CAR_Public/070208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 28

                            Headlines


ACRES GAMING: Discovery Begins in Nev. Lawsuit Over IGT Merger
AMERICAN SAFETY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Sizemore" Case
BECTON DICKINSON: Still Faces Hypodermic Products Antitrust Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces N.J. Antitrust Suit by Indirect Buyers
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Suit by Daniels Sharpsmart

BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Antitrust Complaint in Syringes Market
BECTON DICKINSON: Product Liability Suit Certification Reversed
BISYS GROUP: Awaits Approval of $66.5M Stock Suit Settlement
CRITICAL PATH: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Agreement
DYNABAZAAR INC: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement

FIRST COMMUNITY: Awaits Approval of 900 Capital Suits Settlement
GAINSCO INC: Settles Tex. Securities Fraud Suit Over Tri-State
GAINSCO INC: Still Faces Insurance Fraud Litigation in Florida
HASBRO INC: Recalls Ovens Posing Lock-in, Burn Risks to Kids
HOOPER HOLMES: Continues to Face Labor Suit by Calif. Examiners

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Proposes to Settle "Mittleholtz" Lawsuit
KEMIRA OYJ: Faces Lawsuits Filed by Canadian Chemical Purchasers
MAGMA DESIGN: Claims in Stock Suit Over Risk Disclosure Junked
MCKEE FOODS: Recalls Nutty Bars Containing Metal Particles
NETFLIX INC: Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement Under Appeal

NORTHERN MARIANA: $2.4M in Garment Firm's Suit Deal Unclaimed
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Accused of Contaminating Properties in Ala.
PERRIGO CO: Overpricing Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
REDBACK NETWORKS: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
ROGERS INT'L: Continues to Face Class, Derivative Suits in Ill.

SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
TELSTRA CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Hearing Set Nov. 26
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Yet to Receive Notice of Va. Securities Suit
TRIMSPA INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Diet Pills Marketing
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal

TYSON FOODS: $500,000 of $10.2M Labor Suit Settlement Unclaimed
VERTICALNET INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Agreement
VIETNAM: Court Dismisses Complaints Against Ho Chi Minh City
VOICEFLASH NETWORKS: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 29
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Rehearing of Calif. Gender Bias Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALVARION LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
ALVARION LTD: Scott+Scott Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ACRES GAMING: Discovery Begins in Nev. Lawsuit Over IGT Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
Acres Gaming Inc. over an allegation that the company and its
directors breached fiduciary duties to stockholders in
connection with the approval of a merger between Acres and
International Game Technology, Inc.

In June 2003, a class action was filed in Clark County, Nevada,
District Court against Acres and its directors, entitled, "Paul
Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al."  

Defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown, and
     -- Ronald G. Bennett

The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres and
International Game and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger
agreement among other forms of relief.

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from
voting on the merger.  On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned
the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to
enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger.  
The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on Sept. 25, 2003.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the plaintiff amended his complaint to recover
damages.  On Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.

On May 7, 2004, the court issued an order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Pursuant to stipulation of the parties,
plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2004.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
on Sept. 14, 2004.  

On March 15, 2006, the court issued an order denying defendants
motion to dismiss the third complaint.  On April 7, 2006,
defendant filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which was granted by an order dated Aug. 15, 2006.  

On Nov. 30, 2006, the case was transferred to business court and
discovery continues, according to the company's Feb. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no.  
P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court
under Judge Michelle Leavitt.   

Representing the lead plaintiff Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein,
while lawyer for the defendants is Paul R. Hejmanowski.


AMERICAN SAFETY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Sizemore" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the class action,
"Dick Sizemore v. American Safety Insurance Services, Inc., et
al., Case No 2005-31704," which names as defendant American
Safety Insurance Holdings, Ltd., and a number of its affiliates.

Filed in Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, the suit was
brought by an individual who contends that defendants are liable
to him for a $400,000 debt, plus interest and costs, owed to him
by the company's former borrowers, Ponce Marina, Inc. and Herman
McMurray.  Plaintiff intends to seek class certification for the
case on these claims.  

The plaintiff also intends to seek class certification on behalf
of 21 other unnamed plaintiffs for the case on these claims in
excess of $1.7 million plus interest and costs.

On Jan. 27, 2006, the trial court dismissed the case.  The
plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint on or
before March 6, 2006.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on March 7, 2006, alleging various theories of recovery.  

On May 4, 2006, the trial court dismissed the case and gave the
plaintiff 20 days to file an amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed
a third amended complaint.  The company's motion to dismiss was
heard on Aug. 22, 2006, and on Sept. 18, 2006, the plaintiff's
case was dismissed with prejudice.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the
dismissal, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


BECTON DICKINSON: Still Faces Hypodermic Products Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. remains a defendant in five purported
class actions brought on behalf of direct purchasers of Becton
Dickinson's products, such as distributors, alleging that Becton
Dickinson violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for Becton Dickinson's products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     -- "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., et al. v.
        Becton Dickinson and Co." (Civil Action No. 05-1602,
        U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on March
        25, 2005;

     -- "SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        Co." (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, U.S. District Court,
        Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Sept. 6,
        2005;

     -- "Dik Drug Co., et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co."
        (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court, Newark,
        New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     -- "American Sales Co., Inc. et al. v. Becton, Dickinson &
        Co." (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S. District Court,
        Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Oct. 3,
        2005; and

     -- "Park Surgical Co. Inc. et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and
        Co." (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District Court,
        Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Oct. 26,
        2005.

The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. and Dik Drug
Co. in New Jersey have been consolidated under the caption, "In
re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

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


BECTON DICKINSON: Faces N.J. Antitrust Suit by Indirect Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson Co. remains a defendant in three purported
class actions brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of Becton
Dickinson's products, alleging that Becton Dickinson violated
federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for Becton Dickinson's products to the plaintiff and
other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     -- "Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        Co." (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
        Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005;

     -- "Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson and
        Co.," (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006; and

     -- "Medstar v. Becton Dickinson (Case No. 06-CV-03258-JLL
        (RJH)," U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
        on May 18, 2006.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class actions seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class actions have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multidistrict
Litigation in federal court in New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Suit by Daniels Sharpsmart
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson Co. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas over alleged
antitrust laws violations by the company in the sharps-
collection market.

On Aug. 31, 2005, Daniels Sharpsmart filed a suit against Becton
Dickinson, another manufacturer and three group purchasing
organizations in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas.  The suit is "Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Tyco
International, (U.S.) Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 505CV169)."

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Becton Dickinson
and the other defendants conspired to exclude the plaintiff from
the sharps-collection market by entering into long-term
contracts in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.  
They seeks monetary damages.

A hearing on Motion to Compel Motion for Sanctions filed by
Daniels Sharpsmart was held on Jan. 30, 2007.

The suit is before Judge David Folsom.

Representing Becton Dickinson are:

     (1) Robert A. Atkins at Paul Weiss RIfkind Wharton &
         Garrison, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York City,
         N.Y. 10019-6064, Phone: 212-373-3183, Fax: 212-373-
         2225, E-mail: ratkins@paulweiss.com; and

     (2) William David Carter, Sr. at Mercy Carter Tidwell,
         L.L.P., 1724 Galleria Oaks Drive, Texarkana, TX 75503,
         Phone: 903/794-9419, Fax: 19037941268, E-mail:
         wdcarter@texarkanalawyers.com.

Representing the plaintiff is Nicholas H. Patton at Patton &
Tidwell, 4605 Texas Blvd., P.O. Box 5398, Texarkana, TX 75505-
5398, Phone: 903/792-7080, Fax: 19037928233, E-mail:
nickpatton@texarkanalaw.com.


BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Antitrust Complaint in Syringes Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
UltiMed, Inc., a Minnesota company, filed a suit against Becton
Dickinson in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota
on June 6, 2006.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Becton Dickinson
excluded the plaintiff from the market for home use insulin
syringes by entering into anticompetitive contracts in violation
of federal and state antitrust laws.  The plaintiff seeks money
damages and injunctive relief.

A pretrial conference in the case is set Feb. 12, 2007 at 10:00
a.m. in Room 750, 7th Floor, of the interim U.S. Courthouse, at
180 East Fifth Street, ST. Paul, MN 55101 before U.S. Magistrate
Judge Jeanne Graham.

The suit is Case No. 06CV2266, filed before Judge David S. Doty
with referral to Judge Graham.

Representing Becton Dickinson are:

     (1) Robert A. Atkins at Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Wharton &
         Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10019-6064, Phone: 212-373-3183, E-mail:
         ratkins@paulweiss.com; and

     (2) John H. Hinderaker at Faegre & Benson LLP, 90 S 7th St
         Ste 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone: 612-766-
         7000, Fax: 612-766-1600, E-mail:
JHinderaker@Faegre.com.

Representing UltiMed are:

     (1) Craig D. Diviney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 S 6th St
         Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-
         2600, Fax: 6123408856, E-mail:
         diviney.craig@dorsey.com; and

     (2) John Rock at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste
         1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600,
         Fax: 612-340-2868, E-mail: rock.john@dorsey.com.


BECTON DICKINSON: Product Liability Suit Certification Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court's grant of
class certification in "Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al.," a
product liability suit concerning the company's hollow-bore
needle devices.

Becton Dickinson, along with another manufacturer and several
medical product distributors, is named defendant in three
product liability lawsuits relating to healthcare workers who
allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become
infected with any disease.

Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have
sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by Becton Dickinson and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and/or treatment.  In some cases,
these actions additionally allege that the healthcare workers
have sustained mental anguish.

Plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions.  Becton
Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in eight
similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been
dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.

Regarding the three pending suits, in Ohio, "Grant vs. Becton
Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98CVB075616, Franklin County Court),"
on Sept. 21, 2006, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's grant of class certification.  The matter has been
remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the
class can be redefined.

In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf
of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class
action certification under the laws of these states in state
court in Oklahoma, under the caption:

        * "Palmer v. Becton Dickinson et al." (Case No.
          CJ-98-685, Sequoyah County District Court), filed on
          Oct. 27, 1998, and

        * in state court in South Carolina, under the caption
          "Bales v. Becton Dickinson et al." (Case No. 98-CP-40-
          4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas), filed on
          Nov. 25, 1998.

Becton Dickinson continues to oppose class action certification
in these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of
appeal.


BISYS GROUP: Awaits Approval of $66.5M Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Bisys Group Inc. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted final approval to
a $66.5 million settlement for a consolidated securities fraud
suit filed against it.

Following the company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results, seven putative class
action and two derivative lawsuits were filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

By order of the court, all but one of the putative class actions
were consolidated into a single action, and on Oct. 25, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint generally
alleging that during the class period the company, certain of
its officers, and its independent registered public accounting
firm allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the company's financial condition.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the court dismissed certain claims under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to six of the individual
defendants, narrowed certain additional claims against the
company and the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
as to the company's independent registered public accounting
firm.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who acquired Bisys securities from the
company as part of private equity transactions during the class
period.  

The complaint generally asserts that the company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the company's financial condition, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The court subsequently consolidated plaintiff's complaint into
the above complaint, but in August 2006, a magistrate judge
issued a recommendation to the court that it not certify the
proposed class of non-publicly traded company security holders.
Plaintiff subsequently filed objections to the magistrate
judge's recommendation.

                      Settlement Agreement

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action,
including claims relating to the second restatement filed on
April 26, 2006, as well as the remaining putative class action
on an individual basis.  

The parties signed two definitive stipulations of settlement
dated Oct. 30, 2006.  Under the proposed settlements, the
company paid an aggregate of $66.5 million in cash into escrow
accounts on Nov. 15 and 16, 2006.  

The consolidated class action settlement received preliminary
court approval on Nov. 6, 2006 but remains subject to, among
other things, final court approval.  

Following such approval, the funds will be disbursed to certain
purchasers of Bisys securities according to a Court-approved
distribution plan.  

The settlements include no admission of wrongdoing by the
company or any of the individual defendants, and were funded
through a combination of cash on hand and the company's existing
credit facility.

The company is currently in discussions with its insurance
carriers to determine the amount of available insurance proceeds
remaining under its $25 million directors' and officers'
liability policy.

The fairness hearing was recently held at which time the court
took the matter under advisement, according to the company's
Feb. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bisys Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-
cv-03840-LAK-GWG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) James Allen Carney and S. Gene Cauley both of Cauley
         Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC (ARK), 11311 Arcade
         Drive, Ste. 200, Little Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501)-
         312-8500, Fax: (501)-312-8501 or (501) 312-8505, E-
         mail: acarney@cauleybowman.com or
         gcauley@cauleybowman.com;

     (2) Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr. or George Theodore Peters
         both of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600
         or 212-545-4611, Fax: 212-545-4653 or  (212)-545-4758,
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com or peters@whafh.com; and

     (3) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 371-6600, Fax: (212) 751-2540, E-mail:
         ipress@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Elizabeth Anne Hellmann of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
         Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times Square, New York,
         NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-2590, Fax: 917-777-2590, E-
         mail: ehellman@skadden.com;

     (2) James J. Capra, Jr. and David M. Fine both of Orrick,
         Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 666 Fifth Avenue, New York,
         NY 10103, Phone: 212-506-5000 or 212-506-3793, Fax:
         212-506-5151, E-mail: jcapra@orrick.com or
         dfine@orrick.com;

     (3) Ronald Marc Daignault and David W. DeBruin both of
         Jenner & Block LLP (NYC), 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 891-1600 x 1610, Fax:
         (212) 891-1699, E-mail: rdaignault@jenner.com; and

     (4) Thomas J. Kavaler and Joel Laurence Kurtzberg both of
         Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 80 Pine Street, New York,
         NY 10005, Phone: (212) 701-3406 or 212-701-3000, Fax:
         212-269-5420, E-mail: tkavaler@cahill.com or
         JKurtzberg@cahill.com.


CRITICAL PATH: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Critical Path, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 14,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Beginning in July 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the company, and certain of its
former officers and directors and underwriters in connection
with the company's initial public offering of common stock in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Individuals who allege that they purchased Critical Path common
stock at the initial and secondary public offerings between
March 29, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000 filed the purported class action
complaints.  

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

They seek an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of persons
who purchased the company's common stock during the specified
period.  

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

The company has reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to resolve the cases.  The proposed settlement
involves no monetary payment by the company and no admission of
liability.

The court has preliminarily approved the settlement.  However,
the settlement is subject to final approval by the court, which
has not yet occurred.  

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


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

Several purported class actions were filed by individual
shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against:

     -- the company;

     -- Scott Randall, former president, chief executive officer
        and chairman of the board of Dynabazaar;

     -- John Belchers, former chief financial officer of
        Dynabazaar;

     -- U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.;

     -- DB Alex. Brown, as successor-in-interest to Deutsche
        Bank Securities, Inc.;

     -- Robertson Stephens, Inc., formerly known as FleetBoston
        Robertson Stephens, Inc.;

     -- Banc of America Securities, LLC;

     -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc.;

     -- Merrill Lynch;

     -- Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;

     -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., as successor-in-interest
        to Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.; and

     -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., as successor-in-interest
        to Hambrecht & Quist, LLC.

The lawsuits have been filed by individual shareholders who
purport to seek class-action status on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons who purchased the common stock of
Dynabazaar between March 14, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.  

The lawsuits allege that certain underwriters of Dynabazaar's
initial public offering solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed fees and commissions in connection with that
offering.

It further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Dynabazaar's initial public
offering which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On or about Oct. 8, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing
the claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions, including the claims against Mr. Randall
and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or
the company.

On or about Feb. 19, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice the claims asserted against the company under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

As a result, the only claims that remain against the company are
those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
the remaining claims in the litigation.  The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the company and its present and former
directors and officers.

It is anticipated that the company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance will fund any payment to the plaintiff class
and their counsel.  The company will make no direct payment.

The parties have negotiated and executed a definitive settlement
agreement.  The proposed settlement provides that the class
members in the class actions brought against the participating
issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.

In addition, Dynabazaar and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPO's.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.

If ultimately approved by the court, the proposed settlement
would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Dynabazaar and all of the other issuer
defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims
against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  Consummation of the
proposed settlement remains conditioned upon obtaining approval
by the court.

On Sept. 1, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and directed that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be provided to class members.

Thereafter, the court held a fairness hearing, on April 24,
2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.
After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

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


FIRST COMMUNITY: Awaits Approval of 900 Capital Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Community Bancorp awaits approval of the settlements in
these litigations in California:

     -- "Gilbert, et al. v. Cohn, et al., Case No. BC310846;"
        and

     -- "Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, etc., v. First
        Community Bancorp, etc., et al., Case No. 05-5900 SVW
        (MAWx)."

On June 8, 2004, the company was served with an amended
complaint naming First Community and Pacific Western as
defendants in a class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
known as the Gilbert Litigation.  

A former officer of First Charter Bank, N.A., which the company
acquired in October 2001, was also named as a defendant.  That
former officer left First Charter in May of 1997 and later
became a principal of Four Star Financial Services, LLC, an
affiliate of 900 Capital Services, Inc.

On April 18, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint.  The second amended complaint alleged that the
former officer of First Charter improperly induced several First
Charter customers to invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900
Capital and further alleges that Four Star, 900 Capital and some
of their affiliated entities perpetuated their fraud upon
investors through various accounts at First Charter, First
Community and Pacific Western with those banks' purported
knowing participation in and/or willful ignorance of the scheme.

The key allegations in the second amended complaint dated back
to the mid-1990s and the second amended complaint alleged
several counts for relief including aiding and abetting,
conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, relief pursuant to
the California Business and Professions Code, negligence and
relief under the California Securities Act stemming from an
alleged fraudulent scheme and sale of securities issued by 900
Capital and Four Star.

In disclosures provided to the parties, plaintiffs have asserted
that the named plaintiffs have suffered losses well in excess of
$3.85 million, and plaintiffs have asserted that "losses to the
class total many tens of millions of dollars."  While the
company understands that the plaintiffs intend to seek to
certify a class for purposes of pursuing a class action, a class
has not yet been certified and no motion for class certification
has been filed.

On June 15, 2005, the company filed a demurrer to the second
amended complaint, and on Aug. 22, 2005, the court sustained the
company's demurrer as to each of the counts therein, granting
plaintiffs leave to amend on four of the six counts, and
dismissing the other counts outright.

On Aug. 12, 2005, the company was notified by Progressive
Casualty Insurance Co., its primary insurance carrier with
respect to the Gilbert Litigation that Progressive had
determined that, based upon the allegations in the second
amended complaint filed in the Gilbert Litigation, there is no
coverage with respect to the Gilbert Litigation under the
company's insurance policy with Progressive.

Progressive also notified the company that it was withdrawing
its agreement to fund defense costs for the Gilbert Litigation
and reserving its right to seek reimbursement from the company
for any defense costs advanced pursuant to the insurance policy.
Through Dec. 31, 2005, Progressive had advanced to the
company approximately $690,000 of defense costs with respect to
the Gilbert Litigation.

On Aug. 12, 2005, Progressive filed an action in federal
district court for declaratory relief, which is known as the
Progressive Litigation, seeking a declaratory judgment with
respect to the parties' rights and obligations under
Progressive's policy with the company.  On Oct. 11, 2005, the
company filed in federal court a motion to dismiss or stay the
Progressive Litigation.

In November 2005, along with certain other defendants, the
company reached an agreement in principle with respect to the
Gilbert Litigation.  The proposed settlement, toward which the
company would contribute $775,000, is subject to the final
settlement terms and documentation being agreed upon by First
Community, the plaintiffs and other parties who are also
contributing to this settlement.  Additionally, the settlement
is subject to approval by the Los Angeles Superior Court.  

In connection with the Gilbert Litigation settlement, the
company also reached a settlement in principle with Progressive
Casualty Insurance Co. in the Progressive Litigation.  The
settlement with Progressive, which includes an additional
contribution by Progressive under the company's policy toward
the settlement of the Gilbert Litigation and a dismissal by
Progressive of any claims against the company for reimbursement,
is contingent upon the consummation of the Gilbert Litigation
settlement.

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.


GAINSCO INC: Settles Tex. Securities Fraud Suit Over Tri-State
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action "Culp v. Gainsco, Inc., et al."
entered into a stipulation that seeks to settle the case pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Named in the suit are Glenn W. Anderson, the company's president
and chief executive officer, and Daniel J. Coots, the company's
senior vice president and chief financial officer.

The suit was initially filed in federal district court in
Florida and is a consolidation of two previously separately
pending actions filed at approximately the same time and
involving essentially the same facts and claims.  It alleges
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the
company's acquisition, operation and divestiture of its former
Tri-State, Ltd. subsidiary, a South Dakota company selling non-
standard personal auto insurance.
  
On March 29, 2004, plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint that is based on the same claims as the
previously consolidated proceedings.  

The alleged class period begins on Nov. 17, 1999, when the
company issued a press release announcing its agreement to
acquire Tri-State, and ends on Feb. 7, 2002, when the company
issued a press release warning investors that it "expect[ed] to
report a significant loss for the fourth quarter and year ended
Dec. 31, 2001."  The second amended complaint seeks class
certification for the litigation.
  
In general, the second amended complaint alleges that:

     -- during the class period the company's press releases and
        filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
        contained non-disclosures and deceptive disclosures in
        respect of Tri-State;

     -- that the company's press releases and filings with the
        SEC disclosing the company's losses in 2000 and 2001
        failed to disclose the alleged declining financial
        condition and declining profitability of Tri-State; and

     -- that the company's financial statements were not
        prepared in accordance with generally accepted
        accounting principles, all in violation of Section 10(b)
        of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
        10b-5 there under.

More particularly, the second amended complaint includes
allegations that:

     -- the company issued a press release on Nov. 17, 1999
        announcing the acquisition of Tri-State and stating that
        the Tri-State acquisition was "expected to be minimally
        accretive to earnings" in 2000;

     -- the company failed to disclose that it had imposed more
        lenient underwriting and claims procedures on Tri-
        State's book of nonstandard personal automobile
        insurance policies than Tri-State's former owners,
        causing a reduction in Tri-State's net income;

     -- the company hid problems it was having at Tri-State and
        failed to disclose that Tri-State had lost profitability
        almost immediately after the company acquired Tri-State
        in January 2000;

     -- the company "buried" Tri-State's financial performance
        in its Lalande business segment or in the reporting of
        the company's overall financial performance;

     -- the company failed to disclose in a Form 8-K a lawsuit
        it had filed on July 7, 2001 against Herb Hill, the
        founder of Tri-State, contending that the Herb Hill
        lawsuit was a material pending legal proceeding;

     -- defendant Anderson hid Tri-State's performance from the
        company's board of directors; and

     -- the company violated generally accepted accounting
        principles by failing to record an impairment in or
        write-down of approximately $5.4 million in goodwill
        attributable to the Tri-State acquisition until the
        company announced the sale of Tri-State in August 2001
        back to Herb Hill for $900,000.
  
The second amended complaint does not specify the amount of
damages plaintiff seeks.  

In July 2006, a tentative agreement was reached.  On Oct. 31,
2006, Gainsco and the plaintiffs in the case entered into a
stipulation of settlement, which was filed with the court on the
same date.  

Pursuant to the stipulation, the plaintiff class members, which
would be certified for settlement purposes only, will be
provided notice of the stipulation, the general terms of the
settlement, the proposed plan of allocation, the general terms
of the fee and expense application with respect to payment of
the plaintiff's lead counsel's attorney's fees and reimbursement
of expenses and the date of the settlement hearing.

The company and the other defendants entered into the
stipulation to resolve the matter and have denied expressly and
continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against
them in the lawsuit.

Pursuant to the stipulation, a settlement fund of $4.0 million,
plus any accrued interest, will be created:  

      -- to pay plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees, expenses
         and costs with interest if and to the extent allowed by
         the court;

      -- to pay costs and expenses incurred in connection with
         providing and processing the notices and administering
         and distributing the settlement fund;

      -- to pay taxes and tax expenses; and

      -- to distribute the balance of the settlement fund to
         authorized claimants under the stipulation.

The suit is "Culp v. GAINSCO, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00723," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Terry R. Means.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger F. Claxton of Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave.,
         Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone:
         214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
         claxtonhill@airmail.net;

     (2) Jack Reise of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins - Boca Raton, 197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200
         Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-
         750-3364, E-mail: jreise@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Kenneth J Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, 2499 Glades
         Rd., Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-392-
         4750, Fax: 561/392-4775, E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the company is Mark T. Josephs of Jackson Walker -
Dallas, 901 Main St., Suite 6000, Dallas, TX 75202-3797, Phone:
214/953-6000, Fax: 214/953-5822, E-mail: mjosephs@jw.com.


GAINSCO INC: Still Faces Insurance Fraud Litigation in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainsco, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
over allegations that it violated state insurance laws,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.
  
Early in the third quarter 2006, the company and two
subsidiaries were served with the putative lawsuit filed by Ruth
R. Arbelo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against:

     * Gainsco, Inc.,
     * National Specialty Lines, Inc., and
     * MGA Insurance Co., Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions
of Florida insurance laws with respect to the manner in which
finance charges are imposed on Florida residents in connection
with installment payments of insurance premiums.  It thus seeks
damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $5 million and
other relief.
  
The suit is "Arbelo v. Gainsco, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00263-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to
Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marcus W. Viles of Viles & Beckman, LLC, 6350
         Presidential Ct., Suite A, Ft. Myers, FL 33919, Phone:
         239/334-3933, Fax: 239/334-7105, E-mail:
         marcus@vilesandbeckman.com; and

     (2) Scott Wm. Weinstein of Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, PA,
         Suite 303, 2400 First St., Ft. Myers, FL 33901, US,
         Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax: 239-334-1289, E-mail:
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants is Christopher S. Carver of Akerman
Senterfitt, 28th Floor, 1 SE 3rd Ave., Miami, FL 33131-1714, US,
Phone: 305/374-5600, Fax: 305/374-5095, E-mail:
christopher.carver@akerman.com.


HASBRO INC: Recalls Ovens Posing Lock-in, Burn Risks to Kids
------------------------------------------------------------
Easy-Bake, a division of Hasbro, Inc., of Pawtucket, Rhode
Island, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 985,000 Easy-Bake ovens.

The company said young children can insert their hands into the
oven's opening and get their hands or fingers caught, posing an
entrapment and burn hazard.

Easy-Bake has received 29 reports of children getting their
hands or fingers caught in the oven's opening, including five
reports of burns.

The Easy-Bake Oven is a purple and pink plastic oven that
resembles a kitchen range with four burners on top and a front-
loading oven.  "Easy Bake" is printed on the front of the oven.  
Model number 65805 and "Hasbro" are stamped into the plastic on
the back of the oven.  The Easy Bake Oven is an electric toy and
is not recommended for children under eight years of age.  Ovens
sold before May 2006 are not included in this recall.

These recalled Easy-Bake ovens were manufactured in China and
are being sold at Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, KB Toys and other
retailers nationwide from May 2006 through February 2007 for
about $25.

Picture of recalled Easy-Bake ovens:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07096.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact Easy-Bake between 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. ET 7 days a week to receive a free retrofit kit with
consumer warning.  Caregivers should keep the Easy Bake Oven
away from children under eight years of age.

For additional information, contact Easy-Bake at (800) 601-8418,
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.easybake.com


HOOPER HOLMES: Continues to Face Labor Suit by Calif. Examiners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws.

On Jan. 25, 2005, Sylvia Gayed, one of the company's examiners
in California, filed the suit, alleging that the company failed
to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations.  

Plaintiff is attempting to have the lawsuit certified as a class
action on behalf of other examiners who perform similar work for
the company in California, according to the company's Nov. 14,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Proposes to Settle "Mittleholtz" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm of Blumenthal & Markham announced a proposed class
action settlement of the case "Mittleholtz v. International
Medical Research, Inc., et al.," pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the
product PC-Spes, a dietary supplement distributed by
International Medical Research also known as BotanicLab, during
the period Feb. 7, 1998 through Feb. 7, 2002.

The lawsuit generally alleges that, during the period Feb.
7, 1998 through Feb. 7, 2002, the defendants unlawfully
distributed "PC-Spes" adulterated with dangerous synthetic
chemicals, the presence of which was concealed from purchasers
as a result of the defendants' alleged failure to conduct any
testing for adulteration by synthetic chemicals, including but
not limited to diethylstilbestrol and warfarin (or coumadin),
which is the active chemical in bloodthinnners.

The lawsuit further contends that the distribution of PC-Spes
was an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices and
seeks to recover restitution and disgorgement of all moneys
acquired through this practice for the benefit of purchasers of
PCSpes.

The defendants deny the allegations of the lawsuit and contend
that the distribution of PCSpes was lawful, fair and not
deceptive.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court ordered that the lawsuit may proceed
as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased PC-Spes
during the period Feb. 7, 1998 through Feb. 7, 2002.

The court has not formed any opinions concerning the merits of
the lawsuit, nor has it ruled for or against the plaintiffs as
to any of their claims.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on March 23, 2007.

Mittleholtz settlement on the Net:

            http://www.gilardi.com/mittleholtzsettlement

A copy of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action is available
free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1989

The suit is "Mittleholtz v. International Medical Research,
Inc., et al., Case No. GIC846200," filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Norman B. Blumenthal, David R. Markham and Kyle R.
         Nordrehaug, all of Blumenthal & Markham, 2255 Calle
         Clara, La Jolla, CA 92037, Phone: (858) 551-1223, E-
         mail: bam@bamlawlj.com, Website:
         http://www.bamlawca.com;

     (2) Mike Arias, Esq. of Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701
         Center Drive West, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, California
         90045, Phone: (310) 670-1600; and

     (3) Robert Fellmeth, Esq. of the Center for Public Interest
         Law, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110, Phone:
         (619) 260 4806, Fax: (619) 260 4753.


KEMIRA OYJ: Faces Lawsuits Filed by Canadian Chemical Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kemira Oyj, Kemira Chemicals, Inc. and Kemira Chemicals Canada,
Inc. have recently received claims or were named in class
actions filed in U.S. federal and state courts and in Canada by
direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and
persalts, it emerged in the company's financial report for 2006.

In these civil actions it is alleged that the U.S. plaintiffs
suffered damages resulting from a cartel among hydrogen peroxide
suppliers.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. previously received a grand jury subpoena
to produce documents in connection with an investigation by the
U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, relating to the
hydrogen peroxide business in the U.S.

The investigations by the U.S. Departments of Justice's
Antitrust Division and the European Commission's ruling in a
case of infringement of competition law in May 2006 are relied
upon in support of the allegations.

Kemira Oyj was informed on May 3, 2006 that the European
Commission has set a fine of EUR33 million for antitrust
activity in the company's hydrogen peroxide business (Class
Action Reporter, May 9, 2006).

The company said provisions it made are adequate to cover for
the fine set by the Commission.  The group does not expect the
outcome of any such legal proceedings currently pending to have
materially adverse effect upon the Group's consolidated future
result of operations taking into account provisions.

Based in Helsinki, Finland, Kemira -- http://www.kemira.com--  
is a chemicals group with four business areas: pulp and paper
chemicals, water treatment chemicals, industrial chemicals and
paints.


MAGMA DESIGN: Claims in Stock Suit Over Risk Disclosure Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted in part a motion to dismiss a purported shareholder
class action filed against Magma Design Automation, Inc.

On June 13, 2005, a putative shareholder class action was filed
by The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust against:

     * Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
     * Rajeev Madhavan,
     * Gregory C. Walker, and
     * Roy E. Jewell

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which defendants have again
moved to dismiss.  Defendants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part by an order dated Aug. 18, 2006, which dismissed
claims against several of the defendants.  The case is now
proceeding on the remaining claims, according to the company's
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 1, 2006.

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite
         3900, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax:
         (213) 617-1975, E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Eric J. Belfi of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0878,
         Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com; and

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue
         of The Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Dale M. Edmondson of O'Melveny &
Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone:
650/473-2632, Fax: 650/473-2601, E-mail: dedmondson@omm.com.


MCKEE FOODS: Recalls Nutty Bars Containing Metal Particles
----------------------------------------------------------
McKee Foods of Collegedale, Tennessee, is recalling certain
Little Debbie Nutty Bars in Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina
and Virginia because an ingredient may contain small particles
of metal.

These products were distributed to retailers and in vending
machines on Thursday, Feb. 1 and Friday, Feb. 2.

The Nutty Bars are in these retail packages:

     -- 12 oz. cartons, (12 bars, twin wrapped) with these
        carton-end codes:

        Guaranteed Fresh
        MAR 31 2007
        01302091
        
        or

        Guaranteed Fresh
        APR 01 2996
        01312091

     -- 25.2 oz. cartons, (24 bars, twin wrapped) with these
        carton-end codes:

        Guaranteed Fresh
        MAR 31 2007
        01302101

        or

        Guaranteed Fresh
        MAR 31 2007
        01302102

     -- 3 oz. single-serve packages (2 bars, twin wrapped) with
        this code:

        Sell By
        APR 01 2007
        01312101

The particles were detected through internal quality checks.  No
consumer complaints have been reported.

Consumers who have purchased products with these codes are asked
to contact McKee Foods at 1-800-522-4499 for information and a
full refund.


NETFLIX INC: Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a class action, "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc.,
et al., Case No. CGC-04-434884," pending in the California
Superior Court for City and County of San Francisco has been
appealed to the California Court of Appeals, First Appellate
District.

On Sept. 23, 2004, Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action against the
company.

The complaint asserts claims of, among other, false advertising,
unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract as well
as claims relating to the company's statements regarding DVD
delivery times.  

The company previously reported a tentative settlement.  On
March 8, 2006, the company entered into an amended settlement,
which received court approval on Apr. 28, 2006.

Under the terms of the amended settlement, Netflix subscribers
who were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005 and
were a member on Oct. 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a free
one-month upgrade in service level and Netflix subscribers who
were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005 and were
not a member on Oct. 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a free
one-month Netflix membership of either the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-
time unlimited program.

The company also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $2,528.  It estimates
the total cost of the settlement will be approximately $8,953
with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as
the number of former Netflix subscribers who will claim the
settlement benefit.

The court issued final judgment on the settlement on July 28,
2006, awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of
$2,127.  The final judgment has been appealed to the California
Court of Appeals, First Appellate District.  The Appellate Court
has not set a hearing date, 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 "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A Foreign Corp. et
al., Case No. CGC-04-434884."  Representing the plaintiffs are
Adam Gutride Law Offices of Adam Gutrride, 835 Douglass Street,
San Francisco, CA 94114, USA, Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth
Safire, 6467 California, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Phone:
(415) 876-4345.  

Representing the company is Keith Eggleton of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
USA, Phone: (650) 493-9300.

Fort more details, visit http://www.netflix.com/settlement/.


NORTHERN MARIANA: $2.4M in Garment Firm's Suit Deal Unclaimed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Garment Oversight Board reported that of the $5.7 million in
checks sent to 29,771 workers in connection with the settlement
in the class action against the Commonwealth of the Northern  
Mariana Islands (CNMI) garment industry and some retailers, only
$3 million were received and cashed by the workers, the Saipan
Tribune reports.

In November, Chief Judge Alex R. Munson of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern Mariana Island asked attorneys for
plaintiffs to submit a written report on the distribution of the
settlement fund by Feb. 2, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17,
2006).

Garment Oversight Board chairman Timothy H. Bellas said there
are 16,719 outstanding checks left, in the amount of
$2,660,609.03.  Other outstanding checks, however, were
reissued.  This brought to 15,891 the number of checks
(amounting to $2,397,262.67) that are not accounted for or
cashed.  He said the board has yet to receive the $2.4 million
residual money.

Mr. Bellas said the Garment Oversight Board's report indicates
that less than half of the workers that were reached actually
cashed the checks.

"They sent out 29,000 plus checks.  And only 13,000 were
cashed," he said.

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions.

A settlement reached five years after, provides an award close
to $20 million.  The money is to be distributed as:      

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million      
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000      
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000      
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million      
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80      
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million     

Under the $20 million settlement, some $4 million would go to
the Garment Oversight Board's monitoring program.  Out of $4
million, Garment Oversight Board was initially supposed to get
$400,000 or 10 percent for the repatriation fund.     

Instead, the Garment Oversight got over $350,000 because they
did not get the full money that they were supposed to get in the
beginning since two garment factories did not contribute into
the settlement funds.     

Mr. Bellas previously underscored the need for the board to be
notified about the checks when the 120 days expire so that they
could monitor the money.  He said under the settlement
agreement, any money that can't be given out to the workers will
go to the Garment Oversight (Class Action Reporter, Oct 19,
2006).   

According to Mr. Bellas, if the Garment Oversight Board receives
the $2.4 million undistributed money, the board might propose
one or two things to U.S. District Judge Alex R. Munson before
they take any further action on the funds:

    -- go to China and actually place newspapers ads there to
       try to reach the other 16,000 former garment workers; or

    -- use the money to revitalize the repatriation program.

"We're assuming that perhaps many of the employers, when they
close their doors, they might not have enough money to send the
workers home.  Maybe that's a better thing to do to avoid having
all these workers leave without payment, without any way to get
home," Mr. Bellas said.

In October, Judge Munson ordered the garment manufacturers to
send back to claims administrator Gilardi and Co. the
undistributable checks (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).   

Former Superior Judge Timothy H. Bellas, chairman of the Garment  
Oversight Board, said the U.S. Postal Service also returned
about 337 checks (Class Action Reporter, Oct 19, 2006).  

For more details, contact:    

     (1) Pamela M. Parker of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman    
         & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway Suite 1900, San Diego,    
         CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-7423;   
         and    

     (2) Steven P. Pixley, 2nd Floor, CIC Centre, Beach Rd.,   
         Garapan, P.O. Box 7757 SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950, Phone:    
         (670) 233-2898/5175, Fax: (670) 233-4716, E-mail:   
         sppixley@aol.com.   


OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Accused of Contaminating Properties in Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Chemical has been named as the primary defendant in
what may soon become a class action, filed in filed in Colbert
County Circuit Court in Alabama, WAFF 48 News Huntsville
reports.

People owning homes and businesses near Occidental say the plant
have released toxic chemicals into the air and water, ultimately
contaminating their property, affecting the value of the land.

Occidental uses mercury to manufacture chemicals like chlorine,
potassium carbonate and hydroxide and environmental watchdog
groups like Oceana have released findings in the past indicating
that Occidental has released mercury at dangerous levels.

Montgomery-based attorneys Alyce Robertson and Rhon Jones say
recent soil samples taken on private property near the plant are
alarming.

"We're going try to put forth evidence that there is Mercury on
these properties and that it came from Occidental and we want
the homeowners to be compensated.  Just as important, we want
Occidental to cleanup the area", according to Mr. Jones in a
WAFF 48 News Huntsville phone interview.

"And we'd like Occidental to show responsibility and be a
corporate citizen and clean-up what they have polluted", he
added.

Plaintiffs are asking that a jury hear the case and ultimately
decide the amount of any damages.


PERRIGO CO: Overpricing Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Perrigo Co. reached settlements for lawsuits over the
alleged overpricing of children's ibuprofen suspension product
that was the result of an agreement between Alpharma, Inc. and
the company.

The company was named as a defendant in three suits, two of
which are class actions that have been consolidated with one
another, filed on behalf of company customers (i.e., retailers)
and the other consisting of four class actions filed on behalf
of indirect company customers, alleging that the plaintiffs
overpaid for children's ibuprofen suspension product as a result
of the company's 1998 agreement with Alpharma.

As the company defended these claims, it also participated in
settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs.  

On April 24, 2006, the court in the Direct Purchaser Action
issued an order and final judgment approving the settlement of
this matter with respect to defendants Alpharma and the company.  
The company agreed to pay $3,000,000 as part of the settlement
of the Direct Purchaser Action.

Separately, Alpharma, Inc. and the company entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve the Indirect Purchaser Action
for a combination of cash and product donations of approximately
$1,000.

On July 25, 2006 the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of the Indirect Purchaser Action.  On
Dec. 11, 2006, the court granted final approval of the
settlement for the Indirect Purchaser Action, according to the
company's Feb. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 30, 2006.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Redback Networks, Inc. awaits the final approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York of a
settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed
against the company in relation to its initial public offering.

The lawsuit asserts, among other claims, violations of the
federal securities laws relating to how the company's
underwriters of its initial public offering allegedly allocated
IPO shares to the underwriters' customers.  

In March 2002, the court entered an order approving the joint
request of the plaintiffs and company to dismiss the claims
without prejudice.  On April 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint against the company
and certain of its former officers and directors, as well as
certain underwriters involved in the company's initial public
offering.  

Similar complaints were filed concerning more than 300 other  
IPOs.  All of these cases have been consolidated as "In re  
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."  On July 15,  
2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for failure
to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On Oct. 8,  
2002, the court entered an Order of Dismissal as to the
individual defendants in the company's IPO litigation, without
prejudice, subject to a tolling agreement.  On Feb. 19, 2003,
the court denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the
company.   

Settlement discussions on behalf of the named defendants
resulted in a final settlement memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in the case and company's insurance carriers,
which has been submitted to the court.  The underwriters are not
parties to the proposed settlement.  

As of June 30, 2003, the company has tentatively agreed to this
settlement, provided that substantially all of the other
defendants agree to the memorandum of understanding.  As of July
31, 2003, over 250 issuers, constituting a majority of the
issuer defendants, had tentatively approved the settlement.  The
settlement is still subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the court.

On April 24, 2006, the court conducted a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement.  
The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final
approval at the hearing.

The suit is "In Re Redback Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6090," filed in relation
to "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master  
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.


ROGERS INT'L: Continues to Face Class, Derivative Suits in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership)
remains a defendant in a purported class action pending in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Beeland Management Co., L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, Allen
D. Goodman and James Beeland Rogers, Jr. were named as
defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant, in a
class action and derivative action filed on Jan. 24, 2006 by
Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane
Family Trust dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets.  

The suit seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of the
Partnership's limited partners.

On March 30, 2006, Beeland Management Co., L.L.C, Messrs. Price
and Goodman and the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 13, 2006, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the
complaint without prejudice.  On May 18, 2006, plaintiffs filed
their complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
which was substantially the same except Walter Thomas Price III
was not named as a defendant.

On July 13, 2006, defendants moved to reassign the case to the
Cook County Chancery Division, where a related case is pending.
On Sept. 8, 2006, that motion was granted.  

On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants moved to stay this action.
Briefing on that motion has been completed, according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The federal suit was "Lane, et al. v. Beeland Management Co.,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00418," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew
F. Kennelly.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony B.D. Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, PL, 4301 Snchor
         Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33634, US, Phone:
         (813) 289-0700;

     (2) Floyd A. Wisner of Wisner Law Firm, 934 South Fourth
         St., St. Charles, IL 60174, Phone: (630) 513-9434, E-
         mail: faw@wisner-law.com; and

     (3) Scott E. Schutzman of Law Offices of Scott E.
         Schutzman, 3700 S. Susan Street, Suite 120, Santa Ana,
         CA 92704, US, Phone: (714) 543-3638.

Representing the defendants is Thomas K. Cauley, Jr. of Sidley
Austin, LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312) 853-7000, E-mail: tcauley@sidley.com.


SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
certified as a class action the case, "In re SupportSoft, Inc.  
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222."

                        Case Background

Between Dec. 9, 2004 and Jan. 21, 2005, several purported
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the company, the
company's chief executive officer, Radha R. Basu, and former
chief financial officer, Brian M. Beattie.  These actions were
consolidated on March 22, 2005 as "In re SupportSoft, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI" (Class Action  
Reporter, March 23, 2006).  

The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of
certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Jan. 20, 2004 and Oct. 1, 2004.   

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On July 15, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend it.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a corrected amended complaint on Aug. 19,  
2005.   

On Nov. 21, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the corrected amended complaint.  Defendants filed their
answer to the complaint on Dec. 14, 2005.   

Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Feb. 1, 2006 and a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion was scheduled for April 21, 2006.  
On May 31, 2006, this action was certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the company from Jan. 29,
2004 to Oct. 1, 2004 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.  

The suit is "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-5222 SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter A. Binkow of Glancy &  
Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,  
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:  
pbinkow@glancylaw.com.   

Representing the company are Sherry Hartel Haus, David L.  
Lansky, and Peri Nielsen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,  
650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 493-9300,  
E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com, dlansky@wsgr.com and  
pnielsen@wsgr.com.


TELSTRA CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Hearing Set Nov. 26
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Telstra Corp. Ltd. and Slater & Gordon, which
represent about 200 shareholders, agreed on a tentative Nov. 26,
2007 hearing for a shareholder lawsuit filed against the
company, The Age reports.

But before the hearing can begin, 28,000 letters will have to be
posted to investors who bought Telstra shares between Aug. 11
and Sept. 6, 2005, informing them that under Federal Court rules
they have to opt out of the class action formally or they will
become a party to it.

The parties also agreed to an advertisement to be placed in a
major newspaper to inform shareholders of their need to decide
whether to opt out of the action.

In December of last year, the law firm Slater & Gordon launched
the $300 million class action in Sydney's Federal Court on
behalf of Telstra shareholders.  The case concerns a secret
government briefing that triggered a warning from the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 28, 2006).

The suit claims that on Aug. 11, 2005, Telstra supplied the
government a document -- hours after its annual results briefing
-- that stated it had underinvested in its network.

The law firm alleges key aspects of the document were not
revealed until an official earnings downgrade on Sept. 5, with
the actual document released two days later.  It believes
shareholders who bought $300 million of shares in that 3-week
period were disadvantaged.

But Telstra argued that the "key elements" of the information
supplied to government were disclosed both in public documents
and in media and analyst briefings on Aug. 11.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
investigated the matter but decided against prosecuting Telstra.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Yet to Receive Notice of Va. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tier Technologies, Inc. has yet to be served a with a purported
class action complaint that was filed on behalf of purchasers of
the company's common stock from Nov. 29, 2001 to Oct 25, 2006.

On Nov. 10, 2006, a law firm issued a press release stating that
a class action had been filed.  According to the press release,
the suit alleges that Tier and certain of its former and/or
current officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act, but did not identify the level of
damages being sought.  The press release states that the case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.

The company has not been served with the complaint and are not
able to estimate the probability or level of exposure associated
with this purported complaint, according to its Nov. 14, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The purported securities suit is "Shiring v. Tier Technologies,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge
T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Barry R. Poretz.

Representing the plaintiffs is John Christopher Pasierb of Law
Offices of John C Pasierb, PLC, 2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201, Phone: (703) 875-2260

Representing the defendants is Nicholas Ian Porritt of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, 1700 K. St. NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20006-3817, Phone: (703) 734-3100, Fax: 703-973-
8899.


TRIMSPA INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Diet Pills Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janet Luna and three people, identified as her guardians, filed
a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against product
endorser Anna Nicole Smith and TrimSpa Inc., alleging deceptive
business practices and violation of California's unfair
competition law, The Times of Northwest Indiana reports.

Plaintiffs are asking for unspecified damages, restitution and
an injunction preventing Ms. Smith and New Jersey-based TrimSpa,
maker of TrimSpa X32, from making claims that users of the pills
can lose substantial amounts of weight.  

They contend that their marketing of the weight-loss pill,
endorsed by Ms. Smith, is false or misleading.

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission announced TrimSpa would
pay $1.5 million to settle allegations that the company's
weight-loss claims were unsubstantiated, the report said.

Following the FTC announcement, TrimSpa released a statement
saying it supported actions to clean up the weight-loss
industry, but disputed the federal agency's allegation that a
handful of TrimSpa advertisements that ran in 2003 and 2004 had
insufficient substantiation.

TrimSpa also disagreed with any inference that its X32 product
has no scientific support.

TrimSpa on the net: http://www.trimspa.com/


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

On Nov. 9, 2001, Arthur Mendoza filed a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging claims against the company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering of stock as well as the
company's secondary offering of stock.

The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the company's initial
public offering and secondary stock offering between Jan. 31,
and Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaint alleges generally that the prospectuses under
which such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and commissions received by
the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over
300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently
pending in the Southern District of New York.

On April 18, 2002, Michael Szymanowski was appointed lead
plaintiff in the action.  On April 22, 2002, an amended
complaint was filed.  

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss.  On July 15, 2002, the company, collectively
with the other issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss.

The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the underwriters'
motion to dismiss on Aug. 15, 2002 and to the issuers' motion to
dismiss on Aug. 27, 2002.  

The underwriters' reply to the opposition was filed on Sept. 13,
2002, and the company's reply to the opposition was filed on
Sept. 27, 2002.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motions
to dismiss with respect to substantially all of the plaintiffs'
claims, including those against the company.

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposed settlement and release of claims against the issuer
defendants, including Turnstone.  

In August 2005, the court entered an order affirming its
preliminary approval for the proposed settlement, and scheduled
a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement to the
shareholder class for April 2006.

In April 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection
with the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement
but did not indicate when it would issue a decision regarding
final approval of the settlement.

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


TYSON FOODS: $500,000 of $10.2M Labor Suit Settlement Unclaimed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle attorney David Mark said about $500,000 of the $10.2
million settlement of a labor suit filed against Tyson Foods
Inc. has yet to be claimed after a Jan. 25 deadline to file
claims for back wages elapsed, the Tri-City Herald reports.  

Under the settlement, 20 percent of the remaining money will go
back to Tyson and a part will be used to cover attorneys' fees.  
But Mr. Mark said he'll seek the court's permission to
distribute whatever remains to claimants who couldn't reach him
earlier.

According to Mr. Mark, who initiated the litigation on workers'
behalf, most remaining claims involve about 1,000 short-term
production line workers.

On Nov. 5, 2001, employees of Tyson Fresh Meat's Pasco,
Washington beef slaughter, processing and hides facilities filed
the suit, "Chavez, et al. v. IBP Inc., et al.," in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.   

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201 - 219, as well as violations of the
Washington State Minimum Wage Act, Revised Code of Washington
chapter 49.46, Industrial Welfare Act, RCW chapter 49.12, and
the Wage Deductions-Contribution-Rebates Act, RCW chapter 49.52.

It alleges Tyson Fresh Meat and/or the company required
employees to perform unpaid work related to donning and doffing
certain personal protective clothing and equipment both prior to
and after their shifts, as well as during meal periods.  

On July 20, 2005, judgment was entered for $11.4 million,
exclusive of costs and attorney fees.  Attorneys for the Chavez
plaintiffs have indicated to the company their intention to file
a follow-on suit to Chavez for different potential claimants
alleging similar violations to those raised in Chavez.

On Nov. 28, 2005, the court awarded the attorneys for the Chavez
plaintiffs approximately $1.9 million in fees and expenses.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the court awarded additional costs of $19,651.  
On Dec. 8, 2005, the company filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.   

The parties later met and reached an agreement that will resolve
Chavez and certain post-Chavez claims for $10.2 million.  

On May 19, 2006, the parties filed a settlement agreement and a
joint motion to approve class action settlement.  The court held
a final approval hearing on Sept. 26, 2006, at which time it
considered the terms of settlement.   

The settlement was approved by the court on Sept. 28, 2006, and
distribution of the settlement amounts are scheduled during the
first and second quarters of fiscal year 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006).

Tyson Foods acquired IBP in Sept. 2001 and renamed it Tyson
Fresh Meats.

The suit is "Chavez, et al v. IBP Inc, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-
05093-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington under Judge Robert H. Whaley.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Joel M. Cohn, Michael J. Mueller and Nicole M. Mueller,
         all of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP - DC, 1333
         New Hampshire Ave NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-887-4000 or 202-887-4136, Fax: 12029557644
         or 12029557787 or 202-887-4288, E-mail:
         jcohn@akingump.com or mmueller@akingump.com or
         nmueller@akingump.com; and

     (2) Robert C. Tenney of Meyer Fluegge & Tenney, 230 S
         Second Street, P O Box 22680, Yakima, WA 98907, Phone:
         509-575-8500, Fax: 15095754676, E-mail:
         tenney@mftlaw.com.

Representing plaintiffs are David N. Mark of the Law Office of
David N Mark, 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104,
Phone: 206-340-1840, Fax: 12063401846, E-mail:
david@marklawoffice.com; and Kathryn Goater and William Rutzick,
both of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1614, Phone: 206-622-8000, Fax: 12066822305,
E-mail: goater@sgb-law.com or rutzick@sgb-law.com.


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

On June 12, 2001, a class action was filed against the company
and several of its officers and directors in U.S. Federal Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Also named as,
defendants were four underwriters involved in the issuance and
initial public offering of the company's common stock in
February 1999.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities law based
on, among other things, claims that the underwriters:

      -- awarded material portions of the initial shares to
         certain favored customers in exchange for excessive
         commissions; and

      -- engaged in a practice known as "laddering," whereby the
         clients or customers agreed that in exchange for IPO
         shares they would purchase additional shares at
         progressively higher prices after the IPO.

With respect to Verticalnet, the complaint alleges that
Verticalnet and its officers and directors failed to disclose in
the prospectus and the registration statement the existence of
these purported excessive commissions and laddering agreements.

After the initial complaint was filed, other plaintiffs filed
several "copycat" complaints with nearly identical allegations
in the district court.  

All of the suits were consolidated into a single amended
complaint containing additional factual allegations concerning
the events set forth in the original complaints filed with the
district court in April 2002.

In October 2002, the district court entered an order dismissing,
without prejudice, the claims against the individual defendant
officers and directors who had been named as defendants in the
various complaints.

In February 2003, the district court entered an order denying a
motion made by the defendants to dismiss the actions in their
entirety, but granting the motion as to certain of the claims
against some defendants.

However, the district court did not dismiss any claims against
the company.  In June 2003, the company's counsel, with the
approval of its directors, executed a memorandum of
understanding on behalf of the company with respect to a
proposed settlement of the plaintiffs' claims against it.

The proposed settlement, if finally approved by the district
court, would result in, among other things, the dismissal of all
claims against the company and its officers and directors.

Under the present terms of the proposed settlement, the company
would also assign its claims against the underwriters to the
plaintiffs in the consolidated actions.

In February 2005, the district court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement and held a final "fairness" hearing on the
settlement in April 2006, but reserved a ruling on the
settlement.

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

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


VIETNAM: Court Dismisses Complaints Against Ho Chi Minh City
------------------------------------------------------------
A Ho Chi Minh City Court dismissed three complaints in a class
action filed by more than 100 land users versus the city for
taking over their land for a high-tech project, the Thanh Nien
Daily reports.  The court has still to hear the remaining
complaints.

Plaintiffs Tan Phu, Tang Nhon Phu A, Tang Nhon Phu B and Long
Thanh My wards whose complaints were dismissed said that the
decision signed by city deputy mayor Vu Hung Viet in 2002 to
acquire 804 hectares of land for the HCMC Hi-Tech Park was full
of holes and should therefore be revoked.

The plaintiffs contended that the questioned Decision 2666 was
issued illegally and in violation of their legal rights and
benefits.  

The city government in their defense said that based on a master
plan for HCMC approved by the central government the city had
decided and announced the location of the park years earlier.

However, the court concluded that since the city people's
committee had the right to allocate the land, it could also
acquire land.

The court said the questioned decision 2666 although unclear and
inaccurate, gave the city chairman the right to sign all
decisions issued by the people's committee.  The inaccurate
heading does not affect the accurate contents of the body.


VOICEFLASH NETWORKS: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern district of Florida
will hold on March 29, 2007 a hearing for the settlement of the
class action "In re VoiceFlash Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 9:03-cv-80099-KAM."

The court has ordered that notice be given of the proposed
settlement, motion for attorneys fees and settlement fairness
hearing to all persons who purchased shares of the common stock
of VoiceFlash Networks, Inc. during the period from March 15,
2002 to Jan. 24, 2003, both dates inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusion is March 15, 2007. Deadline to
file claims is April 30, 2007.

Since 2003, several securities class actions have been filed
against VoiceFlash Networks, Inc. (OTC:VFNX.PK) and certain of
its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of VoiceFlash
shares between March 15, 2002 and Jan. 24, 2003 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 21, 2003).

The complaints charge defendants with violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges that defendants
issued a series of material misrepresentations that caused
plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase VoiceFlash
common stock at artificially inflated prices.  

The suit is "In re VoiceFlash Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 9:03-cv-80099-KAM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Kenneth A. Marra.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 E 45th Street,
         Suite 500, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230,
         Fax: 490-2022;

     (2) Deborah Jeanne Ryan of Ryan & Dunn, 3900 NW 79 Avenue,
         Suite 417, Miami, FL 33166, Phone: 305-513-3303, Fax:
         513-3310;

     (3) James Tullman of Weiss & Yourman, 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
         310-208-2800; and

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

Representing defendants are David Charles Pollack and Jose
Guillermo Sepulveda both of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, Museum Tower, 150 W Flagler Street, Suite
2200, Miami, FL 33130, Phone: 305-789-3200, Fax: 789-3395, E-
mail: dpollack@swmwas.com or jsepulveda@swmwas.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Rehearing of Calif. Gender Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. will seek a review of the decision by a
divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit in the case of "Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc."

On Feb. 6, 2007, in a 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit affirmed the class action status of the
case.

                Statements by the Wal-Mart Party

"The Court of Appeals' decision is about a technical legal
issue," said Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., partner at Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher LLP and lead counsel for Wal-Mart's appeal.

"The Court's ruling does not address the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims, or whether their allegations are true, but
rather addresses whether the case meets the technical legal
requirements to move forward as a class action.  This is just
another step in what will be a very long process, and the
company are still in the early stages of the case.  The company
are optimistic about the company's chances for obtaining relief
from this ruling as the case progresses.

"The panel's decision contradicts numerous decisions from the
Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit itself.  Moreover, it
clashes with a wave of recent decisions from federal courts
around the country that have flatly rejected the district
court's approach.  The plaintiffs' lawyers persuaded the panel
to accept a theory that would force employers to make decisions
based on statistics, not merit, and would deny employers their
basic due process rights.  Wal-Mart will therefore seek
rehearing of the panel's decision and, if necessary, review by
the Supreme Court," Mr. Boutrous said.

As Judge Andrew Kleinfeld stated in his dissent, this class
certification "deprives Wal-Mart of due process of law," and is
"unprecedented."  He added, "This class lacks commonality
because there are no questions of fact or law common to the
class."

"We have analyzed [the] decision by the Court of Appeals and our
view of the merits of the case has not changed," said Tom
Schoewe, executive vice president and chief financial officer.

"This decision will have no impact on our fiscal year 2007
financial performance and does not require the company to take
any action that will increase its cost of operations."

Susan Chambers, executive vice president of Wal-Mart's Human
Resources Division, said, "Wal-Mart has strong equal employment
opportunity policies, and fosters female leadership both among
its associates and in the larger business world.  The claims of
the six named plaintiffs simply are not representative of the
experiences of women working at Wal-Mart, including my own, and
today's decision has nothing to do with whether the plaintiffs'
allegations are true."

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in June 2001 on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the company's retail stores
and wholesale clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training and job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.  

On June 21, 2004, following a hearing on class certification on
Sept. 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class, which was certified by the District Court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female Associates (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 10, 2005).

                 Ruling Affirming Class Status

In his ruling, Judge Jenkins said that a congressional act
passed during the civil rights movement in 1964 prohibits sex
discrimination and that giant corporations are not immune.  The
judge had also stated that the women put on enough anecdotal
evidence to warrant a class-action trial.

He ruled that the "plaintiffs present largely uncontested
descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart
stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay
disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap
widens over time, that women take longer to enter management
positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the
lower the percentage of women."  

Finally, Judge Jenkins found that the evidence so far "raises an
inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices in
compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a
common manner," (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2005).

The suit is "Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund,
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473
ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

Representing the company is Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles
California 90071, Phone: (213) 229-7000, Fax: (213) 229-7520, E-
mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALVARION LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of Alvarion Ltd. (NasdaqGM:) between Nov. 3,
2004 and May 12, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Alvarion and certain of the company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Alvarion's business and prospects caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants -- knowing that the lack
of large orders from Telmex, Alvarion's largest customer, would
inevitably slow Alvarion's revenue growth -- issued materially
false and misleading statements concealing the true state of
Alvarion's business with Telmex and portraying Alvarion's
outlook as robust, in order to artificially inflate the price of
Alvarion stock long enough to allow insiders to dump their
shares and profit handsomely.

The complaint further alleges that defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded but failed to disclose or misrepresented to
investors that:

     (a) Telmex was not planning to make additional orders;

     (b) there was no basis to believe that Telmex would
         continue to provide substantial revenues in 2005; and

     (c) Alvarion could not sustain its growth rate without the
         substantial revenue contribution from Telmex purchases.

Plaintiff further alleges that soon thereafter the truth
concerning Alvarion's lack of orders from Telmex slowly emerged,
as analysts began to question whether Telmex could continue to
provide the same revenues as before, and as Alvarion began to
post declining financial results.

However, as the true state of its financial condition leaked
into the market, Alvarion continued to reassure investors and
continued to issue false and misleading statements concerning
Alvarion's financial situation and Telmex.

Finally, on May 10, 2006, Alvarion filed a Form 20-F with the
SEC which confirmed that the cause of Alvarion's declining
growth rate was the lack of purchases from Telmex.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Alvarion is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel, and engages in
the design, development, manufacture and marketing of wireless
products worldwide.

Throughout 2004, Alvarion experienced unprecedented growth in
revenues based primarily on the large contract orders of
Alvarion's largest customer, Telmex.

However, as 2004 progressed Telmex did not make subsequent
contract orders with Alvarion in the same magnitude as before.
By late 2004, Alvarion knew that revenues from existing Telmex
orders were almost fully realized, and that the growth of
revenue experienced in 2004 was unsustainable in the future.

For more information, contact Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888)
773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Website:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


ALVARION LTD: Scott+Scott Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Scott+Scott, LLP, filed a class action against
Alvarion Ltd. (NasdaqGM:) and certain officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of Alvarion common stock purchasers during the period
Nov. 3, 2004 through May 12, 2006, inclusive, for violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, immediately prior to the beginning
of the Class Period, defendants represented that the company's
2004 contract orders from one of its Latin American customers
accounted for as much as 30% of Alvarion's total revenues.

By the beginning of the Class Period, the company represented to
investors that its strong revenue position continued unabated,
while in active concealment of the fact that its revenue
opportunity with its Latin American customer had deteriorated,
along with any hope that the company was on track to achieve its
revenue and income numbers.

Unbeknownst to investors, the complaint alleges, defendants had
falsely portrayed positive business prospects at Alvarion's
outlook as robust, serving to artificially inflate the price of
the company's stock.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel when, on Feb. 8, 2006, the
company announced the decline of its revenue opportunities for
its 2005 fiscal year.

Following this, on May 12, 2006, Defendants finally issued their
annual report, which demonstrated the lack of purchases in 2005
from its Latin American customer. As a result, the price of
Alvarion shares declined dramatic decline, closing at $7.92 on
May 12, 2005.

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

For more information, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800)
404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com,
Website: http://www.scott-scott.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  * * *