CAR_Public/070201.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 23

                            Headlines

21st CENTURY: Shareholders File Calif. Suit to Block AIG Buyout
A-PLUS SELF-STORAGE: Mass. Renters Mulls Suit Over Soaked Items
AIRLINES: Aussie Firm Files Suit Over Inflated Freight Charges
ALDRICH CHMEMICAL: Lawyer to Seek $80M for Suit Over 2003 Blast
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Faces Lawsuit Over Global Warming in Miss.

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Approves $15M Stock Suit Settlement
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Ontarians Miss Serving Toxic-Tort Litigation
BANK HAPAOLIM: Israeli Bank Faces $ 117.17M Hidden Fees Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit
DE BEERS: DMIAA Meeting to Focus on Diamond Antitrust Settlement

DELOITTE & TOUCHE: $24M Settlement with Symbol Investors Okayed
DISTRIBUTIVE NETWORKS: Court OKs "Wireless Spam" Suit Settlement
E.D. SMITH: Recalls French Dressing Over Undeclared Milk Content
FRANCE: Parliamentary Debate on Class Action Bill Suspended
INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Discovery Begins in Ind. Landowners' Suit

INVESTMENT BANKS: SIFMA, NCLC Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Suit in Ind.
L-1 IDENTITY: Feb. 1 Hearing Set on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
LAFARGE CORP: Court Names New Lead Plaintiffs in "Olden" Suit
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Biased Lending Practices

NEW YORK LANDLORDS: Nassau Tenants Seek to Scrap Rent Increases
NORTEL NETWORKS: Lead Counsel Gets $37.7M in $2.45B Settlement
OHIO: Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Face Privacy Invasion Suit
OLD HOMESTEAD: Waiters File Litigation in N.Y. Over "Tips"
QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Still Faces Franchisees' Litigation in Wis.

READER'S DIGEST: Settles Lawsuits Over Ripplewood Holdings Deal
SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
SIMPLETECH INC: Faces Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Hard Drive
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: N.J. Stock Suit Class Certification Sought
TAC LLC: Recalls "Erie Boiler Boss" Controls for Scald Hazard

TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Suit Over Oil Sludge Build-Up in Engines
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Suit Discovery to End by Feb. 28
UNUM LIFE: Tenn. Court Yet to Rule in Policyholders Lawsuit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Discovery Begins in Tenn. Securities Lawsuit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Gee" Case

UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Settles N.Y. Suit Over CorTs Certificates
VITALABS: Recalls Protein Powder Over Undeclared Dairy Content


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TOP TANKERS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


21st CENTURY: Shareholders File Calif. Suit to Block AIG Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group shareholders filed a compliant in
Los Angeles Superior Court to block a proposed $690 million
buyout by insurance giant American International Group Inc.,
reports say.

Also named in the suit are:

      -- Bruce Marlow,
      -- Robert Sandler,
      -- Steven Bensinger,
      -- Roxani Gillespie,
      -- Jeffrey Hayman,
      -- Phillip Isenberg,
      -- Thomas Tizzio,
      -- John De Nault III,
      -- Carlene Ellis,
      -- R. Scott Foster, and
      -- Keith Renken.

AIG's bid for 21st Century was announced Jan. 24.  On Jan. 25,
21st Century said it formed a special committee of directors to
evaluate AIG's bid and hired Lehman Brothers, Inc., and Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom as financial and legal advisers.

Shareholders, led by Edward Bronstein, allege that both
companies use an unfair process to sell 21st to AIG "by
stripping the minority shareholders out of their ownership
interest for a mere $690 million, or $19.75 per share".

Mr. Bronstein claims that the process is inherently unfair, as
AIG already owns 62 percent of 21st Century. He claims "what
will undoubtedly transpire" is that "a biased 'special
committee' of purportedly independent 21st Century directors .
will 'reject' the token offer of $19.75, then quickly turn
around and recommend acceptance of a revised, slightly higher -
yet still unfair - offer."

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, asks the court to
block the buyout until 21st Century sets up a process to
guarantee the highest possible price.

The minority investors recommended in the complaint that 21st
Century hire "truly" independent advisers and appoint a "truly"
independent committee to protect their interests.

Plaintiffs are represented by Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, 9601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510, Los
Angeles, CA 90210, Phone: (310) 859-3100, Fax: (310) 278-2148.


A-PLUS SELF-STORAGE: Mass. Renters Mulls Suit Over Soaked Items
---------------------------------------------------------------
After a pipe burst and soaked other units, A-Plus Self-Storage
renters in Massachusetts are talking of filing a lawsuit, The
Eagle-Tribune Reports.

The renters said that the planned class action would be
primarily based on the damages suffered by the renters and on
their belongings.

Tenant Lora said that 75 percent of her belongings were soaked.
Although, the amount of damages is yet to be determined, she
said that it could amount to thousand of dollars.  In addition
to the claim on damages, she also said that she expects
replacements of her belongings.

Another renter Edward Costa said that he also suffered damages
including lost paintings, old photographs, and clothing among
other items.

According to the tenants, a busted pipe and a broken sprinkler
caused the flooding.

A-Plus Self-Storage is a converted shoe factory near Lafayette
Square.  It has seven floors and hundreds of storage units.


AIRLINES: Aussie Firm Files Suit Over Inflated Freight Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Maurice Blackburn Cashman filed a cartel class
action against seven large international airlines, reports say.

The airlines named in the suit:

     -- Qantas Airways Ltd.,
     -- Lufthansa,
     -- Singapore Airlines,
     -- Cathay Pacific,
     -- Air New Zealand,
     -- Japan Airlines (JAL) and
     -- British Airways.

In a writ lodged in Australian Federal Court, it is alleged that
the airlines secretly agreed to use the rise in fuel prices and
security costs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Iraq
war, as an excuse to over-inflate freight charges.

It further claims the surcharges were used in a bid to lift
prices by secret arrangement between the airlines, and that they
were not linked to higher operations costs as represented by the
airlines.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman principal Kim Parker said global price
fixing cartel in the international freight industry is said to
have started in 2000 until now.  She adds that price fixing, and
market rigging by powerful organizations was the worst kinds of
anti-competitive abuse.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman on the net:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


ALDRICH CHMEMICAL: Lawyer to Seek $80M for Suit Over 2003 Blast
---------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiffs' attorney will seek damages amounting to $80
million in a purported class action filed against Aldrich
Chemical Co. over the Sept. 21, 2003 explosion at an Isotec,
Inc. plant that it owns, The BizJournals reports.

Richard Schulte, co-lead counsel on the case, and a partner at
Behnke Martin & Schulte said that the decision to seek such an
amount came a ruling by Judge Dennis J. Langer of Montgomery
County Common Pleas Court in Ohio.

On Jan. 9, Judge Langer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on
three claims of liability, but ruled in favor of the company on
one issue, according to court documents.  

The one ruling in favor of the company denied the plaintiffs'
claims that the company acted "in willful or wanton disregard."

The next phase for the case is a trial set for March, which will
determine cause and damages, says Gordon Ankney of Thompson
Coburn, which along with Faruki, Ireland & Cox represents the
defendants.

Aldrich Chemical operates the Isotec plant in Miamisburg that
had an explosion at the nitric oxide operations in 2003 that
caused the evacuation of surrounding neighborhoods.

A class action representing 3,000 individuals was brought
against the company in December 2003.  It seeks compensation for
evacuation costs, emotional distress and punitive damages.

Judge Langer ruled in Oct. 21, 2005 that a class action would be
in the best interests of judicial economy by avoiding numerous
split trials and split appeals, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9,
2005).

In October 2006, the company agreed it was liable for the
damages, but then backed out of a proposed deal, according to
Mr. Schulte.

However, Marty Foos, lead attorney representing defendants
maintained that statements that said Isotec "backed out of the
deal," are inaccurate.

Mr. Foos pointed out that the company accepted legal
responsibility voluntarily, which it did that a while ago.  He
also pointed out the judge's recent ruling dealt with the legal
meaning of the acceptance of responsibility, as it relates to
the remaining phases of the case.  He adds that the numbers
stated by the plaintiff's attorney are just posturing, not real.

Mr. Schulte though says that with the case moving forward, he
expects more individuals to come out against the company.  He
expects the number to reach beyond 4,000 people.

Aldrich Chemical, whose parent company, Sigma-Aldrich Corp., is
based in St. Louis, owns Isotec, at 3858 Benner Road.  The 2003
explosion happened when a nitric oxide column blew up, injuring
one worker.  The blast caused the evacuation of more than 500
homes and 2,000 people within that one-mile radius.

For more details, contact Richard Schulte of Behnke, Martin &
Schulte, LLC, 131 N. Ludlow Ave., Suite 840, Dayton, Ohio 45402,
Phone: 937-435-7500, Fax: 937-435-7511, Web site:
http://www.legaldayton.com/.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Faces Lawsuit Over Global Warming in Miss.
------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., along with numerous other companies with
coal-fired generation facilities and companies in other
industries, was named as a defendant in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi.

The suit -- filed on April 19, 2006 - was brought on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in Mississippi
who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina, the named plaintiffs
allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by defendants
contributed to global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina
and plaintiffs' damages.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
         Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
         Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
         and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;

     (2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
         smwiles@smithfawer.com; and

     (3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
         Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
         8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Approves $15M Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland approved a
proposed $15.050 million settlement of Allegheny Energy
Securities Litigation on July 17, 2006.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities, which
purchased the securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc. between April
23, 2001 and Oct. 8, 2002, inclusive.  

The class includes all persons or entities that purchased
Allegheny Energy Common Stock (CUSIP Number AYE017361106) and/or
Allegheny Energy 7.75% notes due Aug. 1, 2005 (Cusip Number
017361aa4), and all persons or entities, which purchased call
options or sold put options on Allegheny Energy Common stock,
during the class period.

                         Case Background

From October 2002 through December 2002, plaintiffs claiming to
represent purchasers of the company's securities filed 14
putative class actions against the company and several of its
former senior managers in U.S. District Courts for the Southern
District of New York and the District of Maryland.   

The complaints alleged that the company and senior management
violated federal securities laws when the company purchased
Merrill Lynch's energy marketing and trading business with the
knowledge that the business was built on illegal wash or round-
trip trades with Enron Corp., which the complaints alleged
artificially inflated trading revenue, volume and growth.   

The complaints asserted that the company's fortunes fell when
Enron's collapse exposed what plaintiffs' claim were illegal
trades in the energy markets.  All of the securities cases were
transferred to the District of Maryland and consolidated.   

                        Settlement Terms

In 2005, Allegheny Energy reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action and the
shareholder derivative lawsuits filed against it in New York and
Maryland courts.

Under the proposed settlement in the consolidated securities
class action, the action will be dismissed with prejudice in
exchange for a cash payment of $15.05 million, which will be
made by the company's insurance carrier.  

Pursuant to the proposed settlement of the shareholder
derivative actions, those actions will be dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for a cash payment of $450,000, which will
be made by the company's insurance carrier, and its agreement to
adopt certain corporate governance changes.    

The suit is "In re: v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., Securities   
Litigation, case no. 1:03-md-01518-AMD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge Andre
M. Davis.  

Representing the company is William J. Snipes, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-2498, Phone:
12125584000, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail: snipesw@sullcrom.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and   
         Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, Phone:   
         12125454600, Fax: 12125454653;  

     (2) Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman   
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz 49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-  
         0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E-mail:   
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Mark C. Gardy, Abbey Gardy LLP, 212 E 39th St., New   
         York, NY 10016, Phone: 12128893700;

     (4) Deborah R. Gross, Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC   
         John Wanamaker Bldg Ste 450, Juniper and Market Sts,   
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 12155613600, Fax:   
         12155613000, E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com; and
   
     (5) John Bucher Isbister, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP, 100 E   
         Pratt St 26th Fl, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:   
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:   
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com.

For more information, contact:

     (1) Robert A. Wallner, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad       
         & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY    
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and            

     (2) Allegheny Energy Securities Litigation, c/o Archway  
         Claims Administration, 28220 Industry Drive, Valencia,  
         CA 91355, Phone: (800) 903-9994, E-mail:  
         http://www.alleghenysettlement.com.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Ontarians Miss Serving Toxic-Tort Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC said it has not been served
with a purported toxic-tort class action filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice until the time for service of the
original action has expired.  

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons residing in
Ontario within the past six years (and/or their family members
or heirs).

On June 30, 2005, the company along with its regulated
subsidiary Monongahela Power Co. and its unregulated subsidiary
Allegheny Generating Co., plus 18 other companies with coal-
fired generating plants, was named as defendants in the suit.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants negligently failed to
prevent their generation facilities from emitting air pollutants
in such a manner as to cause death and multiple adverse health
effects, as well as economic damages, to the plaintiff class.  

They are seeking damages in the approximate amount of CAD$49.1
billion (approximately $41.6 billion, assuming an exchange rate
of CAD$1.18 per U.S. dollar), along with continuing damages in
the amount of CAD$4.1 billion per year and punitive damages of
CAD$1.0 billion (approximately $3.5 billion and $850 million,
respectively, assuming an exchange rate of CAD$1.18 per U.S.
dollar) along with such other relief as the Court deems just.  

Allegheny Energy, Inc., the parent of AE Supply, Monongahela and
AGC said at its Form 10-Q filing with Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30 that it has not yet
been served with this lawsuit, and the time for service of the
original action has expired.


BANK HAPAOLIM: Israeli Bank Faces $ 117.17M Hidden Fees Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Noam Shechner and Yitzhak Aviram, on behalf of Ella
Politis, filed a $ 117.17 million class action at the Tel Aviv
District Court against Bank Hapoalim, The Jerusalem Post
reports.

The suit contends that for a number of years Bank Hapoalim has
been gouging its customers, who purchase structured products
from it.

It further claims the bank sells the structured products while
collecting a hidden commission, failing to disclose the bank's
financial margin on the transaction, and failing to disclose
preferable alternatives to the customer - all contrary to
explicit legal provisions.

"No customer would ever knowingly agree to pay a $164 commission
for investing $4,692.  No customer would ever knowingly agree to
pay a 3.5% commission on the investment.  No customer would ever
knowingly agree to pay a 90% commission on an option he
purchases, and therefore Bank Hapoalim makes sure that its
customers pay all these unknowingly," the claim states.

The claim asks the court to order the return of the funds
illegally taken from customers.

The complaint also seeks to have the supervisor of banks, the
Israel Securities Authority and the attorney general join as
parties to the proceeding and to take all necessary action to
stop the marketing and sales of the bank's structured products.

Moreover, the claim demands that the attorney general or the
Securities Authority consider opening a criminal investigation
into the matter.

The attorneys believe that this action will put an end to the
unilateral gouging that is found in the structured products'
pricing and to the improper practice, employed by Bank Hapoalim.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the class action against Cardinal Health,
Inc., Syncor International Corp. and certain officers and
employees of the company, which alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), is appealing
the dismissal of the case by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

A purported class action complaint, "Pilkington v. Cardinal
Health, et al.," was filed on April 8, 2003, against the
company, Syncor and certain officers and employees of the
company by a purported participant in the Syncor Employees'
Savings and Stock Ownership Plan.  

A related purported class action complaint, "Donna Brown, et al.
v. Syncor International Corp., et al.," was filed on Sept. 11,
2003, against the company, Syncor and certain individual
defendants.  

Another related purported class action complaint, "Thompson v.
Syncor International Corp., et al.," was filed on Jan. 14, 2004,
against the company, Syncor and certain individual defendants.  

Each of these actions was brought in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

A consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 24, 2004 against
Syncor and certain former Syncor officers, directors and/or
employees alleging that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA based on the same underlying
allegations of improper and unlawful conduct alleged in the
federal securities litigation.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  On April 26,
2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On Aug. 24, 2004, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

The court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against
defendants Ed Burgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co-
fiduciary liability against all defendants, and all claims
alleging that the individual defendants had conflicts of
interest precluding them from properly exercising their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  A claim for breach of the duty to
prudently manage plan assets was upheld against Syncor, and a
claim for breach of the alleged duty to "monitor" the
performance of Syncor's Plan Administrative Committee was upheld
against defendants Monty Fu and Robert Funari.  Trial of these
claims was scheduled for Jan. 7, 2006.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the court entered summary judgment in favor of
all defendants on all remaining claims.  Consistent with that
ruling, on Jan. 11, 2006, the court entered a final order
dismissing this case.  The lead plaintiff has appealed this
decision.

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 "Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc, et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge R. Gary
Klausner.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher Kim, Lisa J. Yang, Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W
         7th St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-
         955-9500 Email: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com or
         lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com;

     (2) Edward Chang, Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin and
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706, E-mail: echang@sbclasslaw.com or
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Edward W Ciolko, Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA
         19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Email:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com;

     (4) Elizabeth A Leland, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, T. David
         Copley, Tobias Kammer, Keller Rohrback, 1201 3rd Ave,
         Ste 3200 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Email:
         bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com,
         dcopley@kellerrohrback.com;

     (5) Gary A Gotto, Dalton Gotto Samson & Kilgard, National
         Bank Plz, 3101 N Central Ave, Ste 900, Phoenix, AZ
         85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-0088, Fax: 602-230-6360; and

     (6) Ron Kilgard, Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central
         Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248-
         0088, Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com.

Representing the defendants is Ted Allan Gehring, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, 333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-
3197, Phone: 213-229-7000.


DE BEERS: DMIAA Meeting to Focus on Diamond Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first general meeting of the Diamond Manufacturers and
Importers Association of America on Feb. 7 will focus on the
settlement reached in a class action against De Beers, according
to Jeff Miller of Diamonds.net.  

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., the lead counsel for the indirect
reseller subclass -- those who do not buy diamonds directly from
De Beers -- will be the main speaker.  

He will provide the latest updates on the action and discuss
what will be required in the coming months for those who qualify
in one class/subclass and/or another.  

Jared B. Stamell, the lead counsel for the direct purchaser
class, will address those who purchased diamonds directly from
De Beers.

According to Mr. Miller, Mr. Tabacco, Jr., provided this written
update on the case:

"We have received numerous inquiries from members of the trade
regarding the current status of the proposed settlement of the
antitrust litigation between the diamond resellers and De Beers
and its affiliates. The following is a brief status report:"

"Settlement documents were signed and filed with the Federal
Court in New Jersey last March.  On March 31, 2006, the court
granted preliminary approval to the settlement.  

"The settlement has two major components: Cash payments totaling
$295 million and broad injunctive relief prohibiting certain
future conduct by De Beers.

"With regard to the cash, which has been deposited and is
earning interest, the funds were divided into two settlement
funds:

      -- $22.5 million paid in settlement on behalf of all
         entities, other than De Beers sightholders, that
         purchased diamonds directly from De Beers and other
         diamond mining companies; and

      -- $272.5 million paid in settlement of the claims of a
         class of all "indirect" purchasers of diamonds.

"This indirect purchaser class is further divided into two
subclasses:

      -- resellers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry
         from entities other than De Beers and other rough
         diamond mining companies, and who purchased diamonds
         from sightholders and those further down the diamond
         pipeline; and

      -- consumers who purchased loose diamonds and diamond
         jewelry.

"As part of the preliminary approval order, Judge Stanley
Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey assigned certain matters relating to the administration
and division of the settlement proceeds to a Special Master,
Judge Alfred Wolin, a retired federal judge.  As part of the
final approval process of the proposed settlements, Judge Wolin
will report his recommendations to Judge Chesler.

"Following submissions from the parties and a hearing, the
Special Master determined that 50.3 percent of the $272.5
million indirect purchaser fund is to be allocated to the
reseller sub-class and 49.7 percent of the fund is to be
allocated to the consumer sub-class.

"The rationale for this division will be set forth in the
comprehensive report and recommendation that the Special Master
will make to the court.  

"At present, counsel for the consumer, reseller and indirect
purchaser sub-classes and counsel for the direct purchaser
classes, working in conjunction with their experts, clients and
members of the trade, are in the process of preparing final
submissions to the Special Master proposing plans for officially
notifying the classes about the settlement, and for allocating
the various funds among the members of the classes and sub-
classes.

"These plans will deal with issues relating to relative values
of claims based upon purchases of rough, polished and diamond
jewelry to arrive at a plan that is fair and equitable to
members of the classes.

"It is anticipated that these submissions will be made to the
Special Master before the end of January 2007.  The Special
Master will then require time to analyze the submissions, hold
any meetings or hearings he deems necessary and then write his
report and recommendation to the court. It is anticipated that
this process will take at least 60 days.

"Accordingly, assuming that the Special Master recommends a plan
of notification and approves the form of the official notices
and claim forms, actual notice to the class will begin to occur
shortly after the court grants approval of the plan and
documents.  

"Thus, once notices are disseminated, probably no earlier than
early April 2007, all eligible claimants will be given ample
information and time to submit claims to share in the settlement
proceeds.  It is likely that the claims period will be open for
several months.  

"The notices will also specify a date for the final settlement
approval hearing, likely to be in late summer or early fall of
2007."

For more details, contact:

     (1) Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. of Berman, Devalerio, Pease &
         Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 425 California Street, Suite
         2100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2205, Phone: (415) 433-
         3200 or (800) 516-9926, Fax: (415) 433-6382, Web site:
         http://www.bermanesq.com/;and  

     (2) Jared B. Stamell of Stamell & Schager, L.L.P., 35th
         Floor, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006-1404,
         Phone: (212) 566-4047, Fax: (212) 566-4061.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: $24M Settlement with Symbol Investors Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted on Sept. 12, 2006 final
approval to a $24 million settlement in the matter, "The
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System et al.
v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 2:04-cv-00621-LDW-AKT."

On Feb. 12, 2004, lead plaintiffs, filed the securities suit on
behalf of themselves and other persons and entities who
purchased Symbol Technologies, Inc. common stock between March  
2, 2000, and Oct. 17, 2002.

In the complaint, lead plaintiffs allege violations of Section  
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.   

Specifically, they allege that during the class period, Deloitte  
& Touche, acting as Symbol's auditor, made materially false
statements and/or omissions regarding Symbol's financial
statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 1999, 2000, and 2001.  
  
The suit was designated as a "Related Case" with the
consolidated class action commenced in March 2002 against Symbol
and certain of its officers and directors, captioned, "In re
Symbol Technologies Litigation, Master File Docket No. 02-CV-
1383 (LDW)."   

Lead Plaintiffs are continuing to prosecute the claims against
defendants Tomo Razmilovic, Kenneth J. Jaeggi, Frank Borghese
and Brian Burke in the Symbol Action, according to Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco.

For more details, contact:
  
     (1) Jeffrey C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco,  
         Burt, et al., One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA  
         02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: (617) 542-8300, E-
         mail: jblock@bermanesq.com;

     (2) Daniel Lawrence Berger, Victoria Odette Wilheim of  
         Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP, 1285  
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-
         554-1406 and 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-mail:  
         dan@blbglaw.com and victoria@blbglaw.com;

     (3) Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
         v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
         170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217-8041, 866-893-1052.


DISTRIBUTIVE NETWORKS: Court OKs "Wireless Spam" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark Filip of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois approved a settlement for a purported class
action filed against Distributive Networks, LLC over unsolicited
text messages, which are characterized as "wireless spam," to
cellular telephones, The Chicago Tribune reports.

Under the settlement, mobile phone customers who received
unwanted text messages promoting various Web pages will get up
to $150.

The settlement covers mobile phone customers who received text
messages promoting Web sites Astrobomo, Daily Pop Gossip, Mad
Love Tips, Daily Dose of Blue and Ringstar Mobile during the
four-year period between July 17, 2002, and July 17, 2006.

In 2006, Illinois resident Lei Shen filed the suit on behalf of
herself and a class consisting of all persons who, within four
years prior to the filing of the lawsuit:

      -- were sent a text message by defendant without first  
         having obtained prior express consent; and

      -- subscribed to a cellular telephone plan wherein they  
         were required to pay to receive such text messages
         (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2006).

The company is alleged to do business as several other entities
such as Daily Pop Gossip, Mad Love Tips, Daily Dose of Blue, and
Ringstar Mobile.  

The suit alleges that defendants caused consumers actual harm,
not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation
that necessarily accompanies unsolicited wireless spam, but also
because in virtually all instances consumers actually have to
pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such
wireless spam.

It also alleges that the text messages violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unsolicited voice and
text calls to cell phones.

The suit is "Shen v. Distributive Networks, LLC, Case No. 1:06-
cv-04403," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Mark Filip.

Representing defendants are John Joseph Barber and Gary L.
Prior, both of Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, LLC, The Rookery
Building, 209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL
60604, Phone: (312) 339-6725 or (312) 762-9450, E-mail:
jbarber@tdrlawfirm.com or gprior@tdrlawfirm.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Blim, Jay Edelson and Myles P. McGuire, all of
         Blim & Edelson, LLC, 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite
         1642, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 913-9400, Fax:
         (312) 913-9401, E-mail: john@blimlaw.com or
         jay@blimlaw.com or myles@blimlaw.com; and

     (2) John G. Jacobs and Bryan G. Kolton, both of The Jacobs
         Law Firm, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850,
         Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-4000, E-mail:
         jgjacobs@thejacobslawfirm.com or
         bgkolton@thejacobslawfirm.com.


E.D. SMITH: Recalls French Dressing Over Undeclared Milk Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.D. Smith & Sons, LP of Seaforth, Ontario, Canada is
voluntarily recalling 16 ounce bottles of "Wegmans Fat Free
Garden French Dressing" because they may contain undeclared
milk.

Anyone who is allergic to milk should not consume this product.
People who are allergic to milk and eat this product run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction. There
is no risk to individuals who are not allergic to milk.

The recalled "Wegmans Fat Free Garden French Dressing" was
distributed in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and
Maryland in retail stores.

The product comes in a 16 ounce, clear plastic bottle. Wegmans
Fat Free Garden French Dressing, bearing the UPC 77890 81871 and
is marked with best before date code of AUG 22 07 (This code is
followed by a 4-digit military time stamp). The code is located
on the back of the neck label. This is the only date code
affected.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem, and there is no risk to consumers who are not allergic
to milk.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk.  

Subsequent investigation indicates the one ingredient (milk) was
not on the ingredient statement of the package. This has been
rectified.

Consumers who have purchased 16 ounce packages of "Wegmans Fat
Free Garden French Dressing" bearing the UPC 77890 81871 and is
marked with best before date code of AUG 22 07 are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with question may contact the company at 1-519-527-
0610.


FRANCE: Parliamentary Debate on Class Action Bill Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------
France's National Assembly suspended an upcoming parliamentary
debate on whether to introduce class actions into French legal
system, The Associated Press reports.

Consumer associations who pushed for the change said the bill
would allow the consumers who are wronged and cheated to take
companies to court collectively, rather than being forced to
bring individual lawsuits.  

However, business representatives have expressed opposition
citing concerns over its potential impact on the economy.

The bill was to be debated on Feb. 6, however legislators
cancelled it.  The schedule change means that the next
government will likely have control over the bill.  The
Parliament will close later this year.

Leading Presidential candidate Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy
recently said that he had strong reservations about allowing
class actions in the country.

Under the French version, a lawsuit could only be brought by a
national customer association, on products and services with a
value of less than $2,550.


INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Discovery Begins in Ind. Landowners' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in a purported class action filed against
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., a subsidiary of IPALCO  
Enterprises, Inc. in Morgan County Superior Court, Indiana over
the sale of lands it previously acquired.

Many years ago, Indianapolis Power obtained, through purchases
from several owners, a substantial tract of land as a potential
site for a future power plant.  Indianapolis Power later
determined it no longer intended to build a power plant on that
land and sold it in 2004.  

In September 2004, a former owner of a parcel included within
Indianapolis Power's land sued Indianapolis Power in Morgan
County Superior Court in a purported class action to force
Indianapolis Power to pay any profit on the sale to the various
former owners, as well as profits received from ground leases
and timber sales.

The plaintiffs contend, in essence, that Indianapolis Power
obtained the various parcels through eminent domain or threat of
eminent domain and now allege, in an amended complaint, theories
of fraudulent inducement to contract, unjust enrichment, breach
of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment.  Indianapolis
Power believes the suit is without merit.  

Discovery has just recently begun and the court has not
certified a class, according to IPALCO's form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ipalco.com/.


INVESTMENT BANKS: SIFMA, NCLC Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to dismiss a class action
filed against leading investment banks for allegedly engaging in
anticompetitive conduct while recruiting customers for initial
public offerings (IPO), according to Sara Hansard of
InvestmentNews.

The requests were by both the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (SIFMA), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) in their respective
friend-of-the-court briefs for the case, "Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC v. Glenn Billing, Docket No. 05-1157,"
which is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

The case came after a group of investors that bought stocks in
IPOs of technology companies sued a group of underwriters.
Plaintiffs complained that the underwriters agreed to require
investors to make payments other than the stated offering price
for the IPO securities, conduct that was subsequently prohibited
by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

SIFMA, which has offices in New York and Washington, stated in
its brief that underwriters should be immune from antitrust
suits, since securities laws pervasively cover underwriting
activities.

Robin Conrad, NCLC Senior Vice President said in a press release
that allowing the suit to continue will result in increased risk
for everyone who participates in the process of capital
formation including millions of investors, and would encourage
the plaintiffs' bar to further undermine the system of capital
formation.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Glenn Billing] Christopher Lovell Lovell Stewart &
         Halebian LLP, Phone: (212) 608-1900; and

     (2) [Credit Suisse] Stephen M. Shapiro Mayer, Brown, Rowe &
         Maw, LLP, Phone: (312) 701-7327.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Suit in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has
yet to rule on the claim of breaches of fiduciary duties in a
class action against IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its
former officers and directors under the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) regarding matters arising from the
acquisition of the company by AES Corp.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2002 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana.  It alleges breach of
fiduciary duties with respect to shares held in IPL's 401(k)
thrift plan.  A bench trial was held in February 2006 to
determine whether there were any breaches of fiduciary duties.

The court took the matter under advisement and has not yet
ruled, according to IPALCO's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "Nelson, et al. v. Ipalco Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Steve W. Berman, John R. Price,
Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594, E-mail:
steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com, nick@hagens-
berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com.


L-1 IDENTITY: Feb. 1 Hearing Set on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion by L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. (formerly
known as Viisage Technology, Inc.) to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts is set for Feb.
1, 2007.           

Between March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were
filed against L-1, Mr. Bernard C. Bailey, Mr. William K. Aulet
(the company's former Chief Financial Officer) and Mr. Denis K.
Berube and other members of the Board of Directors of Viisage  
Technology, Inc.   

These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action under, "In
Re Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.  
05-10438-MLW.  

The so-called Turnberry Group has been designated as lead
plaintiff and its counsel has been designated as lead counsel.  

The amended consolidated complaint, which was filed in February
2006 alleges violations of the federal securities laws by
Viisage (now named L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.) and certain
officers and directors arising out of purported misstatements
and omissions in Viisage's SEC filings related to certain
litigation involving the Georgia drivers' license contract and
related to the Viisage's reported material weaknesses in
internal controls over financial reporting, which allegedly
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock during
the period May 12, 2004 through March 2, 2005.  

On April 3, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss this
complaint and on May 22, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to Defendants' motion.  Defendants filed further
briefing in support of their motion.  A hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss is scheduled for Feb. 1, 2007.           
         
The suit is "In re: Viisage Technology Securities Litigation,  
Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53  
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,  
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com;

     (2) Alan L. Kovacs of Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs, 2001  
         Beacon Street, Suite 106, Boston, MA 02135, Phone: 617-
         964-1177, Fax: 617-332-1223, E-mail:  
         alankovacs@yahoo.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey C. Block and Leslie R. Stern of Berman  
         DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty  
         Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-
         8300, Fax: 617-542-1194 and 617-542-1154, E-mail:  
         jblock@bermanesq.com and lstern@bermanesq.com.  

Representing the defendants is Mitchell H. Kaplan of Choate,  
Hall & Stewart, Two International Place, 100-150 Oliver Street,  
Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-248-5000, Fax: 617-248-4000, E-
mail: mkaplan@choate.com.


LAFARGE CORP: Court Names New Lead Plaintiffs in "Olden" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan dismissed class representatives Julie
Olden, Richard Hunter and Wilbur Bleau from the purported class
action, "Olden, et al. v. Lafarge Corp.," The Alpena News
reported.

On Apr. 19, 1999, several individuals living in Alpena, Michigan
filed the suit, claiming personal injury and property damages
allegedly stemming from certain emissions, which they claim
originated from the company's cement manufacturing plant in
Alpena (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006).

In Sept. 2006, Judge Lawson refused final approval to the $2.6
million settlement agreement in the purported class action
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

The original class representatives likewise rejected the
settlement last year, citing the amount was unfair given the
legal rights the citizens would surrender as a result. Mr.
Hunter said each resident named would have received about $98.

Consequently, plaintiffs' attorney Steve Liddle of Macuga &
Liddle, P.C., asked to withdraw as counsel for the class
representatives and have them removed from that position.  He
cited a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as the
reason in his motion.

But at a Sept. 7, 2006, the judge agreed that the class'
objections to the settlement should be heard first, refusing Mr.
Liddle's motion.

Earlier this week, the judge had granted a substitution and
named Carl R. Gardner, Clara Lewandowski and Ronald L. McLennan
Sr. as the new class representatives, replacing the trio who
filed the class action suit against Lafarge in 1999.

The court determined the relationship between the class counsel
and named representatives had broken down, prompting a change.
   
A status conference will take place Feb. 15 at the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to discuss the
schedule for further proceedings in the case.

The suit is "Olden, et al. v. Lafarge Corp., Case No. 2:99-cv-
10176-DML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter W. Macuga, II of Macuga &
Liddle, (Detroit), 975 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207-
3101, Phone: 313-392-0015, Fax: 313-392-0025, E-mail:
pmacuga@mlclassaction.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (1) Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr. of Hoyle, Fickler, One S. Broad   
         Street, Suite 1500, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3418, Phone:   
         215-981-5850, Fax: 215-981-5959, E-mail:  
         lhoyle@hoylelawfirm.com;

     (2) Steven C. Kohl of Warner, Norcross, (Southfield), 2000   
         Town Center, Suite 2700, Southfield, MI 48075-1222,   
         Phone: 248-784-5141, E-mail: skohl@wnj.com; and  

     (3) Mahesh K. Nayak of Clark Hill, (Birmingham), 255 S. Old   
         Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor, Birmingham, MI 48009,   
         Phone: 248-642-9692, E-mail: mnayak@clarkhill.com.


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Biased Lending Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage lenders are facing a class-action claim in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division accusing predatory lenders of targeting Latino and
black mortgage loan applicants.

Named defendants:

     -- Freedom Mortgage Team

     -- American Home Mortgage Corp. dba American Brokers
        Conduit,

     -- American Home Mortgage Servicing, and

     -- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.

Plaintiffs, German and Gloria Pena, bring this claim on behalf
of two classes:

     (a) FMT class consists of
        
              (i) all Hispanic and African-American persons with
                  Illinois addresses,

             (ii) who obtained a loan from any lender through
                  FMT,

            (iii) and paid FMT direct compensation of not less
                  than 1% of the loan principal or $2,000,
                  whichever is greater,

             (iv) where FMT received a yield  spread of not less
                  than 1% of the loan principal or $2,000,
                  whichever is greater,

              (v) where the loan was closed on or after a date  
                  two years prior to the filing of this action.

     (b) the ABC class consists of
              
              (i) all Hispanic and African-American persons with
                  Illinois addresses,

             (ii) who obtained a loan from ABC through a broker,

            (iii) which broker was paid direct compensation of
                  not less than 1% of the loan principal or
                  $2,000, whichever is greater,

             (iv) where ABC paid the broker a yield spread
                  premium of not less than 1% of the loan
                  principal or $2,000, whichever is greater,

              (v) where the loan was closed on or after a date
                  two years prior to the filing of this action.

The predominant question that affect class members is whether
the payment and receipt yield spread premiums results in loan
terms which are intended to discriminate or have the effect of
discriminating against Hispanic or African-American borrowers.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and the classes and against defendants for:

     -- appropriate damages

     -- rescission or reformation of plaintiffs' loan

     -- attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, and

     -- such other or further relief as the court deems
        appropriate.

A copy of the suit is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1937

The suit is "Pena et al. v. Freedom Mortgage Team, Inc. et al,
Case No. 07CV552," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under Judge
Guzman.

Representing plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M.
Combs, James O. Latturner, Tara L. Goodwin, Michelle R.
Teggelaar and Al Hofeld, Jr., all of Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago,
Illinois 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: (312) 419-0379.


NEW YORK LANDLORDS: Nassau Tenants Seek to Scrap Rent Increases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenant advocates asked the state Supreme Court Justice Thomas
Feinman to halt the collection of rent increases on apartments
at Nassau, according to Sid Cassese of Newsday.com.

On Sept. 1, 2005 Nassau's rent-guidelines board increased rent
for one- and two-year leases for the period October 2005 through
September 2006 for most tenants by 5.25 and 7.25 percent,
respectively.  

It imposed extra increases for vacant apartments.  It also hiked
by 1 and 2 percent rents for families earning under $24,000 a
year.

On Oct. 19, Judge Feinman invalidated the decision by the board,
saying that the guidelines board, while forming policy for the
raises, violated the state's Open Meetings Law by going into an
executive session that excluded the public from its talks.  

In addition, he said the board failed to file findings on all
factors of an authorized increase named in the state's Emergency
Tenants Protection Act, according to the report.  He also said
that the board had no authority to set up a different class of
tenants.

The board has filed a notice of appeal on Judge Feinman's
decision.

The rents have stayed the same while a case challenging the
increases is on appeal.  Reza Rezvani, the supervising attorney
at Hofstra University Law School's Housing Rights Clinic, filed
the lawsuit.  

Ellen Perry of Long Beach is representing the tenants as a
class.  Named representatives of the landlords are Rush
Properties in Great Neck and Executive Towers and David Paulsen
in Long Beach.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Lead Counsel Gets $37.7M in $2.45B Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York awarded Milberg Weiss &
Bershad a little more than one-third of the $101 million in fees
and expenses it sought for winning the $2.45 billion settlement
from Nortel Networks Corp., The Toronto Star reports.

Judge Berman awarded Milberg $37.7 million and said a $101
million award would have been "excessive."  Milberg was lead law
firm in the securities class action.

The ruling is a setback for Milberg, which has been charged with
paying clients kickbacks to bring class actions.

In Dec. 2006, two U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and
Loretta Preska in Manhattan have approved Nortel Networks
Corp.'s $2.45 billion settlement with its shareholders (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006).

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the company will pay $575
million in cash and issue shares equal to about 14.5% of its
current outstanding equity, worth more than $1.64 billion based
on Nortel's current stock value.

In addition, the settlement includes $228.5 million in payments
from the company's insurers and half of any money that the
company gets in its lawsuits against former CEO Frank Dunn and
other fired senior officers related to the accounting fiasco.

                        About Nortel

Headquartered in Ontario, Canada, Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE/TSX: NT) -- http://www.nortel.com/-- delivers technology  
solutions encompassing end-to-end broadband, Voice over IP,
multimedia services and applications, and wireless broadband
designed to help people solve the world's greatest challenges.
Nortel does business in more than 150 countries.

                           *     *     *

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Oct. 5, 2006,
Moody's Investors Service upgraded its B3 Corporate Family
Rating for Nortel Networks Corp. to B2.


OHIO: Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Face Privacy Invasion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Lambert filed a class-action complaint in Hamilton
County Court against the county's Clerk of Courts over alleged
invasion of privacy, The Courthouse News Service Reports.

Ms. Lambert alleges the Hamilton County Clerk invaded the
privacy of more than 100,000 traffic violators and cost her more
than $20,000 by posting sensitive personal information on a
county Web site, including names, signatures, addresses,
birthdays, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers.

She further contends the Hamilton County Clerk began posting the
information on the county's official Web site --
http://www.courtclerk.org-- in February 1999 though he knew it  
would facilitate identity theft, and did not stop posting it
until she filed a federal lawsuit in December 2004.

She claims the previous court clerk, James Cissell, acknowledged
in 1999 that he was "walking into a privacy hornet's nest" by
posting the information, and that Mr. Cissell and defendant
Clerk Greg Hartmann admitted that identity thieves used the site
to commit crimes.

Ms. Lambert says the woman who stole her identity through the
site has pleaded guilty to felonies, and admitted that her gang
conspired to steal the identity of more than 100 people, costing
them more than $500,000.

Counsel for Ms. Lambert is Mezibov and Jenkins, 401 East Court
Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Phone: 513.723.1600,
Fax: 513.723.1620.


OLD HOMESTEAD: Waiters File Litigation in N.Y. Over "Tips"
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Homestead Steak House faces a purported $1 million class
action, alleging management has been taking a prime cut of tips,
The New York Post reports.

Waiters at the steakhouse who claim management has been
illegally dipping into a "tip pool" and giving a cut to
employees who haven't earned it filed the suit.  

According to the suit, the pool is supposed to be shared among
waiters, but workers who are not supposed to receive tips,
allegedly profited from the practice over the past six years.

Among those who were not supposed to receive tips were the
restaurant's general manager, Luis Acosta, the maitre'd and
service bartenders, the suit alleges.

The Old Homestead Steak House is New York's oldest steakhouse,
on Ninth Avenue in the Meatpacking District.


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Still Faces Franchisees' Litigation in Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Quiznos Franchise Company, LLC, remains a defendant in a
purported class action alleging that the company systematically
defrauded its franchisees in a scheme designed to build the
brand at the expense of its operators in the field.

The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin by Quiznos franchisees,
with help from the Toasted Subs Franchisees Association, Inc.
(TSFA).

It generally contends that the company forces franchisees to buy
food and supplies from Quiznos or its affiliates at inflated
prices while concurrently setting artificially low retail prices
for its products, making the stores unprofitable for the
franchisees (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2006).

In addition, franchisees allege that Quiznos unlawfully
participates in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or
otherwise misrepresenting key facts about Quiznos' business
operations in an effort to induce potential franchisees to buy a
franchise.

Specifically, the suit, which is seeking damages for lost
investments as well as injunctive relief, alleges:

      -- statutory and common law fraud,

      -- violations of federal and state antitrust laws,

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations (RICO) Act,

      -- breach of contract, and

      -- violations of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.

The 28 plaintiffs in the class action are all operators of
Quiznos franchises in Wisconsin.  Defendants in the case
include:

      -- The Quiznos Franchise Company, LLC,
      -- Quiznos Franchising LLC,
      -- various affiliates of the company;
      -- Richard E. Schaden,
      -- Richard F. Schaden, and
      -- Cervantes Capital, LLC.

Attorneys for the franchisees include Justin M. Klein, Esq., of
Marks & Klein, LLP and Mark M. Leitner and Joseph S. Goode of
the Milwaukee-based law firm of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C.

Quiznos declined to comment on the allegations, but says that
the TSFA "does not represent the franchise community as a
whole."

The suit is "Westerfield et al v. The Quizno's Franchise Company
LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01210-WCG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge
William C. Griesbach.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph S. Goode and Mark M. Leitner of Whyte
         Hirschboeck Dudek, SC, Phone: 608-255-4440 and 414-978-
         5762, Fax: 608-258-7138 and 414-223-5000, E-mail:
         jgoode@whdlaw.com and mleitner@whdlaw.com; and

     (2) Justin M. Klein of Marks & Klein, LLP, 63 Riverside
         Ave., Red Bank, NJ 07701, Phone: 732-747-7100, Fax:
         732-219-0625, E-mail: justin@marksklein.com, Web site:
         http://www.markslaw.net.

Representing the defendants is John R Shull, Jr. of Terwilliger
Wakeen Piehler & Conway SC, 555 Scott St., PO Box 8063, Wausau,
WI 54402-8063, Phone: 715-845-2121 ext. 23, Fax: 715-845-3538,
E-mail: jrshull@execpc.com.


READER'S DIGEST: Settles Lawsuits Over Ripplewood Holdings Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. revealed that a proposed
settlement has been reached for two shareholder class actions
filed in relation to the company's $1.6 billion sale to
Ripplewood Holdings, LLC.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits -- both filed in the Supreme Court of
New York, County of Westchester on Nov. 20, 2006 and Dec. 12,
2006, respectively -- were trying to block the sale.

The suits were filed against the company and all of the members
of its Board of Directors. Both purport to be brought on behalf
of all of company public stockholders and seek to enjoin the
sale.  

Generally, both allege that the company's Board of Directors
violated its fiduciary duties to its stockholders by entering
into a deal that does not reflect the "intrinsic value" of the
company's common stock.  

Both suits said that the sale price of $17 a share was too low
and that that Reader's Digest did not disclose all the
information it should have disclosed to shareholders.

The company said its lawyers and those of the plaintiffs reached
a proposed settlement, but the court still must approve it.


SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to make a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and
certain of its directors and officers.

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.

On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated
as "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.)."

On May 3, 2005, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed as lead
plaintiff:  

      -- The "Louisiana Funds Group," which consists of:  

         * the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System,
           and  

         * the Louisiana District Attorneys' Retirement System.  

Judge Hamilton also appointed as lead counsel and liason
counsel, respectively, for the class, the law firms of:

      -- Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, and  
      -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on July 15, 2005.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from April 21, 2004 to Dec. 20, 2004.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 16, 2005.  
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2005.  The company's reply in further support of the motion
to dismiss was filed on Dec. 19, 2005.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  On March 10, 2006, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave
to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2006.  The
company responded with a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006.

On Aug. 17, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Sept. 29, 2006, defendants
filed further briefing in support of their motion.  

The court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss on
Nov. 8, 2006 and ordered further briefing to be filed by the
parties.  Lead plaintiffs and defendants filed additional briefs
on Nov. 15, 2006 and Nov. 22, 2006, respectively.  The parties
wait for the court to rule on defendants' motion.

The suit is "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

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

Representing the company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.  
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street,  
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,  
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.


SIMPLETECH INC: Faces Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Hard Drive
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simpletech Inc. is a defendant in a purported nationwide class
action filed in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles over its hard drive products, according
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 alleging that the company's description of the
capacity of its hard drives constitutes fraudulent, unfair,
deceptive and false advertising under California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 and violates the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Filed by Boris Brand on Oct. 6, 2006, suit alleges that the
company's description of the storage capacity on its hard drives
uses a decimal basis for measuring gigabytes which results in a
lower storage capacity when the hard drives are incorporated
into an operating system that uses a binary gigabyte basis for
measurement.

Plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages
and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

SimpleTech, Inc. on the Net: http://www.simpletech.com.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: N.J. Stock Suit Class Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for New Jersey heard oral arguments on
the motion to certify a class in a consolidated securities fraud
suit against Suprema Specialties, Inc.
   
An investor sued Suprema Specialties on Jan. 24, 2002, accusing
the company of misleading the public about its financial
results.

The class action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
New Jersey, seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Suprema stock from
Aug. 8, 2001 through Dec. 21, 2001.

The complaint names Suprema and six top officers and directors
as defendants, saying they inflated the company's stock price
during the class period by issuing false and misleading
statements about its finances.

According to the lawsuit, the deception began in August 2001
when the company announced "record" results for the fourth
quarter and year-end of 2001.   

In September 2001, the company filed statements with the U.S.  
Securities and Exchange Commission saying it was issuing 3.5
million shares of stock to the public.   

The complaint says that two of the individual defendants reaped
more than $4.6 million from sales of their shares at that time.  
Then, in November 2001, Suprema again trumpeted its results for
the first quarter of 2002, the complaint alleges.

But just one-month later news of the deception was revealed.  In
a Dec. 24, 2001 statement, Suprema announced the resignation of
its chief financial officer and controller and said it had begun
an investigation into its past financial results.  Nasdaq halted
trading in Suprema shares the same day.

On Feb. 28, 2002, the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action lawsuit.  Beginning on March
15, 2002 competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were filed with the court.   

On July 1, 2002, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the class and lead counsel to oversee the litigation.   
The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 9, 2002.   

On Dec. 15, 2002, defendants filed their motions to dismiss lead
plaintiff's amended complaint.  The court ruled on these motions
on June 25, 2003, issuing an order granting defendants' motions
and directing lead plaintiff to amend their complaint within 60
days.

The lead plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint
on Jan. 30, 2004.  Defendants filed their motions to dismiss
this complaint on March 5, 2004.  

The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions on
April 2, 2004, to which defendants filed their reply briefs on
April 16, 2004 and April 19, 2004.  

On Aug. 31, 2004, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On Sept. 17, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On Sept.
14, 2005 the appeals court heard oral arguments.   

On Feb. 23, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part and
remanding for further proceedings the district court's order
dismissing the second amended complaint.

On June 30, 2006, the various defendants began filing their
answers to the second amended complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.  Oral arguments
on the motion to certify the class were heard on Nov. 13, 2006.       

The suit is "Smith, et al. v. Suprema Specialties, et al., Case  
No. 2:02-cv-00168-WHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey under Judge William H. Walls.


TAC LLC: Recalls "Erie Boiler Boss" Controls for Scald Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAC LLC (formerly Invensys Building Systems), of Loves Park,
Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 850 units of "Erie Boiler Boss"
Operating and Reset Controls.

The company said these boiler controls could fail, causing water
temperature to rise to the high temperature limit.  Should the
high temperature thermostat or external safety limit devices
also fail, consumers could suffer scalds from unexpectedly hot
water during use or system-piping damage can result.

TAC is aware of 17 incidents where the boiler control reportedly
failed.  One incident of system pipe damage has been reported.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes all Erie Boiler Boss 2400 Operating Controls
and Erie Boiler Boss 1200 Boiler Reset Controls.  The controls
are typically used to cycle the domestic or hydronic water
system burner.  

The control is mounted in an enclosure mounted on or near the
boiler.  The recalled controls have a nameplate on the front of
the enclosure with the system name and model number.

A numerical LED display will be part of the nameplate.  Affected
BB2400 carton labels on uninstalled products will have date
codes prior to 0523. Affected BB1200 carton labels on
uninstalled controls will have date codes prior to 0647.  No
date code is stamped on installed products.

These recalled boiler controls were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold at TAC wholesalers, independent field
offices and original equipment manufacturers nationwide.

The controls for the 2400 model were sold from February 1998
through June 2005, and the controls for the 1200 model were sold
from July 1999 through November 2006 for between $550 and $650.

Picture of recalled boiler controls:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07089a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07089b.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact TAC to receive instructions on
how to participate in the recall and obtain a free replacement
control.

For more information, contact TAC toll-free at (866) 692-1110
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.tac.com.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Suit Over Oil Sludge Build-Up in Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corp. has agreed to settle a class action alleging
oil sludge build-up damaged the engines of some Toyota and Lexus
vehicles sold in the U.S., Reuters reports.

Vehicles covered in the settlement include the:

      -- Camry 4 cylinder from 1997-2001,
      -- Camry 6 cylinder from 1997-2002,
      -- Camry Solara 4 cylinder from 1999-2001,
      -- Camry Solara 6 cylinder 1999-2002,
      -- Sienna 6 cylinder from 1998-2002,
      -- Avalon 6 cylinder from 1997-2002,
      -- Celica 4 cylinder from 1997-1999,
      -- Highlander 6 cylinder from 2001-2002,
      -- Lexus ES 300 from 1997-2002, and
      -- Lexus RX 300 from 1999-2002.

Earlier, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a U.S. arm of Toyota,
settled the suit, "Meckstroth v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc. et al.," in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of Jefferson in Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10,
2007).

Under the terms of the settlement, the automaker agreed to
reimburse owners of the damaged cars for the cost of repairing
oil sludge damage and other incidental costs for up to eight
years after the purchase of a vehicle, according to court
documents.

The settlement will allow consumers whose claims have been
denied by the company to submit those claims to a third-party
mediator at no cost for binding arbitration.

Gary Gambel, one of the attorneys that represent consumers in
the case against Toyota, said notices have been sent to 7.48
million original and secondary owners of the vehicles.

Toyota consumers who have repaired their sludge-damaged engines
may be able to recover their costs.  The car only needs to show
evidence of oil sludge damage.  The terms of the settlement are
transferable to future vehicle owners.

The settlement is the latest setback for the Japanese automaker,
which has seen rapid growth in the U.S. market mainly because of
its reputation for offering safe and reliable vehicles.

The company saw sales rise 13 percent last year, but has been
hit by quality problems and vehicle recalls. Last month, it
recalled 533,000 SUVs and pickup trucks to repair faulty
components.

A federal judge in Louisiana is expected to give final approval
to the settlement on Feb. 7, he added.

In 2002 Toyota admitted receiving 3,400 complaints about sludged
engines and the automaker extended its vehicle warranty to eight
years along with unlimited mileage to owners of 1997-2002 Toyota
and Lexus vehicles equipped with 3.0-liter V-6 or 2.2-liter
four-cylinder engines.

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-279-4405,
         Web site: http://www.oilgelsettlement.com/;

     (2) Gary J. Gambel of Murphy, Rogers, Sloss, & Gambel,
         Suite 400, One Shell Square, 701 Poydras Street, New
         Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: (504) 274-3874, Fax: (504)
         274-3875;

     (3) S. Ault Hootsell of Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Canal Place
         365, Canal Street, Suite 2000, New Orleans, LA 70130,
         Phone: (504) 566-1311; and

     (4) Joseph M. Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, LLP, 855 Baronne St.,
         New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 525-1335.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Suit Discovery to End by Feb. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
ordered parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Transkaryotic Therapies Inc. to complete discovery by
Feb. 28.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported  
class actions against:

     -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005;  
        and  

     -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.    

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.  
  
On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint
lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all
related cases.   

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9,  
2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class
action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,  
Securities Litigation."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:  

     -- TKT;   

     -- Dr. Selden;   

     -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;   

     -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,  
        III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board  
        of directors;   
  
     -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members  
        of TKT's board of directors; and   

     -- SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank  
        Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and  
        Leerink Swann.  

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed October 31,  
2003.  On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding
the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.  

Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss.   
Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on  
July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  Both parties have
provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.    

On June 5, 2006 the Judge dismissed the complaint against the
director defendants.  On Oct. 27, by court order, discovery is
to be completed by Feb. 28, 2007, according to information
posted at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo.  

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities  
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.  
Zobel.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Lauren Antonino of Chitwood & Harley, 2900 Promenade  
         II, 1230 Peachtree Suite NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone:  
         404-873-3900; and  

     (2) Paul J. Geller of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,  
         197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL  
         33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364.    

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Michael G. Bongiorno of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale  
         and Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02115,  
         Phone: 617-526-6145, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com; and  

    (ii) Michael K. Fee of Ropes & Gray, LLP, One International  
         Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-7000, Fax: 617-
         951-7050, E-mail: MFEE@ropesgray.com.  


UNUM LIFE: Tenn. Court Yet to Rule in Policyholders Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
has not yet ruled on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Benefit
Denial Actions filed against Unum Life Insurance Company of
America.

On July 15, 2002, "Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance Company of
America, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California
and subsequently was removed to federal court, alleging that the
plaintiff was wrongfully denied disability benefits under a
group long-term disability plan.

On Jan. 21, 2003, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of individuals that were denied or terminated
from benefits under group long-term disability plans, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief and payment of benefits.  

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking
similar relief.

Between November 2002 and November 2003, six additional similar
putative class actions were filed in (or later removed to)
federal district courts in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  

The complaints alleged that the putative class members' claims
were evaluated improperly and allege that the Company and its
insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
the class members under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act, and/or various state laws.

The complaints sought various forms of equitable relief and
money damages, including punitive damages.

These actions all were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee multidistrict litigation.
On Dec. 22, 2003, the court entered an order consolidating all
of the above actions for all pretrial purposes as "In re
UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefit Denial Actions" and appointed
a lead plaintiff.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 20, 2004.  On
March 26, 2004, the defendants answered the complaints and
simultaneously filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
the ERISA Benefit Denial Actions.  

The court has not yet ruled upon that motion, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

                   "Taylor v. UnumProvident"

On April 30, 2003, a separate putative class action, "Taylor v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Tennessee
Circuit Court and subsequently removed to federal court.

The complaint alleges claims against UnumProvident and certain
subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class of long-term
disability insurance policyholders who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after Jan. 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated various state
laws by engaging in unfair claim practices and improperly
denying claims.

On April 9, 2004, the plaintiffs in Taylor and in the ERISA
Benefit Denial Actions separately filed motions seeking
certification of a plaintiff class.  On July 1, 2005, the
defendants also filed motions for summary judgment in each
action.

On Dec. 14, 2005, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in Taylor, dismissing plaintiff's
request for equitable relief on her breach of contract claim and
dismissing any claim plaintiff may make for punitive damages
under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  

The former claim is the principal claim upon which class
certification is sought.  The court reserved ruling on the
remainder of the pending motion for summary judgment pending
further mediation of the Taylor and ERISA Benefit actions.

Court ordered mediation has concluded with the settlement of all
individual claims brought by six of the 15 named plaintiffs in
the ERISA Benefit Denial Actions.  

A seventh plaintiff has subsequently resolved her claims through
the process established under the regulatory settlement
agreements.

The suit is "In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions, Case No. 1:03-md-01552," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis
L. Collier.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler
Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, Eight Floor, Suite 801, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400, Fax: 212-753-3630, E-mail:
rharwood@whesq.com.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Discovery Begins in Tenn. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has now begun in "In re UnumProvident Corp. Securities
Litigation" pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee

On Feb. 12, 2003, the first of six virtually identical putative
securities class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  

In two orders dated May 21, 2003, and Jan. 22, 2004, the court
consolidated these actions as "In re UnumProvident Corp.
Securities Litigation."

On Jan. 9, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
UnumProvident stock between March 30, 2000 and April 24, 2003.

The amended complaint alleges that:

     -- the company issued misleading financial statements,

     -- improperly accounted for certain impaired investments,
      
     -- failed to properly estimate the company's disability
        claim reserves, and

     -- pursued certain improper claims handling practices.  

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  On
March 19, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the court issued a memorandum and order
denying in part, and granting in part, the motion to dismiss.  
The court granted the motion with respect to lead plaintiff's
claims concerning our investments and denied the motion
challenging the other alleged misstatements.

Discovery, which had been stayed in this action pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, has now begun,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: UnumProvident Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-00049" filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis
L. Collier.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:

       (1) Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217 Second Avenue, N,
           Nashville, TN, 37201, Phone: 615.244.2202;

       (2) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
           One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
           617.542.8300;

       (3) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
           NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New
           York, NY, 10019, Phone: 212.554.1400, Fax:
           212.554.1444, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423;

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:        
         info@milbergweiss.com; and

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Gee" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in lawsuit against UnumProvident Corp., which was filed
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the company's
401(k) Retirement Plan in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, have reached agreement in principle for
resolution of the matter.

On April 29, 2003, the first of two identical putative class
actions, "Gee v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of UnumProvident's
401(k) Retirement Plan (Plan), and the actions were later
consolidated.

On Jan. 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company, several of the company's officers
and directors, and several alleged Plan fiduciaries on behalf of
a putative class of individuals that held UnumProvident stock in
their 401(k) retirement accounts subsequent to Nov. 17, 1999.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by making
misrepresentations and omissions regarding investment in
UnumProvident stock and by acting imprudently in failing to take
action to protect participants from losses sustained from
investments in the Plan's UnumProvident Stock Fund.

On Feb. 26, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the complaint failed to state a valid claim
under ERISA.  

On Jan. 13, 2005, the court denied that motion.  The defendants
filed an answer to the complaint denying all material
allegations on Feb. 28, 2005.

On March 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class.  The defendants filed an opposition on June 10, 2005, and
the matter is under submission with the court.

On Nov. 30, 2005, the court entered a schedule providing for the
completion of pretrial discovery by Oct. 17, 2006.  No trial
date has been set for the action.

The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions
supervised by a court appointed mediator.  Recently, they have
reached an agreement in principle for resolution of the matter,
the net cost of which is immaterial to the company.  

The agreement is subject to further negotiations on a number of
points, including attorneys' fees, the preparation of a
definitive written agreement, and court approval of any final
agreement, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Gee v. Unumprovident Corp., et al., Case No. 1:03-
cv-00147," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with
referral to Judge C. Clifford Shirley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Tony R. Dalton, Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen &
         Carpenter, P.O. Box 900, Knoxville, TN 37901-0900,
         Phone: 865-215-1000, Fax: 865-215-1001, E-mail:
         daltont@wmbac.com;

     (2) Andrew L. Berke and Ronald J. Berke of Berke, Berke &
         Berke, P.O. Box 4747, Chattanooga, TN 37405-4747,
         Phone: 423-266-5171, Email: andrew@berkeattys.com and
         ronnie@berkeattys.com; and

     (3) Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer and Katherine
         Bornstein of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza
         East Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Email:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com, jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com, and
         kbornstein@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the Company is John P. Konvalinka, Grant,
Konvalinka & Harrison, PC, 633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One
Republic Centre, Chattanooga, TN 37450, Phone: 423-756-8400,
Fax: 423-756-6518, Email: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Settles N.Y. Suit Over CorTs Certificates
-------------------------------------------------------------
UnumProvident Corp. reached a settlement with plaintiffs in
"Azzolini v. CorTs Trust II for Provident Financial Trust, et
al."

In May 2003, three identical putative securities class actions
were filed in the Southern District of New York, which were
later consolidated under the caption, "Azzolini v. CorTs Trust
II for Provident Financial Trust, et al."  

A fourth action, "Bernstein v. CorTs for Provident Financing
Trust I, et al.," was filed in the Eastern District of New York
on July 7, 2003.

These actions, which were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleged claims on behalf
of two different putative classes of purchasers of UnumProvident
Corporate-Backed Trust Securities (CorTs) certificates that were
issued by certain underwriter defendants unaffiliated with the
Company.

The amended complaints filed in each of these actions asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against UnumProvident and one of our
officers.  

On Sept. 16, 2005, the court issued a memorandum and order
dismissing these actions with prejudice.  On Jan. 12, 2006, the
Azzolini plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court's
decision dismissing this action.  

The company reached an agreement with the Azzolini named
plaintiffs settling all claims by those plaintiffs and providing
for the withdrawal of their appeal.  The amount of the
settlement was immaterial, according to the company.

UnumProvident Corp. on the Net: http://www.unumprovident.com/.


VITALABS: Recalls Protein Powder Over Undeclared Dairy Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vitalabs, Inc. of Jonesboro, Georgia is voluntarily recalling
all containers of Egg Protein Powder in Vanilla, Chocolate and
Strawberry flavors marketed under the following brand and
product names:

     -- Vitalabs' Chocolate Ultra Egg Protein Powder (Jonesboro,    
        Georgia),

     -- Jay Robb's Egg White Protein (Carlsbad, California),

     -- Bellissima Egg Protein (Des Moines, Iowa),

     -- Body by Todd Egg Protein (Columbus, Ohio),

     -- Classic Anatomy Gym Mix A Meal (Leonville, Louisiana),

     -- Coad Egg White Protein (Monroe, Georgia),

     -- Desert Burn Egg Protein (Gainsville, Gerogia),

     -- Fitness Systems Egg Protein (Sinking Spring,
        Pennsylvania),

     -- Hannon Health Systems Albumin Isolate (Ozark, Alabama),

     -- Lanny's Albumin Isolate (Enterprise, Alabama),

     -- Len Rossi Egg Protein (Brentwood, Tennessee),

     -- Miracle II Now Egg Protein (Goldsboro, North Carolina),

     -- NCP Miracle, Inc. Egg Protein (Kenly, North Carolina),
  
     -- Apple A Day Egg Protein (Elijay, Georgia),

     -- Mother Nature's Market Egg Protein (Tucker, Georgia),

     -- Nutrition World Egg Protein (Chattanooga, Tennessee),

     -- Return To Eden Egg Protein (Atlanta, Georgia) and

     -- Olympia Egg Protein (Lawrenceville, Georgia).

The recall was initiated to the presence of undeclared dairy
content on these products.  People who have allergies or severe
sensitivity to dairy products run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Egg Protein Powder was distributed nationwide in
retail stores and through Internet sales.

All three flavors of the Egg Protein Powder were packaged in
four different sizes.  One is a 1250CC white plastic bottle, net
weight 1 lb. (454 grams).  The second is a 2000CC white plastic
bottle, net weight 2 lbs., (907 grams).  The third is a 2 gallon
white plastic bucket, net weight 6 lbs., (2,722 grams).  The
fourth is a 4" x 5" silver single-serving packet, net weight 30
grams.

Three complaints have been filed to date in which individuals
taking the product suffered a serious reaction to the product.

The recall was initiated after investigation of the complaints
lead to the discovery that there were undisclosed levels of
dairy content in the finished powder received and packaged by
Vitalabs.

Further investigation is being conducted to determine the source
of the dairy content and to prevent such an event from occurring
again in the future.

Consumers, wholesale customers, and distributors who have
purchased Egg Protein Powder under the above brand and product
names are urged to contact Vitalabs, Inc. for further
instructions by one of the following means:

      In the Metro Atlanta Area: 770-478-0006
      Outside the Metro Atlanta Area: 1-800-241-3017
      Email: Sales@Vitalabs.com
      Fax: 770-478-7373


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TOP TANKERS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Top Tankers Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Top Tankers between Nov. 2, 2004 and
Nov. 28, 2006.

The suit alleges that Top Tankers and certain of its officers
and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' class
period statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose, among other things, that:

      -- the company improperly accounted for sales and
         leaseback transactions involving shipping vessels
         during the class period;

      -- Top Tankers's financial results were not, contrary to
         defendants' express representations, prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles (GAAP);

      -- Top Tankers failed to maintain adequate internal
         controls and procedures to ensure the accuracy and
         reliability of its publicly reported results; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, Top Tankers's reported
         financial results during the class period were
         materially inflated.

In June 2006, the company announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had commenced an inquiry into its
acquisitions and events prior to the company's announcement of
the sale and leaseback of 13 vessels in March 2006.

On Nov. 29, 2006, before the market opened, the company
announced the resignation of Ernst & Young, LLP, and its
independent auditor, because of disagreements over the company's
accounting treatment of the sale and leaseback of the 13
vessels.

In addition, the complaint alleges that on the same day, the
company announced that it would restate its financial results
for the first and second quarters of 2006 and that the company's
net income would be reduced in each of those periods.

In reaction to this news, the price of Top Tankers common stock
fell 13.9% from its closing price on Nov. 28, 2006 to close at
$5.04 per share on Nov. 29, 2006, on unusually high trading
volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 9, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Lori G. Feldman and Anita B.
Kartalopoulos, both of Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: contactus@milbergweiss.com, Website:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


                            *********


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  * * *