CAR_Public/070131.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 31, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 22

                            Headlines

AIMCO PROPERTIES: FLSA Litigation in Md., Calif. Courts Stayed
AMERICAN FAMILY: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit by Deceased Client
ARIZONA: Judge Collins Finishes English-Learning Program Hearing
ASURION CORP: Court Okays Cell Phone Insurance Suit Settlement
BARAC CO: Settles D.C. Tenants' Suit Over Court-Cost Surcharge

CALIFORNIA: Immigrants in "Kiniti" Suit Singled Out, ACLU Fears
CANADA: Ragweed Allergy Sufferers Lose CAD$2B Litigation v. MUC
CARDINAL GLENNON: Ill. Attorney Seeks to Void Hospital's Lien
CATERPILLAR INC: Mich. Court Okays Class in Diesel Engine Suit
CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' EPDM Suit for $21M

COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Dissenting Investors Plan to File Suit
CONNECTICUT: Cities to Get $14.8M Refund from CRRA-Enron Deal
EGAIN COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving IPO Suit Settlement
ENRON CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Vinson & Elkins from "Newby"
FLORIDA: Seminole County Settles 2004 Strip Search Litigation

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Ill. Court Okays Confidential Suit Settlement
H.A. BERKHEIMER: Settles Pa. Taxpayer's Suit Over Illegal Fees
HOME DECORATORS: Recalls Storage Trunks for Entrapment Hazards
INDIANA: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Inadequate School Funding
MICHIGAN: Court Allows Suit Over Trash Collection Fee to Proceed

MURPHY OIL: La. Court Okays $330M Settlement in Oil Spill Suit
NEVADA: Reno Police Faces Lawsuit Over Warrantless Searches
OCA INC: Motion to Dismiss La. Securities Fraud Suit Rejected
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $56M Stock Suit Deal
PMA CAPITAL: Objects to Class Certification in Penn. Stock Suit

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Orders $925T Allocation for Deloitte Deal
QUINTUS CORP: Calif. Court OKs $10.1M Securities Suit Settlement
SALLY FOSTER: Recalls Tea Lights Candles Due to Fire Hazards
SEITEL INC: Motion for Stock Suit Class Certification Due Feb. 1
SEQUENOM INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval

TENNESSEE GAS: Class Status Sought in Kans. Gas Measurement Case
TRANSMETA CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Proceeds in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Ill. Court Mulls Class Status for Labor Suit
WASHINGTON: Jury Issues Mixed Verdict in WTO Protesters' Lawsuit

WESTLAND DEV'T: Motions to Dismiss Sedora Merger Suit Granted


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in La.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Mager & Goldstein Announces Stock Suit Filing
TOP TANKERS: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AIMCO PROPERTIES: FLSA Litigation in Md., Calif. Courts Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cases alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Co.
(NHPMN) in California and Maryland have been stayed pending the
resolution of a decertification motion in a District of Columbia
case.

AIMCO Properties and NHPMN are defendants in a lawsuit alleging
that the company and NHPMN willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for
time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the
FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the company and NHPMN
failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were
required to be "on-call."  

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the company and NHPMN
failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance
workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

In June 2005, the court conditionally certified the collective
action on both the on-call and overtime issues.  About 1,049
individuals opted-in to the class.

NHPMN moved to decertify the collective action on both issues
and the plaintiffs have responded.  Because the court denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify state subclasses, on Sept. 26,
2005, plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations
in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and
on Nov. 5, 2005, in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.

The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the
resolution of the decertification motion in the District of
Columbia case.

The suit is "Chase, et al. V. AIMCO Properties, L.P., Case No.  
1:03-cv-01683-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Richard N. Appel of Akin, Gump,  
Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW  
Washington, DC 20036-1511, Phone: (202) 887-4076, Fax: (202)  
887-4288, E-mail: rappel@akingump.com.

Representing the defendants is Joseph Marc Sellers of Cohen,  
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, NW  
Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-
4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit by Deceased Client
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Family Insurance attorney filed a motion on Jan. 19 to
dismiss a suit originally filed against the company by Manuel
Hernandez, but is now being pursued by the deceased plaintiff's
wife, the Madison St. Clair Record reports.  

Plaintiff Manuel Hernandez filed a suit against American Family  
Insurance in 2000, claiming the insurer improperly reduced a
payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident.  In  
2005, he was certified as a representative of the class.   

However, earlier this year, the company discovered that he has
already been dead since January 2004.  The company's attorney
attached a copy of Mr. Hernandez's death certificate in a filing
in March.

According to the report, American Family attorney Anthony Martin
of St. Louis asked Circuit Judge Daniel Stack to dismiss the
suit on these grounds, among others:

      -- that the Lakin Law Firm attorneys, who represented Mr.
         Hernandez, violated an Illinois Supreme Court rule by
         failing to disclose the death of the only class         
         representative in the case; and

      -- that the Lakin firm violated a duty under Rules 213 and
         214 to supplement discovery responses seasonably.

In addition, he argued that:

     -- Mrs. Hernandez does not belong to the class, as she has
        exhausted the $5,000 policy limit for the treatment of
        the injuries she suffered in the same car crash as her
        husband;

     -- the class included all who were paid or tendered an
        amount less than the policy limits;

     -- that the Lakin firm did not sent notice to class
        members;

     -- that the complaint of Nora Hernandez was not timely;

     -- plaintiff claimed breach of contract, but the complaint
        asserted claims of statutory fraud, and as such need to
        have to file two separate motions, which is not
        permissible after the 2005 decision in "Avery v. State
        Farm;" and that

     -- the complaint is cumbersome, confusing, unwieldy and
        inconsistent.

Judge Stack set a hearing Feb. 28.  He has not yet ruled on Mrs.
Hernandez's adequacy as class representative.

Representing the plaintiff is Mr. Millar, associate at The Lakin  
Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River,  
Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127,
Telecopier: 618-254-0193.

Representing the defendant are Anthony Martin and Timothy  
Sansone at Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, 23 South 1st Street,  
Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-397-2721;  
800-225-5529, Web site: http://www.spvg.com.


ARIZONA: Judge Collins Finishes English-Learning Program Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins finished on Jan. 25 a
hearing to determine whether the state has already improved its
program for students learning the English language, according to
KVOA.com.

According to the report, Judge Collins did not hear closing
arguments.  Instead, he ordered attorneys to file legal briefs
on March 12.  A ruling is expected on that month.  

The hearing is a review of his previous rulings on the issue
after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth vacated
his orders that found the state in contempt for missing a
deadline to improve the program.  

                        Case Background

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  

The order was part of a ruling in the class action, which was
originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified students
and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that
guarantees equal opportunities in education.  The state was
fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways
to improve the program.  

The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million
in total fines.  The fines were stopped when the latest version
of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning
programs was passed into law in March.

In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still doesn't
adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out
the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the
basis for funding that it does provide.

The Ninth Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San
Francisco on July 25, 2006.  In August, it vacated orders by
Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public
schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the
general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the
state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes
in education funding and related circumstances since the
original 2000 ruling.

The August ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly
on the latest law regarding the program.  

The suit is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case
No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.

Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose
A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix,
AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-
734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
jcardenas@lrlaw.com.


ASURION CORP: Court Okays Cell Phone Insurance Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
given preliminary approval to a proposed settlement by certain
defendants in the class action, "Prohias, et al v. Signal &
Signal Hold, et al.," which accuses cell phone equipment
insurers of promoting cell phone insurance in a "deceptive and
outrageous" manner, The MSNBC.com reports.

                         Case Background

According to the suit, which was filed on behalf of a Dade
County, Florida resident, the insurance usually costs $4 or $5
per month and covers a lost, damaged or stolen phone with a
deductible of $35 to $100, (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7,
2005).  

The suit names three major cell phone insurance companies,
namely: Signal Holdings of Wayne, Pa., and the settling
defendants, Asurion Corp. of Nashville, Tenn., and Lock\line LLC
of Kansas City, Mo.  

Signal Holdings did not settle and is still in the lawsuit.  No
trial date has been set for the case, which will now continue
against Signal Holdings alone.

Generally, the suit alleges that a consumer could easily pay up
to $120 over two years for insurance and have purchased only $20
in actual coverage when the $100 deductible is subtracted.  In
many cases, according to the suit, the insurance actually costs
more than the purchase price of a new phone.

In addition, the suit also alleges that replacement telephones
are often cheap, used, or refurbished models which further
decrease the value of the insurance and monthly premiums are
misleading since they don't really insure the phone in the event
of a loss.

Plaintiffs claim unfair trade practices and other violations
against the company for falsely representing that the purchase
of wireless phone protection provides a benefit (Class Action
Reporter, June 26, 2006).  

They also accused insurers of imposing unlawful and unfair
conditions for filing a claim, including requiring a police
report even if a phone is lost instead of stolen.

Damages sought include refunds for monthly premiums and
reimbursement of any deductibles paid that exceed the actual
cost of replacement phones, plus interest, costs and attorney
fees.

                  Asurion & Lock\line Settlement

The settlement between the plaintiffs, Asurion, and Lock\line,
will affect as many as 13 million cell phone customers.  Under
its terms, all Asurion brochures, advertisements and marketing
materials will state that claims may be fulfilled with "new
and/or refurbished equipment" and that each replacement is
subject to a non-refundable deductible per loss.

Asurion has also agreed that if the value of the replacement
phone is less than the deductible, customers will be told so
they can decide whether to pay the deductible and proceed with
the claim.

The nationwide class consists of all former and current Asurion
or Lock\line customers who made premium payments, filed a claim,
and received a refurbished phone between Jan. 20, 2004 and Jan.
26, 2007.  

They will get a phone card worth at least $5.  This will cost
Asurion at least $1.5 million and potentially as much as $60
million.

The 15,000 or so customers who submitted a claim during this
time period and got a refurbished phone - generally worth $3 to
$6 less than the deductible - will get a voucher for a new phone
worth $75 to $100.  No other purchase is required to use this
voucher, which is fully transferable.

Letters will soon go out to all 13 million members of the class,
giving them details of the settlement and explaining their
rights to remain in the class or opt out.  

The court has scheduled a final hearing in May to approve the
settlement.

The suit is "Prohias, et al v. Signal & Signal Hold, et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz with referral toi Judge
Chris M. McAliley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lance August Harke of Harke & Clasby, 155 S Miami
         Avenue, Suite 600, Miami, FL 33130, Phone: 305-536-
         8222, Fax: 536-8229, E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com;
         and

     (2) Frank J. Janecek, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 655 W Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 231-7423.


Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Brett Alan Barfield of Holland & Knight, 701 Brickell
         Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-789-
         7661, Fax: 789-7799, E-mail: brett.barfield@hklaw.com.

    (ii) Hilarie Bass of Greenberg Traurig, 1221 Brickell
         Avenue, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-579-0745, Fax: 579-
         0717, E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com.


BARAC CO: Settles D.C. Tenants' Suit Over Court-Cost Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia gave preliminary
approval to a proposed settlement in a class action against
Barac Co. for imposing a surcharge of $33 or more for the costs
of going to court to begin eviction procedures for tardy
tenants, The Washington Post reports.

Linda Campbell with help from the Legal Aid Society of the
District of Columbia filed the suit in 2004.  She alleges that
tardy tenants did not realize that the charges being imposed by
the property manager weren't late fees, which under most of the
leases would have been $10.

According to a suit, in many instances since 2001, Barac, never
followed through in court, dropping the complaint once the
tenant paid up, but keeping the court-cost fees the tenants had
paid to the company.

The property manager contends that the practice is legal and
justified.  Tenants and their advocates say otherwise.

Lawyers presented the proposed settlement to Judge Melvin R.
Wright last week.  Under the proposal, Barac would no longer
impose court-cost fees unless a judgment has been entered
against a tenant, and would pay more than a half-million dollars
to tenants and former tenants who incurred such charges over the
past several years.

Though it agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement, Barac
did not concede any wrongdoing.  Instead, one of the company's
attorneys pointed out it opted to settle to avoid litigating a
case that could span years.

Jonathan Smith, Legal Aid's executive director, said that
between 2,500 and 3,000 tenants are covered by the proposed
agreement, but roughly half of those have moved out of Barac
buildings and would be harder to track down.

Judge Wright gave preliminary approval to the settlement terms
and will make a final decision after a March 16 hearing in the
case.

With the agreement, current tenants covered by the settlement
would receive rent credits equal to almost two times what they
paid, and former tenants would receive the same compensation by
check.

In some cases, tenants would be likely to receive as much as
$1,500 -- equivalent to roughly three months rent for many of
them, according to Mr. Smith.

For more details, contact Jonathan M. Smith of the Legal Aid
Society of the District of Columbia, Phone: (202) 628-1161, Fax:
(202) 727-2132, E-mail: jsmith@legalaiddc.org.


CALIFORNIA: Immigrants in "Kiniti" Suit Singled Out, ACLU Fears
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fears that the
immigrant-plaintiffs in the class action, "Kiniti v. Wagner, et
al.," were singled out for their involvement in the case, which
alleges severe overcrowding at a privately operated federal
immigration detention center, The San Diego Union-Tribune.

According to a lawyer for the ACLU in San Diego, about 230
detainees housed at the San Diego Correctional Facility (SCDF)
were moved over the weekend to new spots in downtown San Diego
and Arizona.

David Blair-Loy, the legal director for the ACLU in San Diego,
pointed out that among those moved was the lead plaintiff in the
case, detainee Isaac Kigondu Kiniti, who was transferred to an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Florence,
Ariz.

Mr. Blair-Loy states that it is very troubling, since it creates
the appearance of retaliation against their clients and the
detainees.

However, Lauren Mack, an ICE spokeswoman, clarified that the
transfers were not punitive.  She said, "No one was singled
out."  

Ms. Mack maintains that the moving of the detainees was not in
response to the lawsuit.  She pointed out that it is not
uncommon for the agency to move detainees to other facilities
when there is a need for bed space.

Some detainees with upcoming court dates were sent to a facility
in downtown San Diego, according to Ms. Mack.  Others who are
longer-term detainees whose cases will probably not be resolved
by courts soon were sent out of state.

Mr. Blair-Loy though was not convinced saying that the facility
had been "triple-celling" inmates since at least June, and there
was no mass transfer of detainees in that time.

Moving Mr. Kinite, according to him, was suspicious, because to
the ACLU it appeared as if ICE and other defendants were trying
to interfere with access to ACLU clients, and the pursuit of the
litigation.

Moving the detainees, and easing the overcrowding will not
derail the lawsuit, since the proposed class action seeks
improvements for all current and future detainees at the
facility.

Additionally, Mr. Blair-Loy states that the detainees were moved
with virtually no notice.  He explains that they were awakened
at 2 a.m. Saturday and placed in holding cells until 10 that
night.

                        Case Background

Previously, ACLU sought class-action status for the lawsuit
against the detention center -- located near the U.S.-Mexico
border -- on behalf detainees who claim they are being held in
overcrowded and inhumane conditions (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
29, 2006).

In legal papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, the ACLU is seeking to amend a
complaint filed Mr. Kiniti, who has been representing himself in
a case he filed in May 2005 that challenges overcrowded
conditions at SCDF.  

Mr. Kiniti was taken into ICE custody in May 2004 and sent to
the facility in November 2004.  Since then he has been awaiting
proceedings to determine whether he will have to return to
Kenya, where he fears he will be subjected to persecution and
torture.  

Living conditions have worsened since Mr. Kiniti's case was
filed in May 9, 2005, and the ACLU hopes its involvement will
help improve conditions at SDCF so that they meet constitutional
standards.

The original suit generally contends that people being held for
immigration violations, which are violations of civil and not
criminal laws, are constitutionally entitled to better
conditions than criminal defendants.

In its proposed class-action complaint, which aims to broaden
the case, "Kiniti v. Wagner," the ACLU charges that the 1,232-
bed SDCF is "chronically and dangerously overcrowded," which
leads to an increase in violence among inmates, poor sanitation
and hygiene, diminished access to medical attention, and "a loss
of personal dignity."

The complaint names Julie Myers, the assistant secretary of ICE,
John Torres, the director of detention operations for ICE, and
ICE officials in San Diego with supervisory responsibility for
the facility operated by the private Corrections Corporation of
America, a private company that operates prisons for governments
around the country.  The company, based in Nashville, Tenn., is
also named in the complaint.

Inmates at the facility include illegal immigrants caught at the
border, asylum seekers, or people who are challenging
deportation orders.  They can be held for periods ranging from
months to years.

The complaint alleges that 675 detainees are subject to "triple-
celling," in which three people share cells that measure 6 feet
by 12 feet.  

Plaintiffs claim they had to sleep on plastic mats on the floor
and were close enough to the cell toilets that they were
"sprayed" by cellmates using the toilet or sink.

The ACLU's National Prison Project, and Immigrants' Rights
Project, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the law
firm of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP filed the proposed class-
action complaint.

In seeking class-action status, the case would in effect be one
of the first in the country that demands better treatment for a
large group of immigration violators based on their status as
civil detainees.

The proposed second amended complaint is available at:              
               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1912

The suit is "Kiniti v. Wagner, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-01013-
DMS-PCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Dana M. Sabraw with referral
to Judge Peter C. Lewis.

Representing the plaintiffs is John David Blair-Loy of ACLU of
San Diego and Imperial Counties, P.O. Box 87131, San Diego, CA
92138, Phone: (619) 232-2121, Fax: (619) 232-0036, E-mail:
dblairloy@aclusandiego.org.

Representing the defendants is David B. Monks of Klinedinst, PC,
501 West Broadway, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101-3544, Phone:
(619) 239-8131, Fax: (619) 238-8707 E-mail:
dmonks@klinedinstlaw.com.


CANADA: Ragweed Allergy Sufferers Lose CAD$2B Litigation v. MUC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ragweed allergy sufferers lost a CAD$2 billion class action
filed against the city of Montreal and 22 other island
municipalities in the former Montreal Urban Community (MUC) over
their alleged failure to eradicate the plant, especially on
municipal land, The Montreal Gazette reports.

The plant releases pollen in late summer that triggers fits of
sneezing, nasal congestion, watery eyes and allergic asthma in
some people.

In ruling against the allergic plaintiffs, Superior Court
Justice William Frailberg pointed out that they failed to prove
the offending pollen came from properties belonging to the
municipalities.

The lawsuit, launched more than a decade ago, claimed the
municipalities did not do enough to eradicate ragweed within
their borders.

Francoise Nadon launched the suit in 1992.  Opposing attorneys
started arguments in the suit in Quebec Superior Court in
September 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2005).

The suit alleges that city authorities did not do enough to
eradicate ragweed, especially on municipal land.  It is seeking
up to CAD$2,000 for each of an estimated 200,000 allergy
sufferers for every summer they lived on the island from 1991 to
1995.  

Ragweed releases pollen in late summer that triggers fits of
sneezing, nasal congestion, watery eyes and allergic asthma in
some people (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2006).


CARDINAL GLENNON: Ill. Attorney Seeks to Void Hospital's Lien
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr is asking the
Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois to declare a lien of
Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital null and void so he could
proceed with a class action claim against the hospital, The
Madison County Record reports.

In a Dec. 18, 2006 motion, Mr. Darr wrote, "It is well settled
that a care provider has no right of recovery against the
proceeds of a minor's personal injury claim."

In November Judge Daniel Stack, told Mr. Darr that he would not
consider the class claim until he adjudicated the lien.  When
attorneys on both sides said they had nothing on file about the
lien, Judge Stack said somebody should do something about it.

Mr. Darr filed a purported class action against Cardinal Glennon
in 2004 on behalf of Jacqueline Johnson individually and as the
mother of Anna and Michelle Johnson.  Plaintiffs claim that the
hospital imposed higher charges on patients without insurance.

Mrs. Johnson, an Illinois resident, met an auto accident in 2003
that injured her children.  Mr. Darr negotiated a personal
injury payout for the accident and obtained a settlement.  But,
she did not pay the hospital, which in turn asserted a lien
against her settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).

Judge Stack already dismissed the class action, but allowed Mr.
Darr to amend it.  Mr. Darr filed an amended complaint removing
all references to a lien in July and proposed to certify Mrs.
Johnson as representative of all Cardinal Glennon patients who
lacked insurance or other third party benefits and received
unreasonable bills.  It stated that Cardinal Glennon charged
$82,542.30 for their treatment.

Mr. Darr asked Judge Stack to impose a trust upon all monies
Cardinal Glennon received as a result of unlawful and unjust
conduct.  

At a Nov. 29 hearing he stayed the class action pending
adjudication of a lien on the settlement of an auto accident
involving the plaintiff in the class action.  

For more details, contact Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine,
Kelly & Darr, L.T.D., Suite 415, 307 Henry Street, Alton, IL
62002-6326, Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-2318, Web
site: http://sbkdlaw.com/.


CATERPILLAR INC: Mich. Court Okays Class in Diesel Engine Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
certified a national class action brought by a Detroit
businessman against Illinois-based Caterpillar, Inc. over diesel
engines the company makes for large yachts, The Detroit News
reports.

The suit, which was filed by James Jaikins on Sept. 1, 2004,
could potentially affect more than 7,000 Caterpillar marine
engines produced since 1996.  

Damages could exceed $100 million, according to Nathan Resnick,
a Bloomfield Hills attorney representing Mr. Jaikins in the
case.  He pointed out that since the boat industry and boat
safety is not regulated in the same way automotive safety is,
"this is a major consumer protection case."

Generally, the suit alleges certain Caterpillar engines contain
defective aftercoolers -- components that cool air inside the
engine.

It alleges that the defect allows water to enter the engines and
mix with fumes, resulting in severe corrosion and engine
failure, sometimes involving the engine exploding.

The company though denies the allegations and through in a
prepared statement through its spokeswoman Anne Leanos, said,
"We have requested an appeal of the certification decision.  We
will continue to defend the case vigorously."

The main focus of the suit is the Caterpillar 3196, which the
company has described as the ideal engine for yachts 40 to 60
feet long.  

The suit is "Jaikins v. Caterpillar, Incorporated et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-73404-AJT-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew R. Dranchak of The Miller Law Firm (Rochester),
         950 W. University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI
         48307, Phone: 248-841-2200, Fax: 248-652-2852, E-mail:
         ssr@millerlawpc.com; and

     (2) H. Nathan Resnick of Resnick & Moss (Bloomfield Hills),
         40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 111, Bloomfield Hills, MI
         48304-5116, Phone: 248-642-5400, E-mail:
         dallen@resnicklaw.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James N. Martin of Martin, Bacon, 44 First Street, P.O.
         Box 2301, Mount Clemens, MI 48046, Phone: 586-979-6500,
         E-mail: jnm@martinbacon.com; and

    (ii) Christopher B. Parkerson of Campbell, Campbell,
         (Boston), One Constitution Plaza, Suite 300, Boston, MA
         02129, Phone: 617-241-3075, E-mail:
         cparkerson@campbell-trial-lawyers.com.


CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' EPDM Suit for $21M
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. entered into an agreement with class counsel in
the federal Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) case to pay
$21 million to resolve the class claims.

On Jan. 11, 2005, the company and plaintiff class
representatives entered into a Settlement Agreement (the Global
Settlement Agreement) that was intended to resolve, with respect
to the company, the three consolidated direct purchaser class
actions.

The suits were filed against the company, its subsidiary
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., now known as Chemtura USA
Corp., and other companies, by plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and classes consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals,
respectively, in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants or any predecessor, parent, subsidiary or affiliates
thereof, at any time during various periods, with the earliest
commencing on Jan. 1, 1995.

The complaints in the consolidated actions principally alleged
that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals,
as applicable, sold in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who
paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result
of such alleged anticompetitive activities.

The Global Settlement Agreement provided that the company would
pay a total of $97.0 million, consisting of $62.0 million with
respect to rubber chemicals, $30.0 million with respect to EPDM
and $5.0 million with respect to nitrile rubber, in exchange for
the final dismissal with prejudice of the foregoing three
lawsuits as to the company and a complete release of all claims
against the company set forth in the lawsuits.

In accordance with its rights under the Global Settlement
Agreement, the Company terminated those parts of the settlement
covering rubber chemicals and EPDM following the exercise of opt
out rights by certain potential members of the applicable
classes.

As a result of the company's partial termination of the Global
Settlement Agreement, the consolidated direct purchaser class
actions relating to rubber chemicals and EPDM continue to
proceed in their respective federal district courts.  The
company negotiated settlements directly with a number of the
larger potential claimants in those actions.

In 2006, Chemtura reached a partial settlement for three
consolidated direct purchaser class actions that were filed in
the U.S. District Courts in the District of Connecticut, Western
District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of
California, over the sale of EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber
chemicals (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2006).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved the nitrile rubber portion of the Global Settlement
Agreement.

On Jan. 22, 2007, resolved the federal class action litigation
involving EPDM for $21 million settlement, which is subject to
court approval.

"We are continuing to put legacy issues behind us, while
continuing to focus on building a portfolio of high-performance
businesses for sustainable growth and improved earnings," said
Robert Wood, chairman and chief executive officer.

The $21 million settlement was paid in the first quarter and
will be reflected in the fourth quarter 2006 financials.


COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Dissenting Investors Plan to File Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Competitive Technologies Inc. shareholders is
planning to file a class action to recover funds for
shareholders.  It also said it will file a separate lawsuit
against management for insider trading and "other violations of
law," according to Associated Press.

The group claims it has voted former president and chief
executive, John B. Nano, to replace the current management.  
They had tried to gain entry to the company's headquarters,
according to the report.  

But the company said there was no quorum as only 39.9 percent of
outstanding shares were represented during the election at a
shareholders meeting.  The shareholder meeting was adjourned
until Feb. 2.  

Competitive Technologies, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.competitivetech.net.


CONNECTICUT: Cities to Get $14.8M Refund from CRRA-Enron Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) board agreed
to allocate $14.8 million of a $23.8 million fund as payment to
70 municipalities suing to recover alleged overcharges resulting
from a failed deal with Enron, The New Haven Register reports.

The $21 million part of the money is from a settlement in
December with Hawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP.  Other firms that
represented Enron or Enron-related properties have paid $2.8
million.

Under the plan, Hartford would collect about $1.9 million and
approximately $1.2 million would be returned to Waterbury,
according to courant.com.  

Payments authorized to area towns include Clinton, $188,481;
Guilford, $180,575; Madison, $150,649; North Branford, $141,511;
Old Saybrook, $316,101; and Westbrook, $99,463, according to The
New Haven Register.

According to David Golub, an attorney for the plaintiffs, the
municipalities have lost a total of $63 million.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in Waterbury Superior Court and was
originally brought by the cities of New Hartford and
Barkhamsted.  Trial for the case started on Nov. 13, 2006.

CRRA entered into an agreement to loan Enron $220 million in
exchange for some $28.5 million a year payment from Enron
between 2001 to 2012 for operating a Hartford trash-to-energy
plant, the power produced from which will be sold by Enron.  But
Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001.  The authority only
recovered $111 million after the collapse.

In a ruling on March 22, Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh allowed the
case to proceed.  The court finds that several of the statements
made by CRRA have been misleading.  The judge cited letters
written in 2004 and 2005 by CRRA President Thomas Kirk to the 70
municipalities in central Connecticut (Class Action Reporter,
March 27, 2006).  

The judge said that CRRA misled the public by:

      -- saying the towns would have to shoulder costs of the
         lawsuit through increased disposal fees;

      -- it has substantial legal fees in defending itself in
         the lawsuit, without disclosing that insurance carriers
         had paid for most of those costs; and

      -- not telling them that costs incurred in making the
         failed $220 million loan to Enron potentially could be
         recouped through various indemnification agreements
         made with law firms advising the authority on the
         transaction.

Overhauled by the state legislature in 2002, after Enron
collapsed, CRRA argues that state law protects it from paying
financial damages to its municipal members.

Nearly all towns in Greater Waterbury and Northwestern
Connecticut are parties to the suit, which is now in mediation.

For more details, contact David S. Golub of Silver Golub &
Teitell, LLP, 184 Atlantic Street, P.O. Box 389, Stamford,
Connecticut 06904, (Fairfield Co.), Phone: 203-325-4491, Fax:
203-325-3769.


EGAIN COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving IPO Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
eGain Communications Corp.

Beginning on Oct. 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the company, and certain of the
company's former officers and directors and underwriters
connected with the company's initial public offering of common
stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suits were consolidated into "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation."

The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which
such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions
received by the underwriters.  It also claims allegations of
"laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.  

The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the common stock between Sept. 23, 1999
and Dec. 6, 2000.

Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000
complaints were consolidated into a single action.

The company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve
the cases as to the company's liability and that of the
company's officers and directors.  The settlement involved no
monetary payment or other consideration by the company or its
officers and directors and no admission of liability.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006.  A January 2006 hearing was
postponed to April 2006 because of difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members.

On Oct. 27, 2005, the court issued an order making some minor
changes to the form of notice to be sent to class members.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order modifying the
preliminary settlement approval order to extend the time within,
which notice must be given to the class, at which time had
expired on Jan. 15, 2006.

The underwriter defendants filed further objections to the
settlement on March 20, 2006 and asked that the April 24, 2006
final settlement approval hearing be postponed until after the
Second Circuit rules on the underwriters' appeal from the
court's class certification order (which appeal is briefed and
awaiting oral argument).

On March 29, 2006, the court denied the request, stating that it
would address the underwriters' points at the April 24, 2006
hearing.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a public hearing on
the fairness of the proposed settlement.  The court took the
matter under submission.

The company did not report any development to the case in its
Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Egain Communications Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case no. 01 Civ. 9414 (Sas),"
related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ENRON CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Vinson & Elkins from "Newby"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted a motion by the lead plaintiff in the
case, "Mark Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp.," to dismiss Vinson &
Elkins from the case, The Houston Business Journal reports.

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, which
represents the Regents of the University of California, the lead
plaintiffs in the securities litigation against Enron Corp.,
filed a motion to dismiss Vinson & Elkins from the suit (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 13, 2006).

Vinson & Elkins is accused of helping Enron defraud investors by
structuring "phony" transactions that would inflate revenue and
hide debt at the energy company.

The report cited Trey Davis, a spokesman for the lead
plaintiffs, saying that the motion was filed considering that it
was unlikely the law firm would be able to pay an amount that
would materially increase the recovery, and they wanted to
streamline the case to eliminate complicating legal issues.

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

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

                    Non-settling Defendants  

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

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

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

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

Representing Vinson & Elkins is John Villa, a partner in
Williams & Connolly -- http://www.wc.com/-- in Washington, D.C.


FLORIDA: Seminole County Settles 2004 Strip Search Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory Presnell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida approved a settlement of a strip search
lawsuit filed against the Seminole County, according to The
Orlando Sentinel.

The suit was filed in 2004 by eight people who were jailed and
strip-searched after they were mistakenly sent to the wrong
Seminole County courtroom, and thus failed to show up at the
designated courtroom.

Named defendants in the suit are the Seminole County and the
Sheriff's Office.

Under the settlement, the eight named plaintiffs will receive
$40,000 each.  Another $54,000 will be divided among as many as
30 others who were similarly strip-searched.  The settlement
totals $620,000 including attorney's fees.

The class includes those people who were sent to jail without
first seeing a judge, and then were strip-searched.

The deadline to be certified as part of the class is May 4.  A
final hearing is set for May 24, according to the report.

The suit is "Parilla et al. v. Eslinger et al., Case No. 6:05-
cv-00850-GAP-KRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, under Judge Gregory A. Presnell with
referral to Judge Karla R. Spaulding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randall Challen Berg, Jr., Cullin Avram O'Brien and
         Peter Michael Siegel of Florida Justice Institute,
         Inc., 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2870, Miami, FL
         33131-2309, Phone:  305/358-2081, Fax: 305/358-0910, E-
         mail: rcberg@bellsouth.net, cullinobrien@bellsouth.net,
         and pmsiegel@bellsouth.net; and

     (2) J. Larry Hanks of Larry Hanks, P.A., 6500 S. Highway
         17-92, Fern Park, FL 32819, Phone: 407/423-1231, Fax:
         407/423-3066, E-mail: larrylaw@bellsouth.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) D. Andrew DeBevoise and Thomas W. Poulton of DeBevoise
         & Poulton, P.A., Lakeview Office Park, Suite 1010, 1035
         S. Semoran Blvd., Winter Park, FL 32792, Phone:
         407/673-5000 ext:231, Fax: 407/673-5059, E-mail:  
         debevoise@debevoisepoulton.com, and
         poulton@debevoisepoulton.com; and

     (2) Henry W. Jewett, II  David T. White, III of Rissman,  
         Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., 201 E.
         Pine St., 15th Floor, P.O. Box 4940, Orlando, FL 32802-
         4940, Phone: 407/839-0120, Fax: 407-841-9726, E-mail:
         skip.jewett@rissman.com, and trey.white@rissman.com.  


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Ill. Court Okays Confidential Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Judge Barbara Crowder of Madison County Circuit Court approved
on Jan. 11, a settlement of a purported class action filed
against General Electric Capital Assurance Company, renamed
Genworth Life, according to The Madison County Record.

Paul Marks of the Lakin Law Firm settled the lawsuit after
failing to organize enough numbers of plaintiffs for a class,
according to the report.  

The suit was filed in 2005 on behalf of Wilma Kern and Judith
Chapman.  They claimed breach of contract, consumer fraud and
unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs moved for class certification
Feb. 16, 2005.  Mrs. Kern has since substituted in the case by
her son, Mark.

Mr. Marks signed a settlement approval motion on Jan. 8, in
which they said that the defendant did not respond to the class
certification motion.  

They stated that after Genworth moved to dismiss, they agreed
that the plaintiffs would not respond to that motion, according
to the report.  

Both sides agreed to keep the settlement confidential.


H.A. BERKHEIMER: Settles Pa. Taxpayer's Suit Over Illegal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.A. Berkheimer, Inc. recently agreed to pay up to $2 million to
settle a purported class action over alleged illegal fees
charged to delinquent taxpayers, The Morning Call reports.

An estimated 115,000 taxpayers stand to receive a share of the
proposed settlement awaiting approval by a Bucks County,
Pennsylvania court.  

Under the proposed settlement, Eligible taxpayers could collect
up to $48.50 for any year they had to pay fees for delinquent
earned income tax bills between 1995 and 2001.  They have until
April 13 to file a refund claim for bills paid to H.A.
Berkheimer, but also may contest the proposal.

Previously, Judge Robert Mellon of Bucks County rejected an
earlier proposed settlement of a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer
Inc., over the collection of earned income taxes for 1,100
school districts and municipalities in Pennsylvania (Class
Action Reporter, June 21, 2006).

In a May 4, 2006, hearing transcript, Judge Mellon found that
the taxpayers would get less than a quarter of that amount and
that a big part would go to the attorneys who sued H.A.
Berkheimer as well as H.A. Berkheimer itself.  On May 22, 2006,
Judge Mellon decertified the class and then recused himself.

                        Case Background

In 2002, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of Bucks County initiated
a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer after being slapped with two
bills totaling $57 for "collection costs" that they believed to
be unfair (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2005).

A Bucks County judge certified the suit as a class action in
2005 after ruling the company's fees for "collection costs" were
illegal and served no purpose other than to add to the company's
profits.  

After H.A. Berkheimer admitted that its costs are improper,
Judge Mellon ruled that all taxpayers who paid collection costs
to H.A. Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001 are members of the
class.

Under the settlement, inked by both sides in October and
advertised in area newspapers, H.A. Berkheimer admits no
wrongdoing.  As part of the settlement, the Cheesemans agree to
drop their complaint.

Judge Theodore Fritsch of Bucks County Court is scheduled to
rule on the proposed settlement May 22.

The settlement calls for H.A. Berkheimer to pay up to $250,000
to cover administrative costs related to the settlement,
according to court records.  

The company also would have to put $1.75 million into an
interest-bearing bank account that would be used to repay the
taxpayers.

Those eligible for some of that cash, according to court papers,
are:

     -- Taxpayers who could receive up to $48.50, without
        interest, for any given tax year that they paid the
        collection costs. If they can prove a claim in excess of
        that amount, they may be able to recoup more.

     -- The Philadelphia law firm of Bernard M. Gross, which
        filed the suit, could seek up to 26.25 percent of the
        settlement amount, or $525,000, and legal costs up to
        $15,000.

     -- The Cheesemans, as class representatives, who could
        receive up to $7,500.

If any money is left unclaimed, 75 percent would be returned to
H.A. Berkheimer and 25 percent would go to a charity determined
by Judge Fritsch and the attorneys in the case.

If the total allowable claims exceed $2 million, the taxpayers
would receive a prorated share.  The settlement does not
preclude H.A. Berkheimer from pursuing back taxes still owed.

For more details, contact Bernard M. Gross, Suite 450, John
Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA
19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600 or (866) 561-3600, Fax: (215) 561-
3000.


HOME DECORATORS: Recalls Storage Trunks for Entrapment Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Decorators Collection, of St. Louis, Missouri, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 500 units of Home Decorators Collection Leather
Suitcase Trunks.

The company said the trunk has an exterior clasp that can lock
unexpectedly when the trunk lid closes.  If a child climbs
inside the trunk, he/she may not be able to open the trunk from
the inside.  This poses an entrapment and suffocation hazard to
children.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled trunks are leather bound and have a handle on each
side, and a clasp on the front.  The trunks are burgundy or
brown and are sold in three sizes: small, medium and large.  The
following catalog numbers were used to identify the product:

     Product Name          Sizes                  Catalog Number
   
     Large                 24"H x 36"W x 20"D     3755910150
     Medium                20"H x 30"W x 16"D     3755905150
     Small                 16"H x 23.5"W x 12"D   3755900150

These recalled storage trunks were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Home Decorators Collection retail stores
nationwide, catalogs, and online at www.homedecorators.com from
January 2006 through November 2006 for between $60 and $190.

Picture of recalled storage trunks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07088.jpg

Customers are advised to stop using the trunk immediately and
keep it out of the reach of children.  Consumers should contact
the firm for information on receiving a replacement product or a
full refund.

For additional information, contact Home Decorators Collection
at 800 464-0164 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday.


INDIANA: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Inadequate School Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion Superior Court dismisses a purported class action,
accusing the state of Indiana of violating its constitution by
failing to provide enough money for all children to have a fair
chance to learn, according to a report by The Fort Wayne Journal
Gazette.

In her dismissal order, Judge Cale Bradford said that the case
was improperly filed against the governor and the superintendent
of public instruction, who are not responsible for the state
formula that determines school aid.  The formula is determined
by the General Assembly.

Judge Bradford though also dismissed the portion of the lawsuit
that named the Indiana State Board of Education, which also
carries out the formula.

The judge write in her opinion that a closer examination of
plaintiffs' claim seems to be, in reality, dissatisfaction with
how the formula is weighed and implemented by the state Board of
Education, not the formula itself.

The Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) initiated the
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of nine children and their
families from eight school districts in April 2006.  

The suit claims that the state is not adequately funding schools
so they can meet academic standards and performance mandates
placed on them.  The families involved were willing to be
original plaintiffs in the case (Class Action Reporter, April
28, 2006).

In addition, it also claims that the constitution "imposes a
duty on the state to provide an education that prepares all of
Indiana's children -- rich or poor, white, black or Hispanic,
with or without special needs and with or without English
proficiency -- to function in a complex and rapidly changing
society" and compete successfully for productive employment and
advancement through higher education.

The suit seeks to represent tens of thousands of students in
public schools, including those living in poverty, minority
students, those with disabilities and those just beginning to
learn English.

Mr. Weisman previously told The Associated Press that the
lawsuit was not aimed at funding disparities between districts,
but enforcement of the constitution on behalf of all public
school children.

For more details, contact Michael D. Weisman of Weisman &
McIntyre, A Professional Corporation, 99 Summer Street, 20th
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-
720-2727, Fax: 617-720-0330, Web site: http://www.wmtrial.com.


MICHIGAN: Court Allows Suit Over Trash Collection Fee to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wayne County Circuit Court granted class-action status to a
lawsuit filed against the City of Detroit and its mayor for the
imposition last year of a $300 annual garbage collection fee,
Freep.com reports.

Judge John O'Hair certified the class action to include any
person or entity in the city that suffered the imposition of the
fee.

The suit was filed about 800 homeowners on Oct. 10, 2006.  It
alleges that the fee amounts to a hidden tax that should have
been voted on by residents (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24,
2006).  

The City Council and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick approved the trash
collection fee in July.  It was intended to replace a 3-mill tax
levy and as an alternative to laying-off 600 city workers.

According to the suit, which was filed by Detroit resident
Valerie Weems, the fee provides a budgetary increase to the
city, flouting state law requiring that a fee only cost as much
as the service provided.

In their suit, the residents seek the abolishment of the fee and
the $300 payment refunded.  In addition, they also want the city
barred from further collecting the fee.

Plaintiffs allege that the 3-mill tax levy for trash collection
is still on the books, a claim the city denies.  City officials
are insisting that it did a lot of research on state law and
various other considerations made in the suit before proceeding
with the plan.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Macuga & Liddle, P.C, 975 East Jefferson
         Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101 Phone: 313-392-
         0015, Fax: 313-392-0025, E-mail:
         info@mlclassaction.com, Web site:
         http://www.mlclassaction.com;and
  

     (2) [Defendant] John Johnson Esq., 645 Griswold, Suite
         1312, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 962-2501.


MURPHY OIL: La. Court Okays $330M Settlement in Oil Spill Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana approved a $330 million settlement between
the Murphy Oil Corp. and about 6,000 St. Bernard Parish
homeowners for damages caused by an oil spill during Hurricane
Katrina, The AP WorldStream reports.

In a three-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon called
the $330 million settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate." He
also approved more than $36 million in attorney fees and costs
to be paid by Murphy.

The settlement spells out four levels of compensation from a
flat $15,000 for damages to homes farthest from the tank to
buyouts of the closest houses: $40 per square foot (0.09 square
meters) of living space, plus $19.25 per square foot in damages,
plus $3,375 per occupant.

                        Settlement Terms

The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the
Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish.  Objections to the
settlement must be made to the court by Dec. 15, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006).

The suit, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.," stems from the spill
of about 1 million gallons of oil from a storage tank that was
moved off its base by massive flooding during Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Judge Fallon gave preliminary approval to the
proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
12, 2006).

Under the settlement, all residential and commercial properties
in the class area will receive a cash payment pursuant to a fair
and equitable allocation subject to court approval following
recommendations by a court-appointed Special Master.

The entire class area will have the benefit of a comprehensive
remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory
bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.

About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and
business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed
liaison for the committee that would help disburse the
settlement.

Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying
property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million
would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said.

Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty
Arpent Canal.

The settlement spells out four levels of compensation, depending
on how bad the pollution was.  Compensation ranges from $15,000
in damages to homes farthest from the spill's epicenter to
buyouts of homes at a rate of $40 a square foot of living space,
plus $19 a square foot in damages.

The settlement puts to rest the vast majority of lawsuits filed
after a huge oil-storage tank at Murphy's flooded refinery near
New Orleans floated off its foundation and broke in 2005,
unleashing about 25,000 barrels of oil in the surrounding
neighborhoods.

                         Case Background

The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of
residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation
for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux,
Louisiana.  Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that
was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2006).  

Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at
approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed
the suit.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  The court certified the class on
Jan. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:     

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common     
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-     
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,     
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,     
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and   

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

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and    
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:    
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and  
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NEVADA: Reno Police Faces Lawsuit Over Warrantless Searches
------------------------------------------------------------
Dancers at the Wild Orchid filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada against the City of
Reno and its police force for unlawful warrantless searches
after citations were issued in a sting, The Associated Press
reports.

The suit alleges that on Jan. 25, 2007, approximately 20 police
officers barged into the Virginia Street location of the Wild
Orchid and conducted a retaliatory raid and unlawful search of
female dressing rooms and other non-public areas of the Wild
Orchid.

The suit further contends defendants and each of them, entered
the Wild Orchid and rudely and obnoxiously conducted:

     -- a warrantless search of the premises,

     -- unconstitutional custodial interrogations of plaintiffs,
        and plaintiff class members,

     -- disrupted their work, placing working as well as non-
        working plaintiffs into custody (simply because the non-
        working plaintiff was female),

     -- falsely imprisoned plaintiffs while taking over an hour
        to perform a simple identification check which should
        take less than three minutes,

     -- refusing to have male officers leave the locker rooms
        while females changed their most private toiletries,

     -- announcing that based upon City of Reno Municipal Code
        Section 4.04.190, the Police would continue to make such
        raids in the future irrespective of plaintiffs' fourth
        amendment rights, and

     -- insultingly and abusively soliciting and requesting
        unlawful sexual favors from female class members, who
        rebuffed the police for asking for such and issuing
        citations for being unlicensed to those who are clearly
        licensed to.

Plaintiffs pray for the court to issue an order:

     -- declaring that RMC 4.04.190 and RMC Section 5.07.020 are
        unconstitutional, void and unenforceable, and

     -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees,
        subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all
        those acting in concert with them, from entering the
        premises of any business within the city of Reno for the
        purposes of conducting a criminal investigation without
        a warrant issued upon probable cause in violation of the
        Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution made
        applicable to the defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment
        to the Constitution, and Section 18 of Article I of the
        Nevada State Constitution;

     -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees,
        subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all
        those acting in concert with them, from detaining
        unnecessarily and/or engaging in custodial interrogation
        of any plaintiff class members;

     -- enjoining any male defendants, and each of them, their
        employees, subordinates, agents, successors and assigns,
        and all those acting in concert with them, from entering
        any locker room or other private female area while
        occupied by females;

     -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees,
        subordinates, agents, successors and assigned, and all
        those acting in concert with them, from enforcing any
        licensing laws for dancers unless until the City of Reno
        resumes the practice of issuing temporary licenses;

     -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees,
        subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all
        those acting in concert with them, from falsely   
        imprisoning and or arresting plaintiffs;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- such further relief as the court deems just.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?192c

The suit is "Moore et al v. Evans et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-38
HDM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.

Representing plaintiffs is Mark Russel Thierman of the Thierman
Law Firm, 7287 Lakeside Drive, Reno, NV 89511, Phone: 775-284-
1500, Fax: 775-703-5027, E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net.


OCA INC: Motion to Dismiss La. Securities Fraud Suit Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud suit
filed against OCA, Inc.

On June 17, 2005 an investor sued OCA, Inc. claiming that the
company issued materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased OCA common stock between May 18, 2004 and June 7,  
2005.  

An additional class action complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of OCA common stock during the period Nov. 12, 2003
through and including June 7, 2005.   

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

OCA, a provider of business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dentists, issued numerous positive statements
throughout the class period touting the company's financial
performance, the complaint says.

Then on June 7, 2005, OCA shocked the market when it announced
that it was further delaying the filing of its annual report,
that it intended to restate its quarterly financial statements
for 2004 and that it had placed the company's chief operating
officer on administrative leave.   

Specifically, the company admitted that, among other things, it
had materially overstated its patient receivables and patient
revenue for the first three quarters of 2004.

On this news, shares of the OCA stock fell $1.53 per share or
almost 38% to close at $2.50 per share on June 7, 2005.

On July 1, 2005, the court issued an order consolidating all
related securities and derivative actions into one class action.  
On Aug. 3, 2005, the court held an initial conference and on
Aug. 4, 2005, signed Pretrial Order No. 1 ordering, among other
things:

     -- the consolidated action be entitled "In re OCA, Inc.  
        Securities and Derivative Litigation, No. 05-2165;  
  
     -- motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead  
        counsel in the securities action be filed no later than  
        Aug. 12, 2005; and  

     -- responses to lead plaintiff motions be filed no later  
        than Aug. 19, 2005; and  

     -- setting a status conference for Sept. 21, 2005.

On Aug. 12, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court.  Further
briefing with regard to the appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel was filed.  On Nov. 18, 2005, Judge Sarah S. Vance
issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On Feb. 1, 2006, Lead Plaintiff filed his consolidated class
action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased OCA
common stock or sold OCA put options during the period May 18,
2004 through and including June 6, 2005.   

Beginning March 3, 2006, defendants filed their motions to
dismiss this complaint.  Lead plaintiff filed his opposition to
defendants' motions on April 3, 2006.   

On May 19, 2006, the court heard arguments on defendants'
motions.  On Dec. 14, 2006 the Judge granted the Motion to
Dismiss against one named individual Defendant and denied the
Motion to Dismiss against the Company and remaining named
Defendants.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Bruce  
Simon, et al. v. OCA, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.    

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:  

     (1) Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., 701 Camp Street,   
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 524-5777, Fax:   
         (504) 524-5763, E-mail: info@kanner-law.com;  
   
     (2) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL),   
         515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach,   
         FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;   

     (3) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala   
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:   
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
   
     (4) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East   
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:   
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 2300 Promenade II; 1230   
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:   
         (888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail:   
         attorney@chitwoodlaw.com;

     (6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,   
         80218-1417, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 800-711-6483, e-  
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;     

     (7) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,   
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:   
         wfederman@aol.com;
   
     (8) Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite   
         2150, New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: 504-455-1400;   

     (9) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261   
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:   
         215-886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

    (10) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660   
         Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-  
         4335, Phone: 202-544-9840, Fax; 202-544-9850;
   
    (11) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), The   
         Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton,   
         FL, 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-  
         mail: info@milbergweiss.com;

    (12) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park   
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:   
         212-661-1100; and

    (13) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,   
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:   
         sn06106@AOL.com.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $56M Stock Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted final approval to a $56 million settlement of the
Peregrine Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 8, 2002, an investor sued Peregrine Systems in federal
court claiming that the company inflated its stock price by
misleading the public.

The class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.  It seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who bought Peregrine common stock from July 19, 2000 through May
3, 2002.  The class period was later extended.

The complaint accuses Peregrine, a San Diego-based software
firm, of misleading investors about its business and finances by
improperly recording revenue it later wrote off.

The complaint states that news of the problems came to light May
6, 2002 when Peregrine disclosed an internal investigation into
potential accounting inaccuracies in fiscal years 2001 and 2002
-- revenue recognition irregularities that could total up to
$100 million.  

In the same statement, Peregrine announced the resignations of
Stephen Gardner, the company's chief executive officer, and
Matthew Gless, its executive vice president of finance.  The
complaint names Mr. Gardner and Mr. Gless as individual
defendants.

Following the May 6 announcement, Peregrine's stock plummeted
65% to a 52-week low of $0.89.

Beginning on July 3, 2002, competing motions for the appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate all
related actions were filed with the Court.  

On July 23, 2002, Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
Peregrine Systems Inc. Securities Litigation."

On Jan. 30, 2003, Judge Jones, Jr. issued an order appointing
Lead Plaintiffs and their selection of Lead Counsel.

The operative complaint in this action is lead plaintiffs' first
amended consolidated class action complaint filed on April 5,
2004.  Defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint
beginning June 18, 2004.  

Both parties filed further briefings, and on March 4, 2005, the
court held a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss.  On
March 30, 2005, Judge Benitez issued an Order granting certain
Defendants' motions, granting in part and denying in part
certain other Defendants' motions and granting Lead Plaintiffs
sixty days to amend their complaint.

On May 6, 2005, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intention not
to amend their complaint and filed a Motion for entry of a
Judgment.  The Court took Lead Plaintiffs' motion under
submission.

On July 8, defendant Arthur Andersen LLP and certain other
defendants filed motions to dismiss certain claims alleged in
Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint not previously dismissed in
the court's March 30 Order.  On Oct. 17, 2005, Arthur Andersen
withdrew its motion.

On Jan. 17, 2006, Judge Roger T. Benitez issued an Order
Granting Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b) and certified these
claims for appeal:

     -- Lead Plaintiffs' U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
        Section 10(b) and the U.S. Securities Exchange
        Commission's Rule 10(b)-5 claims against the KPMG
        defendants; and

     -- Lead Plaintiffs' 34 Act Section 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC
        Rule 10(b)-5 claims against certain other defendants.  
        
Pursuant to the same Order, Judge Benitez stayed the entire case
pending resolution of these claims on appeal.

On Feb. 6, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from Judge
Benitez's Jan. 17, 2006 Final Judgment.  

On July 12, 2006, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed their opening
brief.  Defendants/Appellees filed their briefs beginning Aug.
25, 2006.  The appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit.

                      Partial Settlements

After arms-length negotiations, lead plaintiffs and defendants
Arthur Andersen, Douglas Powanda, William Savoy and Thomas
Watrous (Settling Defendants) agreed to settle the claims
against these defendants and entered into stipulations and
agreements of settlement.

The proposed settlements are on behalf of all those who
purchased or acquired Peregrine securities from July 22, 1999
through and including May 3, 2002, including all persons who
owned Harbinger Corp. or Remedy Corp. stock and exchanged those
shares for shares of Peregrine.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlements, as outlined more fully
in the Stipulations:

      -- Arthur Andersen has paid into escrow $30,000,000;
      -- Mr. Powanda has paid into escrow $4,675,000;
      -- Mr. Savoy is required to pay into escrow $5,100,000;
         and

      -- Mr. Watrous is required to pay into escrow $500,000.

The settlement fund will also consist of approximately
$16,017,922 generated from the sale of 800,000 shares of
Peregrine common stock obtained on behalf of class members from
the settlement agreement between lead plaintiffs and Peregrine,
and other parties in interest, in Peregrine's Bankruptcy action,
bringing the total value of the settlement fund to $56,292,922.

The court preliminarily approved these proposed settlements on
July 31, 2006 and set a settlement fairness hearing, to be held
before Judge Benitez, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California for Nov. 8, 2006.  

The settlement fairness hearing was held and on Nov. 15, 2006,
orders approving the settlements and plan of allocation were
issued.

For more details, contact In re Peregrine Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 8040, San Raphael, CA 94912-8040, Phone:
(800) 654-5763.


PMA CAPITAL: Objects to Class Certification in Penn. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments for a motion by defendants opposing certification
as a class action of a securities suit filed against PMA Capital
Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania were heard on Dec. 1, 2006.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of purported
purchasers of the company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior  
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50%
Monthly Income Senior Notes.   

The complaint names as defendants the company, former chairman,
Frederick W. Anton, and former chief executive officer, John W.
Smithson, and two other individuals who were top officers at the
company during the class period.

On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases under "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,   
Civil Action No. 03-6121," and appointing Sheet Metal Workers   
Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund
and Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and   
Death Benefits as lead plaintiff.   

On Sept. 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the company's securities between May 5, 1999 and   
Feb. 11, 2004.   

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by making materially false and misleading public
statements and material omissions during the class period
regarding the company's underwriting performance, loss reserves
and related internal controls.    

It also alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act by making materially false and misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses about the company's
financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and
related internal controls.    

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right
to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.   

By order dated July 27, 2005, the court partially granted the
company's previously filed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, dismissing all allegations with respect to The PMA
Insurance Group, and otherwise denying the motion to dismiss.  
By virtue of the order, the alleged class period was reduced to
Nov. 6, 2003.  

On Aug. 31, 2005 defendants filed their answers to lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  On Nov. 14, 2005, lead
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification.  On Nov.
30, 2005, defendant's motion for partial dismissal was denied.  

On April 28, 2006, defendants filed their oppositions to the
motion for class certification.  Oral arguments for the motion
were heard on Dec. 1, 2006.
      
The suit is "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,   
Civil Action No. 03-6121," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Petrese B.  
Tucker.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Robert A. Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of   
         Berger and Montague, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia,   
         PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4636, E-  
         mail: astock@bm.net; and   

     (2) Salvatore J. Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad &   
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY   
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300.    

Representing the company are David M. Howard, Michael L.   
Kichline and Joseph A. Tate of Dechert, LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic   
Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone: 215-  
994-2218, E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com,
david.howard@dechert.com, and joseph.tate@dechert.com.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Orders $925T Allocation for Deloitte Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
issued an order directing distribution of a $925,000 payout to
settle claims against Deloitte & Touche, LLP, in a securities
fraud suit filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.

Originally, the company and several of its executive officers
were named as defendants in a putative securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma in early 2001.  

The suit is seeking unspecified damages on the basis of
allegations that the company issued false and misleading
financial information, primarily related to the method it used
to account for commission advance receivables from sales
associates.   

On March 5, 2002, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.   

Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  

In August 2002 the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from
the case, leaving two-individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs
on behalf of the putative class.   As of Dec. 31, 2003, the
briefing in the appeal had been completed.   

On Jan. 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the appeal.  On July  
14, 2006 the Tenth Circuit entered an order and judgment,
affirming the trial court's dismissal with prejudice.

On July 28, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a petition
for rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied.

             Settlement with Deloitte & Touche LLP

The parties participated in an extensive mediation process
through the Tenth Circuit's mandatory mediation program, which
resulted in a settlement of the action with Deloitte & Touche.  

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement with Deloitte &
Touche, as described more fully in the stipulation and agreement
of settlement, a settlement fund in the amount of $925,000, plus
interest that accrues on the Fund prior to distribution, will be
created for the benefit of the class.

On Aug. 6, 2004, the court granted preliminary approval of this
settlement, and certified, for settlement purposes, a settlement
class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or
acquired Pre-Paid Legal common stock from March 18, 1999 through
and including May 15, 2001.

The court also set a hearing, to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed settlement with Deloitte & Touche is fair,
reasonable and adequate for Dec. 10, 2004.  

On Dec. 10, 2004 the settlement hearing was held and Judge Robin
Cauthron signed a final order approving the class settlement
with Deloitte & Touche.

On Nov. 13, 2006, the court issued an order directing
distribution of the net settlement fund.  The claims
administrator will be distributing the fund to those
shareholders who filed a valid claim.

The suit is "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities, et al. v., Case No.  
5:01-cv-00182," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.  
Cauthron.   

Claims Administrator is c/o Heffler Radetich & Saitta L.L.P.
P.O. Box 190, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0190, Phone: (215) 665-
1124.


QUINTUS CORP: Calif. Court OKs $10.1M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval to a $10,100,000 million settlement of a
securities fraud lawsuit filed against Quintus Corp.

On Nov. 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against Quintus Corp. in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The action seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Quintus common stock
between Jan. 19, 2000 and Nov. 14, 2000.  The class period was
later extended.

The action charges that Quintus and some of its top officers
misled investors about the company's revenues and earnings and
that the Company did not prepare its financial statements in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  

On Nov. 15, 2000, the company announced it was investigating
"certain financial reporting matters" and had delayed filing its
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2000, "pending
completion of the investigation of revenue and accounts
receivable" for that and previous periods.

As a result of the announcement, Quintus shares fell 50% from
its closing price of $6 on Nov. 14 to $3 at midday the following
day before trading in the stock was halted on the Nasdaq Stock
Market.

On Jan. 16, 2001, motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel and to consolidate all related actions were
filed with the court.  The court consolidated all related cases
on April 12, 2001.  Thereafter, lead counsel and lead plaintiff
were appointed.

Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint on July 30, 2001.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on Oct. 29, 2001, which plaintiffs opposed.  

On Sept. 3, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss and gave lead plaintiffs an opportunity
to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint.

On Feb. 10, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint and on March 28, 2003, defendants filed their motions
to dismiss this complaint.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motions to dismiss on May 23, 2003.  A hearing on
defendants' motions was set and rescheduled numerous times.

On Dec. 7, 2004, prior to a ruling on defendants' motions to
dismiss, Quintus announced that it reached a settlement in
connection with this securities action as well as actions
pending in state court in California and Texas and the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

The terms of the proposed settlement create a settlement fund in
the amount of $10,100,000 to settle all claims against the
defendants.

On July 7, 2006, Judge Vaughn Walker issued an Order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and certifying a
Class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired
Quintus common stock from Nov. 15, 1999 to Nov. 15, 2000,
inclusive.  

On July 25, 2006, Judge Walker approved the amended notice of
pendency and proposed settlement of class action to be
disseminated to class members.

On Dec. 5, 2006 a hearing was held and that same day Judge
Walker signed a judgment granting final approval of the proposed
settlement and the plan of allocation.

Headquartered in Dublin, California, Quintus Corp., develops and
provides comprehensive electronic customer relationship
management software, applications and services.  The company and
its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 22, 2001
(Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 01-00501 through 01-00503).

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are    
Jordan L. Lurie and Leigh A. Parker at Weiss & Lurie, 10940  
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:  
(310) 208-2800.

Claims Administrator: Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box
9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claims.   


SALLY FOSTER: Recalls Tea Lights Candles Due to Fire Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Foster, Inc., of Troy, Michigan, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
46,800 sets of tea lights sold with votive candleholders.

The company said the tea light candles have a clear, plastic
shell that can melt or ignite, posing a fire or burn hazard to
consumers.

Sally Foster has received two reports of the plastic shells of
these tea light candles igniting, causing minor property damage.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled tea lights were sold as part of the three-piece
Glass Candle Holders with Tea Lights Set, item number S106 in
the Sally Foster catalog and Web site.  

The product's packaging was marked "Votive Holders with
Tealights-Set of 3" and "Item Number 2006 157."  Only the white
tea light candles with clear plastic shells are affected.

Products delivered after Dec. 8, 2006 included tea lights with
metal shells and are not included in this recall.  The glass
candleholders sold with these tea lights are not subject to the
recall and consumers may continue to use them.

These tea light candles were manufactured in China, and are
being imported by Innovage Distribution, Inc., of Los Angeles,
California are sold through Sally Foster's Web site from July
2006 through December 2006 and in Sally Foster catalogs from
August 2006 through December 2006 for about $15.

Picture of the recalled tea light candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07090.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the tea light candles
and contact Sally Foster for a set of six free replacement tea
light candles with metal shells.

Consumers who purchased the item online will be directly
notified by Sally Foster and will receive the free set of six
replacement tea light candles.

For more information, call Sally Foster toll-free at (866) 723-
0925 between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Saturday through Sunday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.sallyfoster.com.Or contact Sally  
Foster's media contact, Tamara Oliverio at (248) 404-2142.


SEITEL INC: Motion for Stock Suit Class Certification Due Feb. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities fraud lawsuit pending against
Sietel, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas has until Feb. 1, 2007 to file a motion for
class certification.

On May 9, 2002, a class action was filed against Seitel, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who bought Seitel common stock from May
5, 2000 through May 3, 2002.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- Seitel;  

     -- Paul A. Frame president, chief executive officer, and,  
        as of February 2002, chairman of the board;

     -- Debra D. Valice, chief financial officer, executive vice  
        president of finance, treasurer and corporate secretary;  

     -- Marcia H. Kendrick, chief accounting officer and  
        assistant corporate secretary; and  

     -- Herbert M. Pearlman, founder and chairman of the board  
        of directors until his resignation in February of 2002.  

According to the complaint, Houston-based Seitel and the
individual defendants materially misrepresented the company's
financial results for 2000 and 2001 by improperly recognizing
revenues.  

Most of the improper revenue, the complaint says, was
attributable to Seitel's undisclosed practice of recording
revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and other
geophysical information before delivering data to customers.

The practice ran afoul of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and artificially inflated Seitel's stock price during
the class period, the complaint says.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants were motivated to
commit the accounting fraud in order to earn commissions and
bonuses, which were tied to the company's revenues and earnings.  
It claims the defendants had nearly $10 million of insider stock
sales during the class period.

On April 1, Seitel announced that it was restating its financial
results for the year 2000 and the first three quarters of 2001.  
The restatement reduced reported revenue by 15% in 2000 and 30%
during the first three quarters of 2001.  It also turned what
had purportedly been profits during those periods into losses,
the lawsuit states.

By the time Seitel further detailed the restatements on May 3,
2002, the company's stock price had plunged to $5.65 per share,
more than 75% below the class period high of $22.72 per share,
the complaint says.

On July 22, 2002, competing motions for consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On Aug. 3, 2002, the court issued an order consolidating all
related actions into one class action, "In re Seitel, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  

The court held a hearing on the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel on Aug. 30, 2002 and continued the hearing on
Sept. 5, 2002.  

On Sept. 11, 2002, Judge Werlein, Jr. issued an order appointing
a lead plaintiff and his selection of lead and liaison counsel.   

On Dec. 6, 2002, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended
class action complaint naming Ernst & Young and the company's
auditor, as an additional defendant.  

In response, beginning on Feb. 4, 2003, defendants filed their
motions to dismiss this complaint.  On March 26, 2003 plaintiffs
filed an opposition to defendants' motions.

                     Bankruptcy Proceedings

On June 11, 2003, Seitel filed a notice with the court regarding
the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.  On July 2, 2003,
the court administratively closed the case, granted the parties
leave to move to reinstate the case on the court's active docket
in the future, and denied, without prejudice to re-filing, all
outstanding motions.

                      1st Partial Settlement

Following the expiration of the automatic stay of the action due
to Seitel's bankruptcy filing, lead plaintiff and defendants
Seitel, Mr. Frame, Ms. Valice, Ms. Kendrick and the Estate of
Herbert Pearlman entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated Oct. 28, 2004 to settle the claims against
these defendants.  

Pursuant to the terms of this proposed settlement, a settlement
fund in the amount of $5,250,000, plus interest that accrues on
the fund, will be established for the benefit of the class.

On May 6, 2005, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore signed an order
granting preliminary approval of this proposed settlement;
certifying, for settlement purposes only, the action as a class
action "on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Seitel common stock in the open market during the
period from May 5, 2000 through and including May 3, 2002; and
setting a settlement fairness hearing to determine, among other
things, whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests for the class, for July 29,
2005.  

The settlement fairness hearing was held, and the court issued
an order and final judgment that same day granting final
approval of this settlement.

On Sept. 14, 2006, a motion for distribution of the settlement
fund was filed with the court.  On Nov. 16, 2006, the court
issued an order approving distribution of the settlement fund.  

On Dec. 15, 2006, the claims administrator distributed the fund
to those shareholders who filed a valid claim.

The case is continuing against Ernst & Young (E&Y).  

On July 27, 2005 lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
against E&Y and on Sept. 27, 2005, E&Y filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which lead plaintiff opposed on Nov. 14, 2005.   

On Aug. 29, 2006, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore signed an order
denying E&Y's motion.  E&Y filed their answer to the second  
amended complaint on Sept. 13, 2006.

The case against E&Y is continuing into the discovery phase of
the litigation.  Additionally, pursuant to a Nov. 17, 2006
Order, lead plaintiff has until Feb. 1, 2007 to file his motion
for class certification.


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

In November 2001, the company and certain of its current or
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
class action shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit is now captioned, "In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10831."

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company's
underwriters, certain of the company's officers and directors
and the company violated the federal securities laws because its
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding
the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation
practices of the underwriters.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.   

In October 2002, the company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal
and tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.

In February 2003, the court dismissed the claim against the
company brought under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, without giving the plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint with respect to that claim.

The court declined to dismiss the claim against the company
brought under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

In June 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the company's board of directors, the
company approved in principle a settlement offer by the
plaintiffs.

In June 2004, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.  On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement.  On Feb. 24,
2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain
underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the
plaintiffs under the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a final fairness hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval for the settlement. It
is still subject to statutory notice requirements as well as
final judicial approval.

The court's decision on final approval of the settlement remains
pending, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation Case
No. 01-CV-10831" related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
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, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,  
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

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

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

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

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


TENNESSEE GAS: Class Status Sought in Kans. Gas Measurement Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and
Their Predecessors, et al.," are seeking class certification for
the suit pending in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and/or its subsidiaries are named
defendants in actions that generally allege mismeasurement of
natural gas volumes and/or heating content resulting in the
underpayment of royalties.

The first set of cases was filed in 1997 by an individual under
the False Claims Act, which has been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in "In re: Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation,"
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.  

These complaints allege an industry-wide conspiracy to
underreport the heating value as well as the volumes of the
natural gas produced from federal and Native American lands.  

In May 2005, a representative appointed by the court issued a
recommendation to dismiss most of the actions.  In October 2006,
the U.S. District Judge issued an order dismissing all
measurement claims against all defendants.

Similar allegations were filed in a second action in 1999 in
"Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et
al.," in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas.  

The plaintiffs currently seek certification of a class of
royalty owners in wells on non-federal and non-Native American
lands in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado.

Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in
the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling.  

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages in
the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest,
expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard
to future gas measurement practices.


TRANSMETA CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Transmeta Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York has granted final approval
to the settlement of the consolidated class action, "In re
Transmeta Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."

The suit was filed against Transmeta Corp., certain of its
directors and officers, and certain of the underwriters for its
initial public offering, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection
with the company's initial public offering on Nov. 7, 2000
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters
for that offering, and alleges claims against the company and
several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under
Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  

Those cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  

In February 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an order regarding
the pleading of amended complaints.  

Plaintiffs subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all
issuer defendants, which settlement would provide for payments
by issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.

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 "In re Transmeta Corporation Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 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.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Proceeds in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Veeco Instruments Inc. and certain of its
officers.

The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's
financial statements for the quarterly periods and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2004 as a result of the company's discovery of
certain improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc
business unit.  

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and
assert claims against all defendants for violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims
against the individual defendants for violations of Section
20(b) of the Exchange Act.   

In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit at the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff
class for the lawsuit consisting of all persons who acquired the
company's securities from Apr. 26, 2004 through Feb. 10, 2005.   
The parties are currently involved in the discovery process.

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 "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge  
Colleen McMahon.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Phyllis Maza Parker of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622  
         Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, US, Phone:  
         (215) 875-4647, Fax: (215) 875-4674, E-mail:  
         pparker@bm.net;

     (2) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:  
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; and

     (3) Sherrie Raiken Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston),  
         3704 Travis Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (215)  
         875-3071, Fax: (215)-875-5715.

Representing the company is Robert F. Serio of Gibson, Dunn &  
Crutcher, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY  
10166, Phone: 212-351-3917, Fax: 212-351-5246, E-mail:  
rserio@gibsondunn.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Ill. Court Mulls Class Status for Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark VandeWiele of the Rock Island County Circuit in
Illinois said he'll soon rule on whether a local lawsuit filed
by employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that alleges non-payment to
workers of hours worked through breaks, the Quad-Cities Online
reports.

In 2001, group of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. employees asking for
conditional class certification, filed a lawsuit against the
retail giant alleging the company required hourly employees to
work "off the clock" without compensation (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 25, 2002).  

The suit charges the company of engaging in a "systematic scheme
of wage abuse" against its hourly paid employees from Aug. 15,
1996.  Hourly workers allegedly were not paid for missed and/or
interrupted meal and rest breaks and were asked to alter time
records.

Last week, attorneys representing three local plaintiffs argued
that about 223,000 employees for Wal-Mart and Sam's Club
employed in Illinois since 1996 are owed compensation for
working off the clock and through their rest breaks.

New York attorney Judith L. Spanier -- representing local
plaintiffs Lisa Brown, Cynthia Camp and Joseph Stanfield --
listed numerous documents and statistics to show problems chain-
wide and inside Illinois with Wal-Mart employees not getting
scheduled breaks and forced to work off the clock.

Ms. Spanier, further argued that Wal-Mart's own internal audit
in 1992 showed 32 percent of required breaks were not taken,
despite executive policy and federal law dictating every break
must be taken.

According to the report, an Oct. 9, 2000 letter from a corporate
lawyer to Wal-Mart executives listed Illinois in the top 10
states with the highest possible liabilities due to "chronic
problems" in meal- and rest-break violations.

The letter, which was part of Ms. Spanier's presentation, listed
possible liability to the company at $80 million to $100
million.

However, Wal-Mart attorneys maintained that not every person who
worked at Wal-Mart even claims to be wronged and granting class-
action status would be assumptive.

Wal-Mart attorney Matthew Pappas objected to Ms. Spanier's
showing of the document, arguing it was protected under
attorney-client privilege.  Judge VandeWiele put the document
under seal.

The judge told Wal-Mart attorneys that if the plaintiffs could
prove all of this at trial, it would seem like the company was
taking advantage of its employees in Illinois.

Judge VandeWiele said he would issue his ruling on the class-
action status soon.  When he does, he said he wouldn't see the
case again "for a few years" while the losing party takes his
decision to the appellate courts.

Representing Wal-Mart is Matthew P. Pappas of Pappas & Schnell,
P.C., The Paddock Building, 1617 Second Avenue, Suite 300, Post
Box 5408, Rock Island, IL 61204-5408, Phone: (309) 788-7110,
Fax: (309) 788-2773.

Plaintiffs are represented by Judith L. Spanier of Abbey Spanier
Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191.


WASHINGTON: Jury Issues Mixed Verdict in WTO Protesters' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
After three days of deliberation, a federal court jury issued a
mixed verdict in the purported class action, "Hankin et al. v.
Seattle City of, et al.," which was in relation to the arrests
of about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization
(WTO) meeting in the city, The Seattle Times reports.

The jury found that the city violated the Fourth Amendment
rights of roughly 200 protesters arrested at Westlake Park
during the WTO upheaval on Dec. 1, 1999, but determined the city
was not guilty of violating the plaintiffs' free-speech rights.

Shortly after the ruling was announced, Seattle City Council
President Nick Licata said the city could have done a better job
in handling the protests.

However, Mr. Licata was quick to point out that there clearly
were people who wanted to provoke an overreaction, and they
succeeded in giving Seattle a black eye.  "We have the right to
assemble and protest, but it comes at a cost," he adds.

Previously, in testimony before the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of Washington, former Seattle Police Chief Norm
Stamper said that the city did not establish a policy on Dec. 1,
1999, to arrest people protesters.  In addition, the former
police chief said that he would have resigned rather than
enforce such a directive (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007).

The case centers on an emergency ordinance that took effect on
Dec. 1, 1999, imposing downtown as off-limits to ensure public
safety amidst protests while the conference is ongoing.  Eight
people arrested on Dec. 1, 1999 are serving as lead plaintiffs
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2007).

Plaintiffs contend that the city violated their First Amendment
right to free speech by arresting them because they were
espousing anti-WTO sentiments.  They also say the city violated
their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search
and seizure.

Previously, Judge Barbara Rothstein, who presided over the case
back then, threw out protesters claims, saying the city had
imposed a proper "time, place or manner" restriction to ensure
public safety (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2005).  

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth upheld the
ordinance, it pointed out, however, that the city might have
gone too far in targeting only anti-WTO protesters within the
restricted zone, raising questions about discrimination.

In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Withey
told jurors that his clients were arrested merely for speaking
out against WTO.  

The matter to be decided now is whether police singled out
people because of their views and illegally arrested them as
part of a city policy to go after protesters.

To prevail, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that such
unconstitutional acts were made in accordance with official city
policy, or that city leaders such as Mr. Stamper were aware of
and authorized the improper behavior.

Ted Buck, an attorney representing the city, asked Mr. Stamper
if then-Mayor Paul Schell instructed the police to seek out and
arrest protesters.

Mr. Stamper denied that the former mayor issued such a
directive.  He adds that if the mayor had given him such orders,
"I would have fought it.  If I had lost that battle, I would
have offered my resignation."

Mr. Withey had sought to establish that then-Assistant Chief Ed
Joiner, acting with Mr. Stamper's authority, declared a "no-
protest zone" in the downtown area near the Seattle Convention
Center, where WTO meetings were taking place.

During a 7 a.m. news conference Dec. 1, 1999, Mr. Joiner
declared that "anyone that goes into that area to protest will
be arrested immediately," according to a transcript Mr. Withey
introduced into evidence.

Mr. Stamper explains that he delegated Mr. Joiner to plan the
department's tactics and strategy ahead of the WTO meetings and
gave him operational command during the meetings.  However, Mr.
Stamper added that Mr. Joiner never had authority to set policy
for the department.

On Nov. 30, 1999, Seattle erupted in chaos as some 50,000 people
arrived to protest the policies of the WTO.  In a bid to avoid a
second day of unrest, Mayor Schell in the early hours of Dec. 1,
1999, issued "Emergency Order No. 3," which declared parts of
downtown Seattle off-limits to all but a handful of people.

Among the exempt groups: WTO delegates and workers; residents of
the area; business owners and employees; and safety personnel.
The order said nothing about banning protesters from the area.

                        Case Background

On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the
original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  The class action was brought on behalf
of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between
6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999.

Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged
in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting
protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them
using an incorrect arrest record.

The complaint, thus seeks damages from the city, Mayor Schell,
and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than
600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and
2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy.

The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office
Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail:
mike@witheylaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey
Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail:
tbuck@staffordfrey.com.


WESTLAND DEV'T: Motions to Dismiss Sedora Merger Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Judicial District in the County of Bernalillo, New
Mexico granted the motions to dismiss all claims in the
purported class action filed against Westland Development Co.,
Inc. over it's then-proposed merger with Sedora Holdings of New
Mexico (SHNM), according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.  

Westland was named a defendant in the purported class action
filed by Maria Elena A. Rael on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Westland
Development, Inc., against company directors:

     -- Barbara Page,  
     -- Sosimo S. Padilla,  
     -- Jose S. Chavez,  
     -- Josie Castillo,  
     -- Charles V. Pena, Georgia Baca,  
     -- Troy K. Benavidez,  
     -- Ray Mares, Jr.,  
     -- Randolph M. Sanchez, and
     -- Doe Defendants 1-100, and  
     -- Westland Development Co., Inc., nominal defendant

The case, "CV-2006-01756," was filed on March 2, 2006 in the
state of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial
District.  It purports to be a shareholder class and derivative
action on behalf of all shareholders of Westland and Westland.

The action seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
compensatory and punitive damages arising out of Westland's
then-proposed merger with Sedora Holdings of New Mexico (SHNM).
The individual defendants are all directors of Westland.

The complaint purports to allege ten claims for relief against
certain individual director defendants including:  

      -- that they breached their fiduciary duty by entering  
         into the merger agreement with SHNM;  

      -- that they acquired Westland common stock while in  
         possession of inside information;  

      -- that they misappropriated information relating to  
         Westland's financial condition;  

      -- that they conspired with one another to perform the  
         wrongful acts listed in the complaint; and  

      -- that they engaged in corporate waste by awarding some  
         director defendants lucrative severance contracts,  
         enhanced indemnification provisions, obtaining  
         additional director's and officer's liability insurance  
         by removing restrictions on the transferability of  
         certain shares of Westland stock and agreeing to  
         severance payments.  

In addition, plaintiff sought an order requiring Westland to
hold its annual meeting of shareholders and seeks an order in
the complaint to inspect certain corporate records under the New
Mexico Business Corporation Act.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief
including:

      -- declaring that the individual defendants breached their  
         fiduciary duties when they entered into the merger  
         agreements with ANM Holdings, Inc. and later with SHNM  
         and that the agreements are "unlawful and  
         unenforceable";  

      -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the then-
         proposed merger with SHNM, "unless and until Westland  
         adopts and implements a fair sale procedure or  
         process";  

      -- imposing a constructive trust in favor of Westland's  
         shareholders over all oil and gas rights owned by  
         Westland;  

      -- ordering defendants to create and fund a permanent  
         cultural heritage committee to oversee the creation and  
         operation of a museum of Atrisco history as well as  
         publishing certain information about Atrisco history;  

      -- ordering the defendants to ensure the perpetual  
         operation of the cemeteries;  

      -- ordering the publication of all documents associated  
         with the then-proposed merger with SHNM in Spanish as  
         well as English;  

      -- ordering defendants to hold an annual shareholder  
         meeting;  

      -- awarding an unspecified amount of compensatory damages;  
         
      -- awarding an unspecified amount of punitive damages; and  
      
      -- awarding plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys'  
         fees.  

The court stayed discovery on July 17, 2006, and until the
publication of the proxy statement relating to the current
merger agreement.  

Since the proxy has been published, discovery is again underway,
and depositions are expected to occur in October 2006.  The
parties have agreed upon a scheduling order.

Westland and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
original complaint.  Shortly before the hearings scheduled to
address the motions, plaintiff decided to file an amended
complaint, which is expected to assert claims similar to the
claims raised by the original complaint.

The amended complaint purports to allege ten claims for relief
against certain individual director defendants including:

      -- that they breached their fiduciary duty by entering
         into the merger agreements with ANM, SHNM and SunCal;

      -- that they misappropriated information relating to
         Westland's financial condition;

      -- that they aided and abetted one another to perform the
         wrongful acts listed in the complaint; and

      -- that they engaged in corporate waste, abuse of control
         and gross mismanagement by allegedly performing the
         acts described in the amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief
including:

      -- declaring that the individual defendants breached their
         fiduciary duties when they entered into the merger
         agreements with ANM and later with SHNM and later with
         SunCal, and that the agreements are "unlawful and
         unenforceable";

      -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the
         proposed merger with SunCal, "unless or until they
         comply with their fiduciary duties";

      -- enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed
         merger with SunCal "until the company adopts and
         implements a fair sales procedure or process";

      -- awarding an unspecified amount of compensatory damages;

      -- ordering certain changes to the composition of the
         Atrisco Heritage Trust's Board of Trustees;

      -- ordering certain changes to the composition of Atrisco
         Oil & Gas LLC's Board of Directors;

      -- ordering the company to engage in specified procedures
         with respect to the proxy solicitation process for the
         proposed SunCal merger;

      -- awarding an unspecified amount of punitive damages;

      -- declaring Westland's Class B shares to be illegal
         and/or imposing a constructive trust in favor of
         Westland's shareholders over the Class B shares; and
  
      -- awarding plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys'
         fees.

By letter dated Sept. 27, 2006, the court directed the parties
to address the impact, if any, of the amended complaint on the
issues raised by the motions to dismiss filed with respect to
the original complaint.

The court also asked specific questions about three legal issues
relating to the motions.  Both sides as directed by the court
filed supplemental briefs.

On Oct. 19, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the defense
motions to dismiss.  By letter ruling on Nov. 1, 2006, the court
announced it would grant the motions to dismiss all claims in
the case.  

A formal order has been circulated among counsel and was to be
entered by the court not later than Nov. 13, 2006.

Westland Development Co., Inc. on the Net:
http://www.westlandnm.com/.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. who purchased
during the period from November 1, 2006 through January 10,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Hornbeck and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
company's operations and expected earnings for the 4th Quarter
2006, and for fiscal 2007.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the company reaffirmed its guidance for fiscal
2007 and specifically reaffirmed earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for the fourth
quarter of 2006 to range of between $39.0 million and $41.0
million and earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and
$0.74.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the company announced an offering of $200.0
million in convertible senior notes with an over-allotment of
$30.0 million in principal amount of additional notes.

On Nov. 13, 2006, the company announced that it had closed the
note offering and received the offering proceeds.  These
aggressive projections were crucial to the completion of the
note offering, but have the effect of artificially inflating the
price of the stock.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the company shocked the market by announcing
that that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings per share
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 and for fiscal 2006,
materially reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2006 to
range between $33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0
million to $41.0 million.

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

The company was forced to admit that it had knowledge over the
previous several months 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.

As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck 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 markedly increased
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Hornbeck securities during the
class period.

Interested parties may move the court not later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan
Lee, both of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East
39th Street New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or
(800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces the filing of a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on behalf of purchasers of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. publicly
traded securities during the period Aug. 4, 2005 through June
15, 2006.

The complaint charges Sunrise and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, because, during the class period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, its stock option plans, its compensation
practices and its financial results.

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

The individual defendants took advantage of Sunrise's falsified
financial results, the artificial inflation of Sunrise's stock
and its stock option plans by selling shares of their Sunrise
stock for proceeds of over $34 million.

The complaint also alleges that defendants manipulated the
company's stock option plans so as to enrich themselves by
"backdating" the stock options they were granted.

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court not later than March 16,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles
H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton,
MN  55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Mager & Goldstein Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein LLP announced that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Technical Olympic USA, Inc.
on behalf of purchasers of securities during the period between
Aug. 1, 2005, and Nov. 6, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning its business and prospects causing the
artificial inflation of the stock price.  When the truth of the
company's true financial condition became known, the stock price
plummeted.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 12,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein or Jonathan
Pignoli both of Mager & Goldstein LLP, 1640 Town Center Circle,
Suite 216 Weston, Florida 33326, Phone: 866-849-7545 or 954-515-
0123, Fax: 954-515-0124, E-mail: jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com
or jpignoli@magergoldstein.com.


TOP TANKERS: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against TOP Tankers, Evangelos J. Pistolis and Stamatios N.
Tsantanis, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of TOP Tankers Inc. between
June 28, 2005 and November 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants allegedly
knowingly or recklessly issued false and misleading statements
that materially misrepresented TOP Tankers' financial results
and internal controls, causing the company's stock price to be
artificially inflated.

According to the complaint, on Nov. 29, 2006, before the market
opened, TOP Tankers disclosed that its outside auditors, Ernst &
Young, had resigned.

The company also announced that it would restate its financial
statements for the first and second quarters of 2006.
Subsequently, TOP Tankers admitted that it recognized $55
million in revenue from certain sale and leaseback transactions
that closed in March and April of 2006, prior to the revenue
from these transactions being due from the purchaser of the
vessels.

As a result, TOP Tankers will need to restate its financial
results and reduce net income by $0.01 and $0.07 for the first
and second quarter of 2006 respectively.  Net income in all
subsequent quarters until Dec. 31, 2010 will be reduced by
approximately $0.07.

Interested parties can move the court not later than Feb. 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476.


                            *********


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  * * *