Richter of Richter &
Haller, LLC, 622 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Mount Pleasant, SC
29464-3013, Phone: (843) 849-6000, Fax: (843) 881-1400.


DITECH COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Communications Corp. moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in a securities fraud class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class actions were
filed purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased the company's stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26,
2005.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer in
connection with alleged misrepresentations concerning Voice
Quality Assurance orders and the potential effect on the company
of the merger between Sprint and Nextel.

All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, "In
re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
C05-02406-JSW."  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
Feb. 2, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion
was granted on Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend.  A second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Sept. 11, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint according to the
company's Jan. 23, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants is William S. Freeman of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 9406-2155, Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax: 650 857-0663, E-
mail: freemanws@cooley.com.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Fifth Circuit Vacates, Remands Tex. ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District vacated and
remanded the class certification granted by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the suit "In re
Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 6:03-
MD-1512," The Courthouse News Service Reports.

The Fifth Circuit ruled that the trial court improperly rejected
a defense asserted by the company that relieved it of fiduciary
liability if plan losses resulted from participants' control
over assets in their account, because the defense recognizes
that the participants are not helpless victims of every error
and are given adequate alternative investment strategies.

According to the ruling, although legal remedies exist for the
alleged wrongs committed by Electronic Data Systems and its
associated defendants for allegedly mismanaging the company's
401(k) Retirement Plan, the Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) class action
certified by the district court is not among them.

The district court erroneously interpreted the impact, inter
alia, of intraclass conflicts and fact-specific defenses arising
from ERISA Section 404(c) and individual releases.  Rule
23(b)(2) is unsuited to provide classwide relief, and Rule
23(b)(1) is conceptually unclear.

                        Case Background

Initially, five class actions were filed on behalf of
participants in the Electronic Data Systems 401(k) Plan against
the company, certain of its current and former officers and, in
some cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and made misrepresentations to the class
regarding the value of EDS shares.  All of the foregoing cases
have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA
action each filed a consolidated class action complaint.  The
consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation of
fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act by
selling unregistered Electronic Data Systems shares to plan
participants.

The defendants in the ERISA claims are Electronic Data Systems,
certain current and former officers of Electronic Data Systems,
members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board
of Directors, and certain current and former members of the two
committees responsible for administering the plan.

On Nov. 8, 2004, the district court certified a class in the
ERISA action on certain of the allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty, of all participants in the Electronic Data
Systems 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
defendants, for whose accounts the plan made or maintained
investments in Electronic Data Systems stock through the
Electronic Data Systems Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999 and
Oct. 9, 2002.

Also on that date the court certified a class in the ERISA
action on the allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of
the U.S. Securities Act of all participants in the Plan and
their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose
accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock through the Electronic
Data Systems Stock Fund between Oct. 20, 2001 and Nov. 18, 2002.

On Dec. 29, 2004, the Fifth Circuit granted the company's
petition to appeal the class certification order from the
district court, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal on
April 5, 2005.

On May 5, 2005, the company reached an agreement with the class
representatives in the ERISA action to settle that action,
subject to final approval of the settlement by an independent
fiduciary and the district court and receipt of certain
assurances from the Department of Labor.

Under the terms of the settlement, $16.5 million would have been
paid entirely by one of the company's insurers.  In addition,
the company would have agreed to continue to make a matching
contribution under the 401(k) Plan through 2006 and to make
certain changes to the Plan.

On June 30, 2005, the district court denied the motions of the
company and the class representatives to approve the settlement
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2007).

However, the appeals court earlier vacated and remanded the
class certification by the district court.  Resolution of these
issues is still uncertain in the Fifth Circuit.  

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's ruling is available free of charge
at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1929

The suit is "In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Leonard
Davis.   

Represented the are plaintiffs is Barry C. Barnett of Susman
Godfrey LLP, 901 Main Street, Suite 4100, Dalass Texas 75202-
3775, Phone: 214-754-1900, Fax: 214-754-1933.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David J. Bailey and Michael McConnell of Jones Day -  
         Atlanta, 1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800 Atlanta, GA  
         30309-3053 Phone: 214/969-3700, Fax: 12149695100, E-
         mail: djbailey@jonesday.com or mmcconnell@jonesday.com;
  
     (2) Richard P. Keeton, Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell &  
         Flack, 600 Travis Suite 7500, Houston, Tx 77002, Phone:  
         713/571-9191, Fax: 713/571-9652, E-mail:  
         rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com; and

     (3) Robert H Klonoff, Jones Day-Kansas City MO, 500 East  
         52nd St, Kansas City, MO 64110, E-mail:  
         rhklonoff@jonesday.com.


EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Fla. Court Considers Dismissal of Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss all claims the putative class
action filed against Evercom Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of
SECURUS Technologies, Inc.

The company and its wholly owned billing agent are alleged to
have violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and other common law duties because of the alleged incorrect
termination of inmate telephone calls.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, as well as compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, and may later seek
certification of a class of persons who receive inmate calls
from Miami County.

The company moved for complete dismissal of all claims, and it
awaits the court's decision.  

The suit is "Kirsten Salb v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-20290," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Judd Gordon Rosen of Goldberg Law Firm, 1101 Brickell
         Avenue, Suite 899, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-374-
         4200;

     (2) Lance August Harke and Howard Mitchell Bushman of Harke
         & Clasby, LLP, 155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600,
         Miami, Florida 33130, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-536-
         8220, Fax: 305-536-8229, Web site:
         http://www.harkeclasby.com;and

     (3) Justin Graem Witkin and Robert Jason Richards of
         Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser, P.L.C., Phone: 850-916-7450
         and 877-810-4808, Fax: 850-916-7449, Web site:
         http://www.aws-law.com.

Representing the defendants are Glen H. Waldman and Eleanor
Trotman Barnett of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP,
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500, Miami, Florida 33131-
5340, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-374-7580, Fax: 305-374-7593,
Web site: http://www.bilzin.com.


EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Discovery Proceeds in Trading Practices Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in class actions that were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for
coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings against
Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc., (Managing Investment
Adviser).

The Managing Investment Adviser certain of its affiliates and
others were named in five class actions, which allege that the
defendants allowed certain parties to engage in illegal and
improper mutual fund trading practices, which allegedly caused
financial injury to the shareholders of certain mutual funds
managed by Excelsior.

Each suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and related
equitable relief.

The class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland for coordinated and consolidated
pre-trial proceedings.  The cases now fall under the title, "In
re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586."

In November 2005, the Maryland court dismissed many of the
plaintiffs' claims in both the fund shareholder class action.  
Several affiliates of the former Managing Investment Adviser and
individual defendants have also been dismissed.

Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section
36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended, however, have not been dismissed.

Discovery has commenced with respect to plaintiffs' remaining
claims, according to the company's Jan. 25, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006.


FALL RIVER: Faces Mass. Suit Over Fair Housing Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Public housing residents in Fall River, Massachusetts filed a
class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, challenging the unlawful destruction
of affordable housing for low-income families with children.

Named defendants:

     -- The Fall River Housing Authority,

     -- Thomas Collins - Executive Director of the Fall River
        Housing Authority,

     -- the City of Fall River, and

     -- Edward Lambert - Mayor of the City of Fall River.

The class includes all residents of Watuppa Heights living at
the development from the filing of this complaint through the
conclusion of this lawsuit.

The complaint states that the Federal Fair Housing Act makes it
unlawful to "make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person
because of race, color or national origin."  

The statute also makes it unlawful to "discriminate against, any
person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental
of a dwelling, on or in the provision of services or facilities
in connection therewith, because of race, color or national
origin."

The suit alleges that the Housing Authority defendants have an
affirmative duty to further fair housing under:
    
      -- 42 U.S.C, Section 3608(e)(5);

      -- 24 C.F.R. Section 5.105;

      -- Executive Order 11063, 27 Fed. Reg. 11527 (Nov. 20,
         1962); and

      -- Executive Order 12892, 59 Fed. Reg. 2939 (Jan. 20,
         1994).

Plaintiffs further allege that the Housing Authority defendants
have violated these laws because their actions in furtherance of
the demolition of Watuppa Heights, including the failure to
maintain the development and re-rent vacant units, have the
intent and effect of adversely and disparately disadvantaging
Watuppa Heights families and applicants for Housing Authority
resources, and fail to further fair housing.

Plaintiffs ask the court to:

      -- assume jurisdiction of this case;

      -- certify the class as requested;

      -- declare that the defendants have violated the
         aforementioned federal and state laws;

      -- issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
         the defendants from taking any steps to demolish
         Watuppa Heights;

      -- issue preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering
         the Housing Authority defendants to seek financing from
         the state and maintain the Watuppa Heights development
         in decent, safe and sanitary conditions, including
         repairing and re-renting vacant units to applicants on
         the waiting list;

      -- in the alternative, issue an order appointing a
         receiver under M.G.L. c. 111, Section 127C or M.G.L. c.
         121B, Section 34, to take all actions necessary to make
         Watuppa Heights decent, safe and sanitary, including
         re-renting vacant units;

      -- issue preliminary injunction ordering the Housing
         Authority defendants to reduce the rent of the
         plaintiff class so long as Watuppa Heights residents
         continue to live in substandard conditions;

      -- award damages to the named plaintiffs Loretta Anderson,
         Jayne Kerns and Vanessa Santiago for the Housing
         Authority defendants' failure to maintain their
         apartments in violation of M.G.L.c. 186, Section 17,
         the warranty of habitability and their lease;

      -- award the plaintiffs their costs and reasonable
         attorney's fees as provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 2412,
         42 U.S.C. Section 1988, 42 U.S.C. Section 3612(c) and
         by M.G.L.c. 186, Section 14;

      -- allow plaintiffs Anderson, Kerns and Santiago a trial
         by jury to pursue their claims for damages under Count
         VI; and

      -- grant any other relief the court deems just and
         appropriate.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1921

The suit is "Anderson et al v. The Fall River Housing Authority
et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10131-GAO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge George A.
O'Toole, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Judith Liben of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute,
         99 Chauncy Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02111-1722,
         Phone: 617-357-0700 ext.327, Fax: 617-357-0777, E-mail:
         jliben@mlri.org; and

     (2) Phillip Kassel of the South Coastal Counties Legal
         Services, 231 Main Street, Brockton, MA 02301-4342,
         Phone: 508-586-2110 ext. 25, Fax: 508-587-3222.


GUIDANT CORP: Ind. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a corrected consolidated securities complaint
filed against Guidant Corp. in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana filed a motion opposing defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, according to an update posted at the
Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

On Nov. 18, 2005, an investor sued Guidant Corp. in federal
court accusing the medical device maker of issuing materially
false and misleading statements to the public.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana and seeks damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
Guidant common stock between Dec. 15, 2004 and Nov. 3, 2005,
inclusive.  The class period was amended with the filing of lead
plaintiffs' consolidated complaints.

The lawsuit claims that Guidant and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 78j(b) and 78t of the
U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5 of the Code of Federal Regulations on
Commodity and Securities Exchange.

According to the complaint, on Dec. 15, 2004, Johnson & Johnson
agreed to acquire Guidant for an astounding $25.4 billion,
citing Guidant's strong automatic implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICD) business as a key component of the
acquisition.  

All the while, defendants knowingly or recklessly withheld
information from investors concerning the serious and life-
threatening wiring and battery defects that many of its ICDs
were suffering.

Starting in June 2005, with two recalls impacting nine separate
ICD product lines and culminating in November with news of a
government investigation related to Guidant's disclosures, as
well as revelations in a complaint filed by New York's Attorney
General that defendants knew of the defects for years, Guidant
slowly leaked the truth about its defective ICDs to the public.

When the market did finally learn the full extent of defendants'
fraud on Nov. 3, 2005, the price of Guidant's common stock had
fallen to $57.57, down more than 23% from its Class Period high
of $75.05 per share.

On Jan. 3, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On March 16, 2006, the court heard oral arguments, and on April
5, 2006, Judge Sarah Evans Baker signed an order consolidating
all related cases into one class action lawsuit as "In re
Guidant Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 1:05-cv-01658,"
and appointing lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On June 2, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Guidant during the period Dec. 15, 2004 through and including
Oct. 18, 2005 and names additional officers and directors of the
company as defendants.  

On June 8, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated
complaint, correcting the class period to include purchasers of
the common stock of Guidant during the period Dec. 1, 2004
through and including Oct. 18, 2005.  

On Aug. 15, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss this
complaint.  On Oct. 13, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their
opposition to defendants' motion.  

On Nov. 27, 2006, defendants filed further briefing in support
of their motion.  Defendants' motion is currently pending on
courts decision.

The suit is "In re Guidant Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No.
1:05-cv-01658," filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Indiana under Judge Sarah Evans Barker.  Case Contact: Bryan
A. Wood, Phone: 800-516-9926.


HOLMES GROUP: Recalls Oscillating Tower Fans Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Holmes Group, of Milford, Massachusetts, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
300,000 units of Holmes Oscillating Tower Fans.

The company said electrical arcing in the fan's wiring can cause
a fire hazard.

The Holmes Group has received 16 reports of property damage,
including one reported injury involving minor burns and smoke
inhalation.

The recall involves the Holmes HT30 Oscillating Tower Fan.  The
model number can be found on the silver label on the back of the
unit.  The tower fans are white. "Holmes" is printed on the
front of the base.

These recalled oscillating tower fans were manufactured in China
and are being sold at Target, Bed Bath & Beyond and additional
department and specialty stores nationwide from July 2002
through June 2005 for about $30.

Picture of the recalled oscillating tower fans:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07086.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the fans and
contact The Holmes Group for instructions on receiving a free
replacement unit.

For additional information, call The Holmes Group at (800) 524-
9204 anytime or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.holmesfanrecall.com.


HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Hepa A Exposure in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houlihan's Restaurants, Inc. of Geneva, Illinois, faces a
lawsuit in Kane County Circuit Court over possible exposure to
hepatitis A of certain of its customers, reports say.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, filed by William
Marler of the Seattle-based law firm Marler Clark on behalf of
Geneva resident Rebecca Johnson and her family, claimed a
Houlihan's food worker was diagnosed with hepatitis A, a disease
that attacks the liver.

According to the lawsuit, between Jan. 8 and Jan. 19 the family
of Rebecca Johnson - along with at least 3,000 people estimated
to have eaten at the restaurant - were potentially exposed to
the virus when an infected employee was working while
potentially contagious.

Most at risk are patrons who had drinks with ice, which was
potentially tainted, according to the Kane County Health
Department, which investigated the exposure.

On Jan. 19, representatives of Houlihan's Restaurants Inc. told
the Kane County Health Department about a worker who was
diagnosed with hepatitis A.

"The moment we became aware, our group assembled and we have
gotten in contact with the health department," Houlihan's
President Dan Clay said.

More than 2,000 shots of immunoglobulin, which can help fight
infection, have been given.

According to the lawsuit, class members will seek damages
including lost wages, medical and travel expenses, and emotional
distress related to the fear of becoming infected with the
hepatitis A virus.

The damages would compensate those who had to take off work to
receive inoculations, and those who could not get to the free
clinic offered by the Kane County Health Department and had to
seek shots from private physicians.

"We've probably been contacted by roughly 20 people," Mr. Marler
said. "It might be less than that, and it might include people
who have multiple family members."

As of last week, no cases of hepatitis A infection had been
reported, the report said.

For more details, contact Marler Clark, Phone: (206) 346-1888.


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Objector Appeals Orders in "Nuanes" Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
An objector has filed a Notice of Appeal with regards to certain
orders by a Court of Appeals in California that confirms its
approval of the settlement of class action against Insignia
Financial Group, Inc.

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of Davidson Diversified Real Estate III, L.P.,
(Partnership) commenced the purported class action, "Rosalie
Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al." in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo.  

The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the
Partnership, Davidson Diversified Properties, Inc. (Managing
General Partner), and several of their affiliated partnerships
and corporate entities.  

The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named
as nominal defendants.  It challenges, among other things:

     -- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing General
        Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. and
        entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia;

     -- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire
        limited partnership units;

     -- management of the partnerships by the Insignia
        affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed
        on Oct. 1, 1998 and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and
        Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged
        into Apartment Investment and Management Co.

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.  In addition,
during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned, "Heller
v. Insignia Financial Group (the Heller action)" was filed
against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action.

On or about Aug. 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint.  The Heller action was brought as a purported
derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and judicial dissolution.

On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to
strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this
order.

On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in the proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller
action.  On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of
the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and
Heller actions.

On Aug. 12, 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate
and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering
judgment thereto.  On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second
appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order,
requiring the objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment
entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's
order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on
the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to
permit meaningful appellate review."  

The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees.

With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of
which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  

On or about Oct. 13, 2005 objector filed a motion to intervene
and on or about Oct. 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take
discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative
representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit
injunction in connection with settlement.

On Nov. 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further Findings
pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Defendants joined in that motion.  

On Feb. 3, 2006, the court held a hearing on the various matters
pending before it and has ordered additional briefing from the
parties and objector.

On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming
its approval of the class action settlement and entering
judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the
matter for further findings.  

The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain
unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on
July 1, 2006, denying objector's Motion to File a Complaint in
Intervention, objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and
Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice
of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the
court's June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders, according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-QSB filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.


INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
granted a motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated
securities class action filed against Intelligroup, Inc.

On or about Oct. 12, 2004, the first of six class actions was
filed on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased
the company's common stock, against the company and former
officers Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco, Edward Carr and
David Distel in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Mr.
Distel and Mr. Carr from the shareholder class action, failing
to name either of them as a defendant in the amended
consolidated complaint filed on or about Oct. 10, 2005.   

The shareholder class action generally alleges violations of
federal securities laws, including allegations that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial condition and that the
Defendants materially overstated financial results by engaging
in improper accounting practices.   

The class period proposed was May 1, 2001 through Sept. 24,
2004.  The shareholder class action generally seeks relief in
the form of unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable
costs, expenses and legal fees.   

On Dec. 5, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Feb. 10, 2006, prior to the hearing
on defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint.   

On Feb. 10, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On March 27, 2006,
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the complaint.  

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions on
May 11, 2006, and beginning June 9, 2006 defendants filed
further briefing in support of their motions.  

On Dec. 20, 2006 Judge Garrett Brown granted the motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiffs had 30 days from the entry of the order
to file an amended complaint.

The suit is "Lydia Garcia, et al. v. Intelligroup Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04-CV-4980," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge John C. Lifland with referral
to Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,  
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com;

     (2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,  
         Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com; and


     (3) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,  
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,  
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.   

Representing the defendants are Dennis J. Drasco and Kevin J.  
O'Connor of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC, 103 Eisenhower  
Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:
ddrasco@lumlaw.com and koconnor@lumlaw.com.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates Stock Grants Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an order consolidating all cases related to KLA-Tencor
Corp.'s backdated stock option grants to directors or
executives.

On Aug. 3, 2006, two public pension funds sued KLA-Tencor Corp.
in federal court accusing the company of securities law
violations.  

The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
(MPERS) and the City of Detroit Police and Fire Retirement
System (PFRS) filed the class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  

The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who acquired KLA-Tencor securities
from June 30, 2001 through and including May 22, 2006.

Based in San Jose, KLA-Tencor is a supplier of yield management
and process control solutions for semiconductor manufacturing
and related industries.

The lawsuit claims that KLA-Tencor and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b), 78n(a) and
78t(a) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 of the U.S. Commerce and Trade
Code promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange
Commission, Section 240.10b-5 and 240.14a-9 of Title 17 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.

Further, the lawsuit alleges in substance that the company
backdated stock option grants to the individual defendants
and/or other directors or executives to provide the recipients
with a more profitable exercise price.  

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts
necessary to make those statements not misleading.  

In particular, the complaint says that:

     -- contrary to statements made by the company, the option
        grants were not made at the fair market value or the
        Nasdaq closing price on the date of the grant;

     -- KLA-Tencor improperly understated its expenses and
        overstated its earnings as a result of improper option
        backdating; and

     -- KLA-Tencor failed to prepare its financial statements in
        accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
        Principles.

The lawsuit alleges that the truth about the company's stock
options backdating first emerged publicly in an article
published by The Wall Street Journal on May 22, 2006.  The
company then announced the next morning that it was under
investigation by federal prosecutors.  

The lawsuit alleges that following this announcement KLA-
Tencor's stock price fell as a result, from a close of $45.24
per share May 19 to a close of
$39.07 per share May 23.

On Aug. 28, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.

Further briefing on the issues relating to the appointment of
Lead Plaintiff was filed and, on Oct. 13, 2006, Judge Martin
Jenkins issued an Order consolidating all related cases into one
class action lawsuit entitled, "In re KLA-Tencor Corp.
Securities Litigation, No. C06-04065" and appointing:

      -- the Louisiana MPERS,
     
      -- Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
         Detroit, and

      -- the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and
         Retirement (collectively, the Pension Funds) as lead
         plaintiffs, and

      -- Berman DeValerio as liaison counsel and one of four
         members of the Executive Committee.

Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties and order of the court,
lead plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint will be due the
earlier of 21 days after KLA-Tencor files its restated financial
statements with the SEC or March 15, 2007.     
    
Case Contact: Lesley Ann Hale, Phone: 415-433-3200.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Class Certification Sought for Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities litigation filed
against Lernout & Hauspie Products, N.V. in the U.S. District
Court for District of Massachusetts are seeking class-action
status for the case.

Dexia and former top officers of Lernout & Hauspie who were
unable to participate in the settlement of the suit are
continuing with the discovery phase of the litigation.

On Aug. 11, 2000, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed a shareholder lawsuit against Lernout & Hauspie Speech
Products N.V. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

This action, which seeks damages for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, was originally brought on behalf of all
investors who purchased L&H common stock from Dec. 28, 1999
through and including Aug. 7, 2000.

In January 2001, the court appointed three shareholders as lead
plaintiffs and appointed Berman DeValerio as one of three co-
lead counsel.

On Sept. 21, 2001, lead plaintiffs filed their first
consolidated and amended complaint against certain officers and
directors of L&H, KPMG and other defendants involved in the
securities fraud at the company.

Lead plaintiffs also expanded their class Period to include all
investors who purchased L&H common stock or call options or sold
L&H put options from April 28, 1998 through and including Nov.
8, 2000.  The company was not named as a defendant in the
complaint due to its November 2000 bankruptcy filing.

During 2002, lead plaintiffs successfully defeated several
motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.  The case then
proceeded into the discovery phase of the litigation.

                          Settlements

(1) KPMG Settlement

On Oct. 7, 2004, Berman DeValerio announced that accounting
firms KPMG Bedrijfsrevisoren of Belgium (KPMG Belgium) and KPMG
LLP of the United States (together the KPMG Defendants) agreed
to pay a total of $115 million to settle the claims against them
stemming from the collapse of L&H.  The payment by the KPMG
defendants represents one of the largest combined recoveries
from accounting firms in a securities class action.

On Oct. 14, 2004, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of this partial settlement with the KPMG Defendants and
certifying the action "as a class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of L&H on the
NASDAQ Stock Market or who purchased L&H call options or sold
L&H put options on any United States-based options exchange
between April 28, 1999 and Nov. 9, 2000, inclusive."

On Dec. 22, 2004, Judge Saris signed an order and final judgment
approving the settlement and the Plan of Allocation and awarding
plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees.  Claims filing deadline was
set March 31, 2005.  A.B. Data, Ltd. processed the claim forms.

(2) Directors & Flanders Language Valley Fund C.V.A. Deal

After arms-length negotiations,

     (i) lead plaintiffs and Ellen Spooren, Francis
         Vanderhoydonck, RVD Securities N.V., Erwin
         Vandendriessche, Dirk Cauwelier and Marc G.H. De Pauw
         (the "Director Defendants"); and

    (ii) Fernand Cloet, Jan Coene, Hubert Detremmerie, Alex
         Vieux, Gerard van Acker and Bernard Vergnes ("Dismissed
         Director Defendants" and, collectively with the
         Director Defendants, the "Settling Director
         Defendants")

agreed to settle the claims against the Director Defendants.

Pursuant to the terms of the Director Settlement, a Settlement
Fund in the amount of $5,270,000 has been created for the
benefit of the class.

On March 2, 2005, lead plaintiffs and defendant FLV entered into
a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the claims
asserted against FLV.  

Pursuant to the terms of FLV proposed settlement, as set forth
in the FLV Stipulation, a Settlement Fund in the amount of
$250,000 has been created for the benefit of the Class.

On July 18, 2005, Judge Patti B. Saris signed a Final Judgment
approving the Settlements and the Plan of Allocation and
awarding plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses.  Deadline to file Proof of Claim and Release form
was July 22, 2005.

                     Continuing Litigation

The case is continuing against L & H's former top officers,
Jozef Lernout, Pol Hauspie, Nico Wallaert and Gaston Bastiaens,
who are subject to a criminal investigation, as well.

In addition, in August 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a claim
against Dexia Bank Belgium based on the role Artesia Banking
Corp., S.A. played in the fraud at L&H.  Dexia acquired Artesia
in 2001.

The complaint alleges that Artesia was a key participant in the
Language Development Co. (LDC) fraud at L&H and that L&H could
not have perpetrated this massive accounting fraud without
Artesia's knowledge and collaboration.

As alleged, Artesia helped to set up and finance the LDCs, and
provided L&H with loans, through its principal officers, which
L&H then used to book fictitious revenue from these shell
companies.

Specifically, Artesia issued 3 separate loans in 1998 and 1999,
totaling more than $20 million, which were used to artificially
inflate L&H's revenues as part of the strategic partner aspect
of L&H's fraudulent scheme.

At its core, L&H booked as revenue the cash it obtained from
Artesia's loans, even though these loans would ultimately have
to be repaid.

In other words, L&H, with Artesia's full knowledge, was
essentially transferring cash from one pocket to another, and
booking that transfer as revenue.

Dexia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on Feb. 9,
2005, the court denied that motion.  The case proceeded into the
discovery phase of the litigation.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding
additional facts uncovered during discovery.  This complaint
alleges that at the same time Dexia was involved in the fraud at
L&H, its captive subsidiary, Artesia Securities, was issuing
numerous fraudulent analyst reports touting L&H stock.

The third amended complaint further alleges that at the same
time, Artesia was also selling millions of dollars of L&H stock
to the unsuspecting public.

Dexia moved to dismiss the third amended complaint.  On June 23,
2006, the court heard arguments on Dexia's motion and on Aug. 8,
2006, Judge Saris issued a Memorandum & Order denying Dexia's
motion.

On Sept. 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification moving the court to certify a class on behalf of
all those who purchased the common stock of L&H on the NASDAQ
Stock Market or purchased L&H call options or sold L&H put
options on any U.S. based options exchange, during the period
Aug. 19, 1998 through Nov. 8, 2000.  

Defendant Dexia filed its opposition to this motion on Nov. 3,
2006.  The motion is currently pending before the court.

Additionally, the parties are continuing with the discovery
phase of the litigation.  

The suit is "In re Lernout & Hauspie Products, N.V., Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 1:00cv11589," filed in U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts under Patti B. Saris with referral to
Judge Robert B. Collings.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey C. Block of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, 8th
Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194,
E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com.


MASTEC INC: Fla. Judge Approves $10M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted final approval to the $10 million settlement in the
consolidated securities class action, "In Re: MasTec, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-20886."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or acquired the
common stock of MasTec, Inc. from Aug. 12, 2003 through May 11,
2004, inclusive.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, in the courtroom of the Honorable Federico
A. Moreno.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection was Oct. 20, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims was Dec. 18, 2006.

In the second quarter of 2004, purported class action complaints
were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  These cases have been
consolidated by court order in the Southern District of Florida.

The complaints allege certain violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
related to current and prior period earnings reports.  

On Jan. 25, 2005, a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint was filed by plaintiffs, which the court granted.
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Feb. 22,  
2005.   

Plaintiffs contend that the company's financial statements
during the purported class period of Aug. 12, 2003 to May 11,
2004 were materially misleading in these areas:  

      -- the financials for the third quarter of 2003 were  
         allegedly overstated by $5.8 million in revenue from  
         unapproved change orders from a variety of the  
         company's projects; and  

      -- the financials for the second quarter of 2003 were  
         overstated by some $1.3 million as a result of the  
         intentional overstatement of revenue, inventories and  
         work in progress at the company's Canadian subsidiary.  

Plaintiffs seek damages, not quantified, for the difference
between the stock price plaintiffs paid and the stock price
plaintiffs believe they should have paid, plus interest and
attorney fees.  The company filed a motion to dismiss that was
denied on Sept. 30, 2005.

In April 2006, the company settled the lawsuit for $10 million
in cash.  On June 30, 2006, the parties executed a stipulation
of settlement and filed a joint motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement of the federal securities class action (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006).

A final approval hearing, to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
was held on Nov. 6, 2006 and Judge Federico Moreno signed a
final judgment on Nov. 7, 2006 granting final approval of the
settlement.

The suit is "In Re: MasTec, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-20886," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
     (1) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,  
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com;
  
     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Boca Raton), 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200,  
         Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-
         750-3364, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;
  
     (3) Vianale & Vianale, LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355
         Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561-
         391-4900, Fax: 561-368-9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com; and
  
     (4) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,  
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone: 310-725-
         6400, Fax: 310-725-6420.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wis. Judge Chooses Stock Suit Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel in a securities fraud
class action filed against Merge Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Merge
Healthcare.

On April 6, 2006, an investor sued Merge Technologies in federal
court, accusing the company of securities law violations.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
acquired Merge securities from Aug. 2, 2005 through and
including March 16, 2006.

The suit claims that Merge and a number of individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

Based in Milwaukee, Merge develops and delivers medical imaging
and information management software and services for both
original equipment manufacturers and the end-user health
markets.

According to the complaint, Merge and two individual defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the class period that
artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, in January 2005, Merge announced an all-stock
merger between Merge and Cedara Software Corp., completed by
June 1, 2005, which Merge represented to the market as highly
successful.  

The complaint, however, says Defendants schemed to deceive the
market during that time by:

     -- reporting materially overstated revenues;

     -- prematurely recognizing revenues; and

     -- failing to disclose that the Company lacked adequate
        internal controls.

When defendants' misrepresentations and omissions were gradually
disclosed to the investing public, the company's stock fell,
from $24.50 per share on Feb. 23, 2006, to $15.85 per share on
March 17, 2006.

On May 22, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On Nov. 21, 2006 the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  Lead plaintiff will be filing their consolidated
complaint.

Case Contact: Audley Fuller, Phone: 800-516-9926.


MICROSOFT CORP: Question on Plaintiff-Lawyer Relation Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polk County (Iowa) District Judge Scott Rosenberg rejected a
request by Microsoft Corp. attorneys to question the named
plaintiffs' relationship with the Des Moines lawyer representing
them in an antitrust class action against the company, reports
say.

The lawyers said that some of the plaintiffs had close
connection with attorney Roxanne Conlin and claim that she
recruited them to act as plaintiffs in the case.

The lawyers said that Ms. Conlin referred to the plaintiffs
during jury selection as 'just regular people who bought
software' and who volunteered to step forward to sue Microsoft.  
But they argued that Patricia Anne Larsen, a retiree from
northwest Iowa, and one of the named plaintiff, has been a
friend of Ms. Conlin's since 1982.  In 1999, Ms. Conlin
represented Larsen in an employment discrimination case against
Larsen's former employer, according to Microsoft lawyer David
Tulchin.

Another plaintiff, Joe Comes, a Des Moines businessman, was Ms.
Conlin's son's best friend since high school, the attorneys
claim.

Also named as plaintiffs are Riley Paint Inc. of Burlington and
Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc. of Des Moines.

Meanwhile, Ms. Conlin had asked Judge Rosenberg for permission
to tell the Justice Department and the Iowa attorney general
regarding information that indicates the company is violating
its 2002 agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The plaintiffs' group reportedly uncovered information that
contrary to a 2002 antitrust suit settlement with the justice
department, Microsoft has not disclosed certain software hooks
known as application programming interfaces to other software
developers who want to make programs compatible with Microsoft
software.

Judge Rosenberg responded that she could provide the information
if a court order or a subpoena is issued for it.

The class action was filed on behalf of Iowans who purchased
Microsoft software between 1994 and 2006.  In it, plaintiffs
generally claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:      

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

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

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.      

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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


PC MALL: Faces Calif. Workers' Suit Over "Exempt" Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------
PC Mall, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County entitled,
"Nicole Atkins, et al. v. PC Mall, Inc., et al."

The potential class consists of all of our current and former
account executives in California.  The suit, filed on Feb. 3,
2006, alleges that the company improperly classified members of
the putative class as "exempt" employees in violation of
California's wage and hour and unfair business practice laws and
seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'
fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

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.


PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Supreme Court Remands Suit Over DVD Player
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has ruled in the case, "Pioneer
Electronics vs. Superior Court (Olmstead), S133794," that the
opt-out system in the settlement of the case does not violate
customers' privacy, Bob Egelko of The Chronicle reports.

Attorney Jeff Westerman filed the 2001 suit in Los Angeles
County on behalf of Patrick Olmstead who bought a DVD player
that allegedly would not play standard DVDs.  The case was
settled earlier this month.  Terms of the settlement include
reimbursements to customers as well as attorneys' fees.

In the early phase of the case, Mr. Olmstead's lawyers sought
the names and contact information for 700 to 800 customers who
had complained about the DVD player, as possible participants in
a class action.  Pioneer objected, citing customer privacy.

A state appeals court granted the company's request for an opt-
in system.  Under it, customers would be notified of the suit
and only those who agreed to be contacted would have their names
revealed.  

In recent developments, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of
Appeal's decision, rejecting the company's argument that the so-
called opt-out procedure violates the right to privacy.

California's constitutional right to privacy is strong but not
absolute, protecting only an individual's "reasonable
expectation of privacy against a serious invasion," said Justice
Ming Chin, according to the report.  

A customer's name and address are not particularly sensitive
information in this context, especially since customers have the
right to veto disclosure, he added.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Los
Angeles for further proceedings.


PRIMUS FINANCIAL: Tenn. Court to Mull Final OK for "Borlay" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee is
scheduled to give final approval to a proposed settlement in the
class action "Borlay v. PRIMUS," which was filed against Primus
Financial Services, Inc., a brand of Ford Motor Credit Co.

Originally filed as "Claybrook v. PRIMUS," the case is one of
several filed against major automotive lenders and the only one
to be tried.  It was settled before the court entered a decision
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006).

In general, the suit alleges that PRIMUS' lending practices
discriminate against African-American.

The suit, filed on April 16, 2002, challenges a longstanding
industry practice in which the annual percentage rate (APR)
dealers negotiate with customers may be higher than the buy rate
on the contract.

The buy rate is the rate at which the bank, credit union or
other source will purchase a contract from a dealer.  The
difference between the APR and the buy rate is the dealer's
revenue on the financing transaction.

PRIMUS and the other Ford Motor Credit Co. brands extend credit
to customers indirectly, by purchasing retail installments sales
contracts entered into by consumers and dealers.  

Their credit approval and pricing decisions are based on
objective criteria -- such as credit history, debt-to-income
ratio and statistical analysis of the customer's ability to make
payments -- that are applied equally to all applications.

Under the settlement, which is subject to the court's approval,
the company agrees to preserve existing rate caps. In essence
PRIMUS will be required to continue to limit the difference
between the buy rate and the APR on contracts it purchases from
dealers.  These limits are the same on all other Ford Motor
Credit brands.  

The current limits, which will be maintained under the terms of
the settlement, are 2.5 percent on contracts with terms up to 60
months and 2 percent on contracts with terms of 61 to 72 months.
There will be a new 1.5 percent limit on any contracts with
terms of 73 months or longer.  The company's standard contracts
are for 72 months or less.

In addition to the above-mentioned stipulations, the company
will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $1.9 million in fees and up
to $550,000 in court-approved expenses.

The company will also pay the three named plaintiffs a total of
$40,000, with individual payments ranging from $10,000 to
$20,000.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement.  Final approval
is subject to a fairness hearing scheduled for February 2007,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Claybrook, et al v. Primus Auto Financ, et al.,
Case No. 3:02-cv-00382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart Rossman of The National Consumer Law Center, 77
         Summer Street FL 10, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: (617)
         542-8010; and

     (2) John A. Barney of Shelley I. Stiles & Associates, 5214
         Maryland Way, Suite 402, Brentwood, TN 37027, Phone:
         (615) 371-8969, E-mail: jbarney@brentwoodlaw.com.


REPUBLIC COS: No Class Certified in La. Katrina-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in a statewide putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana on Aug. 28, 2006 in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina against two subsidiaries of Republic Companies Group,
Inc.

The plaintiffs generally allege that Republic Fire and Casualty
Insurance Co., Republic Lloyds, and other unaffiliated insurer
defendants breached their policies by failing to properly apply
the law regarding efficient proximate cause, concurrent
causation, floodwater and levee failure exclusions and
negligence.  

The suit seeks declaratory relief, an unspecified amount of
monetary damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.  It
is in the early stages of development, and the company is
defending it vigorously.  

No class has been certified in this matter, according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Abadie et al v. Aegis Security Insurance Company et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05164-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 Joseph M. Bruno and David Scott
Scalia of Bruno & Bruno, 855 Baronne St., New Orleans, LA 70113,
Phone: (504) 525-1335, E-mail: jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com and
DAVID@brunobrunolaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Jay M. Lonero of Larzelere Picou
Wells Simpson Lonero, LLC, Two Lakeway Ctr., 3850 N. Causeway
Blvd., Suite 1100, Metairie, LA 70002, Phone: (504) 834-6500, E-
mail: jlonero@lpw-law.com.


REPUBLIC FIRE: No Class Certified in La. Insurance Policy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in a statewide putative lawsuit
pending in the District Court of the Parish of Orleans,
Louisiana against Republic Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Republic Companies Group, Inc.

Filed on July 20, 2006, the suit generally alleges that Republic
Fire and other unaffiliated insurer defendants breached their
policies by failing to pay the face value of policies to
insureds that sustained a total loss of their homes and
improvements in part as a result of a non-covered loss from
Hurricane Katrina.

Thus, plaintiffs seek to recover face value of the policies
regardless of the anti-concurrence provisions of the company's
policies or the fact the company timely paid covered losses in
accordance with the policies' provisions.

The suit seeks declaratory relief and unspecified monetary
damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.  

No class has been certified in this matter, 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.

Republic Companies Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.republicgroup.com/.


SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face IPO Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the sale of Schwab Capital Markets L.P. and all of
the outstanding capital stock of SoundView Technology Group,
Inc. to UBS, The Charles Schwab Corp. agreed to indemnify UBS
for expenses associated with certain litigation, including
multiple purported securities class actions against SoundView
and certain of its subsidiaries filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who either directly or
in the aftermarket purchased initial public offering securities
between March 1997 and December 2000.

The Charles Schwab is vigorously contesting the claims on behalf
of SoundView.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified the focus class actions in the initial public offering
allocation litigation filed against Soundview Technology Group
one or more of its subsidiaries and other financial institutions
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2004).

Multiple purported securities class actions were filed on behalf
of persons who either directly or in the aftermarket purchased
IPO securities during the time period between March 1997 and
December 2000.  

Plaintiffs allege that the company and the other underwriters
named as defendants required persons receiving allocations of
IPO shares to pay excessive and undisclosed commissions on
unrelated trades and to purchase shares in the aftermarket at
specific escalating prices in violation of the federal
securities laws.

On Oct. 13, 2004, a federal judge issued a ruling certifying the
existence of a class in the focus cases.

The suit is styled "In Re: IPO Securities Litigation, et al.,
1:21-mc-00092-SAS," under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

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.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Md. Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal in "Carey"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has not yet
ruled on a proposal to dismiss SEI Investments Distribution Co.,
or SIDCO, a subsidiary of SEI Investments Co., in the
consolidated class action, "Stephen Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter &
Associates, Ltd., et al."

The PBHG Complaint is purportedly made on behalf of all persons
who purchased or held PBHG mutual funds from Nov. 1, 1998 to
Nov. 13, 2003 and relates generally to various market timing
practices allegedly permitted by the PBHG Funds.  

The suit names as defendants some 36 persons and entities,
including various persons and entities affiliated with Pilgrim
Baxter & Associates, Ltd., various PBHG Funds, various alleged
market timers, various alleged facilitating brokers, various
clearing brokers, various banks that allegedly financed the
market timing activities, various distributors/underwriters and
others.  

The PBHG Complaint alleges that the company was the named
distributor/underwriter from November 1998 until July 2001 for
various PBHG funds in which market timing allegedly occurred
during that period.  

It generally alleges that the prospectus for certain PBHG funds
made misstatements and omissions concerning market-timing
practices in PBHG funds.  

The PBHG Complaint also alleges that the company violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and that the company breached its fiduciary
duties, engaged in constructive fraud and aided and abetted the
breach by others of their fiduciary duties.  

It does not name the company or any of its affiliates as a
market timer, facilitating or clearing broker or financier of
market timers.   The PBHG Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution.  

In 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed form of order
dismissing SIDCO from the action, but the court has not yet
acted on the proposed order.  The company had not made any
provision relating to this legal proceeding.

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 "Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01151-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge J. Frederick Motz.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin and
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
16106677706, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail: mtopaz@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and
         Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., New York, NY 10119-
         0165, Phone: 12125945300;

     (2) Stephanie Glaser Wheeler of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,
         125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004, Phone: 12125587384,
         Fax: 12125583354, E-mail: wheelers@sullcrom.com; and

     (3) Susan R. Gross of Law Offices of Bernard Gross, PC,
         1515 Locust St., Second Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19102,
         Phone: 12155613600, Fax: 12155613000.


SPARK NETWORKS: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in "Adelman" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed claims in a
purported class action against Spark Networks, PLC, which
accuses it of violating the California Dating Services Act.

On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action
complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code
section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating
service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged
dating service, the company is required to provide language in
contracts that allows:

      -- members to rescind their contracts within three days;

      -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the
         member dies during the term of the contract and/or; and
     
      -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of
         disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and/or
federal laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff is
seeking remedies including declaratory relief, restitution,
actual damages although not quantified, treble damages and/or
punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The case seeks to certify a nationwide class action based on
their complaints.  Because it is a class action, it was assigned
to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program.

Mediation occurred in "Adelman" in 2004 that did not result in a
settlement.  A post-mediation status conference was held on July
16, 2004.  At that status conference, the court suggested that
the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue.  

The purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to
determine whether as a matter of law the California Dating
Services Act applies to the company.  

In this way, if the court determines that the CDS Act is
inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and
class certification can be avoided.

The court has permitted limited discovery including document
requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted
to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the
parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the
court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of
the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial
has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed.  A
second mediation occurred in "Adelman" on Feb. 10, 2006.  

The mediation resumed on Feb. 23, 2006, but did not result in a
settlement.  The bifurcated trial on the issue of the
applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the
Adelman action was set for Sept. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the court granted the company's application to
bifurcate the trial of the issue of actual injury or damages and
set the trial for Aug. 17, 2006 (Bifurcated Damages Trial).

The court determined at the Bifurcated Damages Trial that Mr.
Adelman did not suffer any actual injury or damages, Adelman's
claims were dismissed, and a judgment was entered to award
attorneys' fees and costs to the company.  

As a result, the Bifurcated CDS Trial was taken off calendar.
The amount of such fees and costs is yet to be determined by the
court and the judgment itself is subject to appeal.

Spark Networks plc on the Net: http://www.spark.net/.


STATE FARM: Judge Rejects $50M Settlement of Katrina Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge L. T. Senter Jr. refused approval without
prejudice to a proposed settlement of Katrina claims by State
Farm Fire & Casualty Co., reports say.

Under the proposed settlement, State Farm had agreed to pay at
least $50 million.  However, Judge Senter, said, there is no way
he can "ascertain how this sum compares to the total claims of
the members of the total class."  

The judge also objected to the settlement's use of binding
arbitration to reconsider and fully resolve claims from
Hurricane Katrina in three Mississippi coastal counties.  

                        Case Background

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed the civil action in
the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial
District on Sept. 15 against several insurance companies.

The lawsuit seeks to make the insurance industry honor their
contracts to pay for losses caused by Katrina, particularly
their attempt to exclude damage caused directly or indirectly by
water, whether or not driven by wind.  

The complaint asks the court to declare that certain insurance
contract provisions are void and unenforceable as the same are
contrary to public policy, are unconscionable, and are ambiguous
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2005).

The provisions at issue attempt to exclude from coverage loss or
damage caused directly or indirectly by water, whether or not
driven by wind.

The complaint states that these provisions should be strictly
construed against the insurance companies who drafted the
insurance policies and their exclusions.  The complaint also
states that the issuance of such insurance policies violates the
Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint also asks the court, among other things, to enter
a Temporary Restraining Order to immediately stop insurance
companies from asking property owners to sign documents stating
that their loss was caused by flood or water as opposed to wind,
and to stop using water exclusions to deny or reduce coverage
for hurricane damage or loss.  The court is also being asked to
enter a preliminary and permanent injunction with regard to
these same matters.

The suit is Civil Action No. G2005-1642 R1.  Defendants are:   

     -- Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance,  
     -- State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,  
     -- Allstate Property and Casualty,  
     -- Insurance Company, United Services,  
     -- Automobile Association, Nationwide Mutual,  
     -- Insurance Company, and "A" through "Z" Entities   

A "class action resolution" component of the proposed deal calls
for the company to review the claims filed by roughly 35,000
policyholders who live in Mississippi's three coastal counties
but didn't file lawsuits against State Farm for refusing to
cover storm damage, according to the report.  

A copy of the complaint and motion for temporary restraining
order is at available for free at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d87

Lead attorneys for the class action settlement are:

     (1) Don Barrett and Marshall Smith of the Barrett Law
         Office, 404 Court Square North, P.O. Box 987,
         Lexington, Mississippi 39095, E-mail:
         info@barrettlawoffice.com;

     (2) Johnny Jones, Steve Funderburg, and Stewart Lee of
         Jones, Funderburg, Peterson, Sessums, and Lee, 901
         North State Street, Jackson, MS 39236, Phone: (601)
         355-5200, Fax: (601) 355-5400;

     (3) Dewitt Lovelace of the Lovelace Law Firm, 36474 Emerald
         Coast Parkway, Suite 4202, Destin, FL 32541, Phone:
         (850) 837-6020, Fax: (850) 837-4093;

     (4) David Nutt, Meg McAllister, and Derek Wyatt of Nutt &
         McAllister, PLLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi; and

     (5) Richard Scruggs, Sid Backstrom and Zach Scruggs all of
         the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., 120A Courthouse Square,
         P.O. Box 1136, Oxford, Mississippi 38655, Phone: 662-
         281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.


TJX COS: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Client Information Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., and Stern Shapiro
Weissberg & Garin, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
all consumers in the United States who had personal and
financial data stolen from the computer network of TJX
Companies, Inc., and were damaged thereby.

The complaint charges that TJX was negligent for failing to
maintain adequate computer data security of customer credit and
debit card data, which was accessed and stolen by a computer
hacker.

As a result of TJX's actions, customer information was stolen
from TJX's computer network that handles a wide range of
financial information for millions of customers, including
credit cards, debit cards linked to checking accounts, and
transactions for returned merchandise.

Although TJX discovered the data breach in mid-December 2006, it
did not publicly announce the intrusion until one month later
when it issued a press release on Jan. 17, 2007.  The delay
harmed class members in that it prevented them from taking
appropriate measures to protect their accounts.

While TJX continues to investigate the security breach, it has
thus far determined that consumers who patronized TJX stores in
2003 and from mid-May through December 2006 may be affected.

Because of TJX's actions, hundreds of thousands or even millions
of its customers have had their personal financial information
compromised, have had their privacy rights violated, have been
exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft, and have
otherwise suffered damages.

The suit is "Mace v. TJX Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
10162," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan Shapiro of Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin,
         Suite 500, 90 Canal Street, Boston, MA 02114-2022,
         Phone: 617-742-5800, Fax: 617-742-5858, E-mail:
         jshapiro@sswg.com; and

     (2) Sherrie R. Savett, Michael T. Fantini and Jon J.
         Lambiras, all of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
         Street, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4604, E-mail:
         jlambiras@bm.net.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Settles Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Michigan reached a settlement in a 1997 class
action that challenged the university's undergraduate admission
policy, The Detroit News reports.

The suit was filed by the Center for Individual Rights on behalf
of Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher in U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Michigan on Oct. 14, 1997.  

It alleges unlawful preference to minorities in University of
Michigan undergraduate admissions.  It was expanded as a class
action in December 1998.

In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that undergraduate
admissions policy of the university discriminated against white
students, according to plaintiff attorney Michael Rossman.

The settlement proposal includes an undisclosed monetary
settlement, he said.

The suit is "Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., Case No. 2:97-
cv-75231-PJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Patrick J. Duggan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James K. Fett at Fett & Fields (Pinckney), 805 E. Main
         Street, Pinckney, MI 48169-3266, Phone: 734-954-0100,
         E-mail: jim@frflaw.com; and

     (2) David F. Herr at Mason, Edelman, 90 S. Seventh Street,
         3300 Norwest Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140, Phone:
         612-672-8200, Fax: 612-672-8200.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Philip J. Kessler, Butzel Long (Detroit), 150 W.
         Jefferson, Suite 100, Detroit, MI 48226-4430, Phone:
         313-225-7000, Fax: 313-225-7080, E-mail:
         kessler@butzel.com; and

     (2) Leonard M. Niehoff, 350 S. Main Street, Suite 300
         Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2131, Phone: 734-995-3110, Fax:
         313-225-7057, E-mail: niehoff@butzel.com.


VERMONT ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Over Fiber Optic Cable Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Electric Power Co., (VELCO) is facing a complaint,
seeking class-action status, in Addison County Superior Court,
alleging among other things that the company had "misrepresented
the scope of its condemnation authority" in acquiring land for
transmission lines that will also carry fiber optic wires, The
Addison County Independent reports.

New Haven and Middlebury property owners claim the company
installed fiber optic cables on their land, exceeding the scope
of the company's existing rights-of-way.  They allege that VELCO
misled some property owners to get the land it needed.

According to the complaint, "In some cases, VELCO has made false
statements and misleading representations to landowners inducing
landowners to grant, and allowing VELCO to obtain, certain
rights of way."

The suit further alleges that defendants:

     -- have misstated their intentions to plaintiff landowners
        regarding the purposes of the requested rights-of-way;

     -- misrepresented the scope of their condemnation
        authority; and

     -- failed to inform plaintiff landowners that the fiber
        optic lines were to be subleased for additional revenue,
        which would not benefit the landowners.

The lawsuit relates to VELCO's "Northwest Reliability Project,"
the company's name for a massive project to string new
electricity transmission lines parallel to existing lines from
West Rutland to Burlington, according to the report.

The project bisects several Addison County towns, including
Leicester, Salisbury, Middlebury, New Haven, Ferrisburgh and
Vergennes.

VELCO has spent the past several months erecting poles that are
more than 80 feet tall and stringing them with 345kV power line.  
At the same time, VELCO has agreed to string fiber optic cable
along sections of the new transmission line infrastructure - an
action that is being disputed in the complaint.

Attorneys to the case noted that VELCO spent years acquiring
rights of way from landowners in anticipation of the
transmission line upgrade and, in some cases, went through
condemnation proceedings to get the property for a project it
argued was essential in upgrading Vermont's electricity
infrastructure.

However, VELCO, in many cases, never informed landowners that
their property would also serve as a conduit for fiber optic
line -- an add-on to the project that they believe will generate
profits for VELCO while damaging the plaintiffs' property
values.

According to the complaint, VELCO leases or subleases usage of
these fiber optic lines to others as a source of revenue.  It
also states, "In many cases, these fiber optic lines have been
installed and leased to others without the knowledge of the
landowners."

The complaint, filed by local attorneys Peter Langrock and James
Dumont on behalf of as many as 1,000 Vermont landowners, asks
that a judge:

     -- prevent (VELCO) from further construction, installation
        and leasing of fiber optic lines along its electrical
        transmission rights-of-way across plaintiffs' land and
        to remove any lines that are not directly needed for the
        transmission of electricity;

     -- award compensatory damages to plaintiffs for the fair
        value of the use of their property;

     -- award punitive damages based on the "deceptive behavior"
        of the defendant; and

     -- pay the plaintiffs' legal costs and "other relief as the
        court deems fit."

Kerrick Johnson, vice president of external communications for
Vermont Electric, said the company believes it has the right to
put fiber optic cable along the 35-mile Rutland-to-South
Burlington route.

VELCO officials strongly disputed elements within the lawsuit.
They added the Vermont Supreme Court is currently reviewing a
case in which the fiber optic issue is in play.

That case involves condemnation proceedings that VELCO recently
initiated to obtain an expanded easement on land owned by Harley
Grice of Middlebury's Halpin Road.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Peter F. Langrock of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, 111
         South Pleasant Street, P.O. Drawer 351, Middlebury,
         Vermont 05753-0351, Phone: 802-388-6356, Fax: 802-388-
         6149, Web site: http://www.langrock.com;and  

     (2) James A. Dumont, 15 Main St., PO Box 229, Bristol, VT
         05443, Phone: (802) 453-7011.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Louisiana on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services,
Inc. between Nov. 1, 2006 and Jan. 10, 2007.

The complaint charges Hornbeck Offshore and the company's chief
executive officer with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Hornbeck Offshore's operations and
prospects caused the company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Hornbeck Offshore, through its subsidiaries, provides offshore
supply vessels for the offshore oil and gas industry, primarily
in the United States Gulf of Mexico and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants,
among other things, knew or recklessly disregarded but failed to
disclose that operating issues had negatively impacted the
company's financial performance, including volatility in the
offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the shipyard delivery
schedules for new-builds and increased turnaround time for
regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and maintenance, as well as
increased costs for personnel and insurance.

On Nov. 1, 2006, Hornbeck Offshore reaffirmed its guidance for
fiscal 2007, and specifically reaffirmed earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for
fourth quarter 2006 to range of between $39 million and $41
million and earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and
$0.74.  

These aggressive projections were crucial to the completion of a
$200 million offering of convertible senior notes (which the
company announced on Nov. 6, 2006), but had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of the stock.  

On Nov. 13, 2006, the company announced that it had closed the
note offering and received the offering proceeds.

On Jan. 10, 2007, Hornbeck Offshore shocked the market by
announcing that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings-per-
share guidance for fourth-quarter and fiscal 2006, materially
reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter to range between $33
million and $34 million, down from previous projection of $39-
$41 million.

The company announced it now expected per-share earnings for
fourth quarter 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63, down from
$0.72 to $0.77, and also expected to reduce 2007 guidance by 15
to 20 percent.

As a result of this news, Hornbeck Offshore shares slumped to a
52-week low in early trading on Jan. 11, 2007, and the stock was
down $7.11, or 21.2%, on increased volume.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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