---

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

            Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 221

                            Headlines


AAMES FUNDING: Tex. Court Stays Lawsuit Over Home Equity Loans
AAMES INVESTMENT: Calif., Wis. FCRA Violations Suits Consolidated
ACCREDITED HOME: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Md. Lawsuit
ACCREDITED HOME: Ill. Mortgage Loan Fees Suit Remains Pending
ACCREDITED HOME: Ga. Court Refuses to Certify Overtime Lawsuit

ACCREDITED HOME: No Ruling Yet in Calif. FCRA Violations Lawsuit
ACCREDITED HOME: Settles Consolidated Suit by Calif. Employees
APOLLO GROUP: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
ARCHWAY COOKIES: Recalls Oatmeal Cookies Over Undeclared Content
AZTAR CORP: Ariz. Court OKs Pinnacle Merger Suit Settlement

BROCADE COMMS: Calif. Court Denies Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
CALIFORNIA: Taxicab Drivers Sue Cab Companies Over Gate Fees
CANADA: Ontario Appellate Throws Out West Nile Virus Lawsuit
ELI LILLY: Downplays Merits of Ind. Racial Discrimination Suit
EXELON CORP: Amended Complaints Filed in Braidwood Lawsuits

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Enters $63.8M Settlement in Ill. Paxil Suit
GLOBAL ONLINE: Owner Accused of Fraud in $4M Suit Filed in Penn.
INDIAN TRUST: Proposal Put Forward Seeking to Settle "Cobell"
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Enters Discovery in Ohio Suit Over Policies
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeal Planned in Mutual Funds Investment Suit

OHIO: West Toledo Residents Sue City, Others Over Flooding
OIL COMPANIES: Post-Katrina Fueled Gasoline Prices Prompts Suit
ROLLING STONES: Fan Files Lawsuit Over Cancelled N.J. Concert
ROTONICS MANUFACTURING: Investor Files Calif. Suit Over Merger
SOUTH DAKOTA: S.D. Court Nixes Suit Over Denied Financial Aid

ST. LAWRENCE: Appeals Court Upholds Decision in Beauport Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Actions Costly, Threatens N.Y.'s Position
XL CAPITAL: Conn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion
XL CAPITAL: Insurance Antitrust Suit Yet to Receive Class Status

* Few Attorneys General Object to Settlement Under CAFA


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APOLLO GROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing in Ariz.
CONNETICS CORP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
WARNER CHILCOTT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


AAMES FUNDING: Tex. Court Stays Lawsuit Over Home Equity Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Texas stayed the
class action complaint, "Miller v. Aames Funding Corp."

The complaint alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans
originated by AFC in Texas violate the Texas Constitution's
requirement that such loans be scheduled to be repaid in
substantially equal installments.

Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the
court may grant.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court on its own motion stayed the
action, pending the resolution of class certification issues in
a similar action pending before the court.  

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there
has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
individual claims or the claims of the putative class.  

In October 2006, as a result of the merger of Accredited Home
Lender Holding Co. and Aimes Investment Corp., and the related
merger of certain subsidiaries of AHLHC and AIC, American Home
Lenders, Inc. succeeded to the position of AFC in the class
action complaint.

AHL said at its Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that if a class were to be certified and
were to prevail on the merits, the potential liability could
have a material adverse effect on Accredited.


AAMES INVESTMENT: Calif., Wis. FCRA Violations Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action complaints over allege violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by Aames Investment Corp. and Aames Funding
Corp. have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, and subsequently consolidated.

The complaints are:

     -- "Webb, et al., v. Aames Investment Corp., et al." (U.S.
        District Court, Central District of California), and

     -- "Cooper, et al., v. Aames Funding Corp." (U.S. District
        Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin)

The complaints allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit and are
similar in nature to the complaint, "Phillips v. Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Company, et al.," brought in the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California.  

The Cooper complaint was transferred to the Central District of
California and consolidated with the Webb complaint by
stipulation of counsel on Sept. 29, 2006.  A motion to certify a
class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on
the merits of either the plaintiffs' individual claims or the
claims of the putative class.

In October 2006, by virtue of the merger of Accredited Home
Lender Holding Co and AIC, and the related merger of certain
subsidiaries of AHLHC and AIC, AHLHC and certain of its
subsidiaries succeeded to the litigation interests of AIC and
certain of its subsidiaries.

AHL said at its Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that if a class were to be certified and
were to prevail on the merits, the potential liability could
have a material adverse effect on Accredited.

The suit is "Paul Webb v. Aames Investment Corp., et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-05140-GPS-SS," filedd under Judge George P.
Schiavelli with referral under Judge Suzanne H. Segal.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Douglas Bowdoin, 255 South Orange  
         Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone: 407-422-
         0025, E-mail: ctassi@bowdoinlaw.com;   

     (2) Jonathan Andrews Boynton of Kirby Noonan Lance and  
         Hoge, One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100,
         San Diego, CA 92101-3387, Phone: 619-231-8666, Fax:  
         619-231-9593; and  

     (3) Kathleen Clark Knight of James Hoyer Newcomer &
         Smiljanich, 1 Urban Center, 4830 W Kennedy Blvd., Ste.  
         550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail:
         kknight@jameshoyer.com.    

Representing the defendant is Pauline A. Massih of Alschuler  
Grossman Stein & Kahan, Water Garden - North Tower, 1620 26th  
St., 4th Fl., Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000,  
Fax: 310-552-6077.


ACCREDITED HOME: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Md. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland has yet to rule on
the merits of a purported class action filed against Accredited
Home Lenders, Inc. over allegations the company overcharges for
its second lien loans fees.

In March 2006, AHL was served with a class action complaint,
"Cabrejas v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in the
Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland.

The complaint alleges that AHL's origination of second lien
loans in Maryland violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan
Law and Consumer Protection Act in that fees charged on such
loans exceeded 10% of the respective loan amounts.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, damages, disgorgement of fees,
pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On April 13, 2006, AHL removed the action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.  On May 15, 2006, AHL filed
a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of action alleging
a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act on the basis
that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an unfair or
deceptive trade practice.  

A hearing date for the motion to dismiss has not been set.  A
motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has
been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is "Cabrejas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00975-AW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland under Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Kirk D. Jensen at Buckley Kolar LLP, 1250 24th St NW
         Ste 700, Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 12023498000, Fax:
         12023498080, E-mail: kjensen@buckleykolar.com; and

     (2) Brian L. Moffet at Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger
         and Hollander LLC, 233 E Redwood St., Baltimore, MD
         21202, Phone: 14105764000, Fax: 14105764246, E-mail:
         bmoffet@gfrlaw.com.

Representing the plaintiff is John A. Pica, Jr., Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos PC, 100 N Charles St 20th Fl, Baltimore, MD
21201, Phone: 14106492000, Fax: 14106492150, E-mail:
johnpica28@hotmail.com.


ACCREDITED HOME: Ill. Mortgage Loan Fees Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. continues to face a class action
over allegations of consumer fraud related to the amount of fees
it pays to third parties in connection with residential mortgage
loans.  

In December 2002, Accredited Home was served with a complaint
and motion for class certification in a class action,
"Wratchford et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in
Madison County, Illinois under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection
statutes of the other states in which AHL does business and the
common law of unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that AHL has a practice of misrepresenting
and inflating the amount of fees it pays to third parties in
connection with the residential mortgage loans that it funds.  

Plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of
others similarly situated, that is, those who paid AHL to pay,
or reimburse AHL's payments of, third-party fees in connection
with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund for
the difference between what they paid and what was actually paid
to the third party.

They are seeking to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, and any other relief the court may grant.  

On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying:

     -- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the
        alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
        Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov. 19,
        1997, paid money to AHL for third-party fees in
        connection with residential mortgage loans and never
        received a refund of the difference between the amount
        they paid to AHL and the amount AHL paid to the third
        party; and

     -- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an
        unjust enrichment cause of action included in the
        original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997 paid money
        to AHL for third-party fees in connection with
        residential mortgage loans and never received a refund
        of the difference between the amount they paid AHL and
        the amount AHL paid the third party.

The court conditioned its order limiting the statutory consumer
fraud act claims to claimants in the State of Illinois on the
outcome of a case pending before the Illinois Supreme Court in
which one of the issues is the propriety of certifying a
nationwide class based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.  

That case has now been decided in a manner favorable to AHL's
position, and, in light of this ruling, AHL intends to petition
the Illinois Supreme Court for a supervisory order reversing the
lower court's class certification decision, the lower court
having denied AHL's motion for reconsideration of:

      -- the court's order granting class certification, and

      -- the court's denial of AHL's request for leave to take
         an interlocutory appeal of such order.

There has not yet been a ruling on the merits of either the
plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims of the class, and
the ultimate outcome of this matter and the amount of liability,
if any that may result is not presently determinable.  

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


ACCREDITED HOME: Ga. Court Refuses to Certify Overtime Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denies certification to a lawsuit filed by former commissioned
loan officers of Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. alleging that
they were owed overtime pay by the company.

In June 2005, AHL was served with a complaint, "Williams et al.
v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The two named plaintiffs are former commissioned loan officers
of AHL, and the complaint alleges that AHL violated federal law
by requiring the plaintiffs to work overtime without
compensation.

Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.  

Plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective class was denied on
July 25, 2006, leaving the two named plaintiffs as the only
plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
11th Circuit requesting that it reverse the lower court's order
denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective class.  

However, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why it had
subject matter jurisdiction to hear this issue, and plaintiffs
subsequently dismissed their appeal.

The ruling does not preclude the filing of other non-class
action lawsuits alleging similar claims on behalf of other
current or former employees.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01681-TWT," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul J. Lukas of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, 80 South
        8th Street, 4600 IDS Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
        Phone: 612-256-3200, E-mail: lukas@nka.com; and

     (2) Edward D. Buckley of Buckley & Klein, 1180 West
         Peachtree Street, Suite 1100, Atlantic Center Plaza,
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-781-1100, Fax: 404-781-
         1101, E-mail: edbuckley@buckleyklein.com.

Representing the defendant is Lisa A. Schreter of Littler
Mendelson, PC, 3348 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 1100, Atlanta, GA
30303-1226, Phone: 404-233-0330, Fax: 404-233-2361, E-mail:
lschreter@littler.com.


ACCREDITED HOME: No Ruling Yet in Calif. FCRA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Central District of California has yet
to rule on the merits of a purported class action filed against
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. and Accredited Home Lenders
Holding Co. over allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act
violations, according to the company's Nov. 2 10-D filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Plaintiff's remaining claim is that AHL's offer of credit did
not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement.  A motion to certify a
class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on
the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the
claims of the putative class

In September 2005, AHL and AHLHC were served with a class action
complaint, "Phillips v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company,
et al.," brought in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California.  

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit made by AHL.  
The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court may grant.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiff re-filed the action in response to
the court's Dec. 9, 2005, decision granting AHL's and AHLHC's
motion to:

     -- dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that AHL's
        offer of credit failed to include the clear and
        conspicuous disclosures required by FCRA;

     -- strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and
        injunctive relief; and

     -- sever plaintiff's claims as to AHL and AHLHC from those
        made against other defendants unaffiliated with AHL or
        AHLHC.

Plaintiff's remaining claim is that AHL's offer of credit did
not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement.  A motion to certify a
class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on
the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the
claims of the putative class.

The suit is "Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders
Holding Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-RNB," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to
Judge Robert N. Block.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Kevin K. Eng, Edward S. Zusman
and David S. Markun of Markun Zusman & Compton, Phone: 415-438-
4515 and 310-454-5900, E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are, Patricia L. McClaran and
Michael J. Steiner of Severson & Werson, 1 Embarcadero Ctr.,
Ste. 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-398-3344, E-mail:
plm@severson.com.


ACCREDITED HOME: Settles Consolidated Suit by Calif. Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. reached a settlement in a suit
that alleges the company violated California labor laws by
misclassifying employees, failing to pay for overtime work, and
failing to keep appropriately keep payroll record.

In January 2004, AHL was served with a complaint, "Yturralde v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in Sacramento County,
California.  

The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of
AHL, and the complaint alleges that AHL violated California and
federal law by misclassifying the plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees as exempt employees, failing to pay the plaintiff on
an hourly basis and for overtime worked, and failing to properly
and accurately record and maintain payroll information.

Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all of the
company's other similarly situated current and former employees,
lost wages and benefits, general damages, multiple statutory
penalties and interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and
also seeks to enjoin further violations of wage and overtime
laws and retaliation against employees who complain about such
violations.

AHL has been served with 11 substantially similar complaints on
behalf of certain other former and current employees, which have
been consolidated with the Yturralde action.  

Subject to court approval, the parties have agreed to a
settlement with respect to the named plaintiffs and with respect
to a class of current and former AHL employees, which the
parties will jointly request the court to certify.  The
settlement amount was undisclosed.


APOLLO GROUP: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
announces that on Nov. 2, 2006, it filed a class action against
Apollo Group Inc. and certain key officers and/or directors in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Since the filing, Apollo has announced that a restatement of its
historical financial statements will be certain "to record
additional charges for compensation expenses" relating to its
stock options granting practices.

This is a material development from the company's Oct.18, 2006
announcement that a restatement could be "possible."  In
addition, the company also announced on Friday that its Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer Kenda B. Gonzales  has resigned
and Chief Accounting Officer Dan Bachus has been placed on
"administrative leave."  Both Ms. Gonzales an M. Bachus are
named as individual defendants in the complaint.

While the exact amount of the additional charges, resulting tax
and accounting impact, or the applicable periods to be restated
are yet to be determined; Apollo filed a Form 8-K on Friday
providing details on the deficiencies uncovered in its ongoing
investigation.  The company said it expects to restate financial
results at least as far back as 2001 and that it may face
"significant" tax liability.

On Friday, Apollo stock price declined 98 cents to $35.02 on the
Nasdaq, after hitting its 52-week low of $33.50.

As stated in our previous press release, the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds
have brought the current lawsuit on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities during the
period between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.  

The deadline to seek lead plaintiff status in thw case expires
Jan. 2, 2007.

The suit "Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds, Case
No. 2:06-at-11185," is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert O. Dyer of Dyer & Butler LLP, 2800 N. Central
         Ave., Ste 100, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-288-0588,
         Fax: 602-288-0587, E-mail: rdyer@dyerbutlerlaw.com; and

     (2) Jay P. Saltzman, Esq. and Ashley Kim, Esq. of
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 9 Fulton
         Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046, Fax: (212) 267-8137 and (866) 348-7700,
         Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com.


ARCHWAY COOKIES: Recalls Oatmeal Cookies Over Undeclared Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archway Cookies LLC of Battle Creek, Michigan, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 633 packages of only the 13.75oz Classic
Oatmeal Big Batch Homestyle Cookies because a small number of
those packages may not indicate the presence of an undeclared
allergen (tree nuts, specially walnuts).

Some of the cookies subject to recall contain tree nuts
(walnuts), but the product labels indicate only that the
products may contain traces of peanuts and tree nuts as part of
the cookies' ingredient mixture.  Persons who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of possible allergic
reactions if they consume these cookies.

The cookies subject to recall are Archway Classic Big Batch
Homestyle Cookies.  Each package bears the date code "Best
Before Jan 11 07 AX."  The cookies were packaged on October 19,
2006 and were distributed to retail stores in the eastern half
of the United States, specifically in states east of the
Mississippi River.  The problem was discovered by the company,
which has received no reports of illnesses or allergic reactions
associated with consumption of these products.

Media or others with questions about the recall should contact
Ray Hehman of Marketing Partners Communications, Inc at 415-421-
4141 or E-mail: mkptnr@aol.com.


AZTAR CORP: Ariz. Court OKs Pinnacle Merger Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona gave preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement in the class actions against
Aztar Corp. over its unconsummated merger with Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc.  

The court also set a Nov. 21, 2006 hearing for the final
approval of the deal.  Aztar Corp. was named as a defendant in
several purported class actions pending in various state courts
throughout the U.S. over certain provision in its merger
agreement with Pinnacle Entertainment.

Between approximately March 17, 2006 and April 24 2006, five
substantially identical putative class actions were filed
against the company and the members of its board of directors
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2006).

Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, one was
filed in the Nevada District Court in and for Clark County, and
two were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County.

The complaints are:

      -- "Plumbers Local Union No. 519 Pension Trust Fund v.
         Aztar Corp. et al., Case No. CV2006-004622 (Arizona),"
         (Arizona);

      -- "Robert Glasmann, v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case No.
         CV2006-004087 (Arizona);"  

      -- "John Drauch v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case No. A519833         
         (Nevada)."  

      -- "Esther Lowinger v. Aztar Corp. et al., Civil Action          
         No. 2045-N (Delaware);" and

      -- "Yolanda Heady v. Robert M. Haddock, et al., Civil
         Action No. 2090-N (Delaware)."

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to conduct an auction
or active market check prior to entering into the merger
agreement with Pinnacle and by causing company to agree to the
termination fee provisions in the Pinnacle merger agreement,
which allegedly will deter other bidders for the company.

The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against
the Pinnacle merger, rescission of the Pinnacle merger if it is
consummated and fees and costs.

Plaintiffs in the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519"
actions moved on April 11, 2006 for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction barring the company from paying
to Pinnacle the termination fee and expenses provided for in the
Pinnacle merger agreement.  On April 27, 2006, the Arizona court
denied the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" motions
in all respects.

On May 15, 2006, the defendants and "Drauch" entered a
stipulation to stay the "Drauch" proceedings pending disposition
of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.

On April 20 and May 3, 2006, respectively, the defendants moved
to dismiss the "Lowinger" and "Heady" for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and to dismiss or stay
the actions in light of the prior filed Arizona cases.

In addition, the defendants moved for an order-staying discovery
in the "Lowinger" action pending the resolution of their motion
to dismiss or stay this action.

On May 3, 2006, the defendants and "Lowinger" entered a joint
stipulation to stay the proceedings pending disposition of the
"Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.

On May 4, 2006, the defendants moved to consolidate the two
Delaware actions, and the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
motion on May 15, 2006.

On May 25, 2006, the defendants, "Lowinger" and "Heady" entered
a revised joint stipulation to stay the two Delaware actions
pending disposition of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union
No. 519" litigation.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs in "Glasmann" and "Plumbers
Local Union No. 519," acting on behalf of themselves and all
persons who beneficially owned Aztar common stock at any time
between Feb. 15, 2005 and the date of the consummation of the
merger, or if the merger is not consummated, through and
including the record date for voting thereon, entered into a
settlement with the Aztar defendants.  

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Aztar defendants
acknowledge that prosecution of the actions was a factor in
their subsequent decisions to decline to agree to pay enhanced
termination fees and expenses in connection with Pinnacle's $43
per share acquisition proposal made on or about April 18, 2006,
and Ameristar Casinos, Inc.'s $45 per share acquisition proposal
made on or about April 20, 2006, which in turn, facilitated the
ongoing auction of Aztar.

In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed and provided comments
to the Aztar's counsel on the preliminary proxy statement
concerning the deal, and the defendants took plaintiffs'
counsel's comments into account in preparing the definitive
proxy statement disseminated to Aztar common and preferred
stockholders for purposes of voting on the deal.

Finally, the company agrees to pay plaintiffs' counsel, subject
to court approval, attorney's fees and litigation expenses
awarded in an amount up to $500,000 in the aggregate.  

The settlement was preliminarily approved on Sept. 1, 2006,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period Sept.
30, 2006.

On Sept. 11, Aztar officials reportedly notified shareholders
that Judge Robert E. Miles of Maricopa County has set a fairness
hearing date for Nov. 21, 2006 on a settlement proposal in
"Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519."

If a judgment approving the settlement of the Arizona Actions is
entered, all claims against the defendants and Pinnacle in
"Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" will be resolved
and the defendants will move to dismiss the remaining actions
described above based on such judgment.

Based in Phoenix, Arizona, Aztar Corp. (NYSE: AZR) --
http://www.aztar.com/-- develops and operates casinos in major  
domestic gaming markets in the U.S.  The company has casino
hotel facilities in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Las Vegas and
Laughlin, Nevada.  It also operates riverboat casinos in
Caruthersville, Missouri, and Evansville, Indiana.


BROCADE COMMS: Calif. Court Denies Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Brocade
Communications Systems and certain of its current and former
officers, The San Jose Mercury News reports.

However, the judge gave the plaintiffs 60 days to amend their
complaint against certain board members on Brocade's audit
committee and the company's auditors, KPMG.

Beginning on or about May 19, 2005, several securities class
action complaints were filed against the company and certain of
its current and former officers (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
13, 2006).

These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005.  They came on
the heels of the company's restatement of certain financial
results due to stock-based compensation accounting issues.  

On Jan. 12, 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On April 14, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock from May 2000 to May 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges, among others, violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

It generally alleges that the company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
the company's business and operations and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.  

The suit is "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, (San Francisco, CA), 100  
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,  
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;
  
     (2) Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, 205 Linda Drive,
         Daingerfield, TX, 75638, Phone: 903.645.7333, Web site:  
         http://www.nixlawfirm.com;and   
   
     (3) Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, Century  
         Bank Plaza - Suite 400; 2900 St. Michael Drive,  
         Texarkana, TX, 75503, Phone: 903-334-7000, Fax: 903-
         334-7007, E-mail: website@pattonroberts.com.

Representing the company are Steven Guggenheim, Caz Hashemi and
Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 415-493-3900
and 650-320-4827, E-mail: sguggenheim@wsgr.com,
chashemi@wsgr.com and choffman@wsgr.com.


CALIFORNIA: Taxicab Drivers Sue Cab Companies Over Gate Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco taxicab drivers filed a purported class action
against three cab companies, claiming the companies owe them
millions of dollars in overcharged gate fees, money drivers pay
per shift to lease a taxi, The New York Times reports.

Filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of United
Taxicab Workers, the local union, and several drivers, the suit
claims that under a 2003 ordinance designed to give drivers
heath care coverage, owners should have dropped the gate fees to
$85 from $91.50 by Sept. 1, 2004, if no medical plan was in
place.  

The health plan has been stalled by questions over how to
finance it.  Attorneys for drivers estimate the owners owe
cabbies $6 million to $8 million.


CANADA: Ontario Appellate Throws Out West Nile Virus Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeals threw out a class action launched
by the family of Mississauga resident George Eliopoulos, who
died after contracting West Nile Virus, the Mississauga News
reports.

The class consists of more than 40 West Nile victims and
families of victims.  The suit alleged the provincial government
could and should have prevented the West Nile outbreak in 2002.  

But Ontario's highest court ruled that the government couldn't
have prevented someone from contracting the disease.

The suit further claimed the province failed to warn people in
areas of elevated risk.  The province sought to strike the
statement of claim on the grounds that it was baseless.

It argued that it owed no "duty of care" to any particular
individual to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, the
report said.

Lawyer Doug Elliott, who represented the West Nile victims in
the suit, said if the ruling is allowed to stand, it could mean
ordinary people can never hold public health officials
accountable in a court of law when their careless mistakes hurt
and even kill people.

Mr. Elliott said his clients are considering asking the Supreme
Court of Canada to review the case.

Mosquitoes that become carriers by feeding on infected birds
transmit the West Nile Virus.  It was detected in birds first,
followed by human cases.  

Mild symptoms of West Nile include headaches, fever, vomiting
and a rash on the stomach, chest or back.  More severe symptoms
include dizziness and disorientation.  People most at risk are
the elderly and those with weakened immune systems.

Mr. Eliopoulos was bitten by a mosquito near his home and became
infected with West Nile in 2002 and died in 2003 from
complications.

West Nile was first detected in Peel in birds and mosquitoes in
2001.  Human cases occurred for the first time in 2002.  A total
of 57 residents were infected during that season, with two
deaths.  The majority of the cases were in Mississauga,
according to the report.

In 2003, there were 10 human cases and no deaths reported. In
2004, no human cases were reported in Peel.  Last year there
were three cases: two in Mississauga and one in Brampton, the
report added.

Plaintiffs are represented by Douglas Elliott of Roy Elliott Kim
O'Connor LLP, 10 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M5J 2R8, Phone: 416 362 1989, Fax: 416 362 6204, E-mail:
rde@reko.ca.


ELI LILLY: Downplays Merits of Ind. Racial Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. spokeswoman Carla Cox responded to a lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana against the company for alleged racial discrimination,
The Tribune-Star reports.

In a written statement, Ms. Cox said, "Lilly takes any
allegations of unfair treatment very seriously.  We are
committed to conducting a full investigation of any allegations
and responding with appropriate actions based upon the results
of those efforts.  Respect and fair treatment of people are the
cornerstones of the Lilly corporate culture.  We do not tolerate
racial discrimination nor do we condone any behavior contrary to
our code of ethics."

In April, several workers of drug Company Eli Lilly & Co. filed
a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana for alleged racial discrimination (Class Action
Reporter, April 26, 2006).

Three former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged the
company paid black employees less than their white counterparts,
passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.      

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.    

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A.
Davis of Memphis, Tennessee, and two former sales reps, Jarmaine
Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

Earlier, Joshua Rose, attorney with the Rose and Rose law firm,
was at the Hyte Community Center, in Terre Haute to take
statements as part of a race discrimination lawsuit against Eli
Lilly and Co. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).

Mr. Rose took statements from "African Americans who believe
they suffered discrimination at Lilly.  We're collecting
information." Statements though will not be used during trial
without prior permission.

The suit is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard L. Young, with
referral to Judge V. Sue Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joshua Rose, Terri N. Marcus and
David L. Rose all of Rose & Rose, P.C., 1320 19TH ST., N.W.,
Suite 601, Washington, DC 20036 U.S., Phone: (202) 331-8555,
Fax: (202) 331-0996, E-mail: daver@roselawyers.com.


EXELON CORP: Amended Complaints Filed in Braidwood Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amended complaints were filed in three class actions against
Exelon Corp. that were filed in whether state or federal courts
in Illinois over allegations that it spilled more than six
million gallons of tritium-laced water from its Braidwood
Nuclear Power Plant into the surrounding community over a 10-
year period and failed to notify residents and regulatory
officials.

On March 13, 2006, a class action was filed against the company,
Exelon Generation Co. and Commonwealth Edison Co., as the prior
owner of Braidwood, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who live or own
property within 10 miles of Braidwood.

The plaintiffs primarily seek:

      -- a court-supervised fund for medical monitoring for
         risks associated with alleged exposures to tritium; and

      -- compensation for diminished property values.

Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the
plaintiffs cannot meet the dose threshold required to maintain a
public liability action under the Price-Anderson Act.  This
motion was denied.

On March 14 and 23, 2006, 37 area residents filed two separate
but identical lawsuits against the same defendants in the
Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois alleging property
contamination and seeking compensation for diminished property
values.

The company removed these cases to federal court, and all three
cases were assigned to the same judge.  It has submitted its
answer to the class action.  The company's motions to dismiss
the amended complaints in the other two lawsuits were denied in
part on July 19, 2006.

The court dismissed all claims premised on violations of
Illinois environmental statutes.  The court has set a schedule
for a class certification motion and discovery for all three
suits.

On Sept. 29, 2006, amended complaints were filed in all three
cases. Seven plaintiffs withdrew from the cases, and 18
additional plaintiffs were added.

The first federal suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Enters $63.8M Settlement in Ill. Paxil Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn approved on Oct.
6 and unsealed on Oct. 27 a $63.8 million settlement of a suit
over GlaxoSmithKline plc's anti-depressant drug Paxil, reports
say.

The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use
by children and adolescents while withholding negative
information about the medication's safety and effectiveness.

The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and
Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug.  Claimants
are required to present records of purchases to get a full
refund.  Those without a proof of purchase can get $15.

Judge Mendelsohn ordered plaintiff attorney Stephen Tillery to
hire Rust Consulting of Minneapolis to supervise and administer
the providing of the notice to class.  

Rust Consulting is to begin sending legal notice of the class by
Dec. 31.  Deadline to file claims is Aug. 31, 2007.  Filing of
objections and request for exclusion is until Feb. 23, 2007.

The fairness hearing is set March 9, 2007 at 10 a.m.

The plaintiffs in the suit are Teri Hoormann, Mary Kopsie, and
Bonita and Mark Helfer.  

Attorneys fee is estimated at $16.6 million.  

Contact information for Mr. Tillery: Korein Tillery LLC --
http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair  
Co.).


GLOBAL ONLINE: Owner Accused of Fraud in $4M Suit Filed in Penn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of E-Gold, Global Online Depository, and Global Online
Direct is facing a $4 million class action in Allegheny County
Court in Pennsylvania, according to the Courthouse News.

Larry E. "Buck" Hunter is accused of defrauding hundreds of
investors in an online Ponzi scheme that promises 365 percent
annual returns on investments in his companies, the report said.  
He claimed his businesses earn profits from lending money tied
to an electronic gold bullion depository.

The Steel City Group filed the complaint, which is seeking $1
million damages and $3 million in punitive damages.

Representing the plaintiff is Michael Bruzzesi.


INDIAN TRUST: Proposal Put Forward Seeking to Settle "Cobell"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposal has been put forward that could settle a protracted
class action filed against the federal government and redefine
the way the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) does business, Debra
Gruszecki of The Desert Sun reports.

The proposal was made at the 16th annual Indian Land Consortium
Symposium at Morongo Casino Resort & Spa in California.  It
would change Senate Bill 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of
2005, in an attempt to settle the decade-old suit, "Cobell v.
Norton," which is now known as "Cobell v. Kempthorne."

Not only will the change pay billions to Native Americans, but
it could drastically alter the way the U.S. Department of
Interior's BIA does business.

The changes would reallocate certain decision-making authority
and legal responsibility from the BIA to Indian tribes, and
individuals.  However, it will not remove the trust status of
Indian lands.

In essence, the sought after changes is intended to reform the
way the federal government manages Indian trust funds and
assets.

The two-page proposal, which was passed out to more than 400
conference participants from across the country, has been met
with some criticisms though.

According to Keith Harper, a staff attorney for the Native
American Civil Rights Fund, who is representing the plaintiffs
in "Cobell," none of the proposed changes were suggested by
those who are involved in its proposed $8 billion settlement.

Mr. Harper pointed out that he's concerned about the proposed
settlement, since the lawsuit that sought a historical
accounting and trust fund reform for money and accounts
belonging to 500,000 landowners does not spell out how it will
resolve all trust claims.  "The potential exposure in this case
could be more than $200 billion," he added.

Sally Willet, a probate judge for 60 Indian tribes and
communities in Arizona, Southern California and Nevada, also
expressed skepticism towards the proposal.

She pointed out that "Cobel" was about mismanagement, and now,
without having had that case litigated, the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee is prepared to propose changes to fix a
process.

Other concerns were raised about a provision that eliminates the
federal government's liability during the transition period and
a proposed change to consolidate all Indian land allotments into
10 or fewer owners for each tract of land within 10 years.

However, staff members for Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who
introduced the Trust Reform Act last July and chairs the
Committee on Indian Affairs, maintain that the proposed changes
suggested by the administration were introduced to spur dialogue
to resolve these longstanding issues and debates.

They cautioned that the changes should not be looked at as a
roadmap, but the way things may be 10 or more years down the
road.

To try to tap the view of Indian tribal leaders, the Senate has
created a spot on its Web site, http://www.Indian.Senate.comto  
solicit comments on the proposed changes.

Allison Binney, general counsel to the Senate Affairs Committee,
said that they've made it clear that no decisions will be made
until they hear from Indian Country.

                        Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

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

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

For more details, contact

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

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


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Enters Discovery in Ohio Suit Over Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed against Nationwide
Life Insurance Co. (NLIC) over allegations of Ohio Deceptive
Trade Practices Act violations.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC was named in a class action filed in
Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co."  

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.

It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of
all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum premium and
attorneys' fees.  

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.

The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the
U.S. and the Virgin Islands who, during the class period, paid
premiums on a modal basis to NLIC for term life insurance
policies issued by NLIC during the class period that provide for
guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding certain specified
products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.  The class period is from Feb. 10,
1990 through Feb. 2, 2006; the date the class was certified.  
The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the
company's Nov. 3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2006


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeal Planned in Mutual Funds Investment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
fourth Circuit the dismissal of the "Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation," which names Nationwide Life Insurance Co. as
defendant.

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in the class action, "Woodbury
v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," which was filed in Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

NLIC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.  On Dec. 27,
2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland and included in the multi-district
proceeding, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held -- through their
ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product -- units of
any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-
accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement,
failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection
with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or
units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found
with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, to
have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,
then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain
exceptions, of:

     all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue statement, omission
     of material fact, use or employment of any manipulative or  
     deceptive device or contrivance, held -- through their
     ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product -- units
     of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that
     included foreign securities in their portfolios and that
     experienced market timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and
seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or
class member, including all compensatory damages and costs.  On
June 1, 2006, the district court granted NLIC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

On June 30, 2006, the plaintiff filed a notice with the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals of its intent to appeal the District
Court's decision, according to the company's Nov. 3 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, case no.  
1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,  
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N  
         Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 1-
         602-776-5903, Fax: 1-602-274-1199, E-mail:  
         fbalint@bffb.com or afriedman@bffb.com;    

     (2) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery  
         701 Market St., Ste. 300, St. Louis, MO 63108, Phone:  
         1-314-241-4844, Fax: 1-314-241-3525, E-mail:  
         ebarash@koreintillery.com or gzelcs@koreintillery.com;   
         and   

     (3) Timothy G Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,  
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B. St., Ste. 1700, San Diego, CA  
         92101-3311, Phone: 1-619-231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423.

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Shoshana Leah Gillers, Eric John Mogilnicki, Charles  
         Collier Platt of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr  
         LLP, 399 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-
         230-8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888, E-mail:  
         shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com,   
         eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com,   
         charles.platt@wilmerhale.com;    

    (ii) Larry E. Hepler, W. Jason Rankin, Burroughs Hepler, 103  
         W Vandalia St., Ste. 300, PO Box 510 Edwardsville, IL  
         62025-0510, Phone: 1-618-656-0184; and  

   (iii) Gordon Pearson, Andrew R. Varcoe, Wilmer Cutler, 2445 M  
         St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-663-6000,
         Fax: 1-202-663-6363.


OHIO: West Toledo Residents Sue City, Others Over Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------
The city of Toledo, Lucas County, and the owner of nearby
railroad tracks in Ohio are facing a purported class action
filed by homeowners who were among dozens of residents besieged
by damaging floodwaters at least three times during summer
storms, The Toledo Blade reports.

Diled in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, the suit was assigned
to Judge Gary Cook.  Brian and Kerry Bolander and Rebecca Hall
filed it on behalf of themselves and others whose homes were
similarly damaged by floodwaters in June and July.  

The suit alleges that the defendants were responsible for
problems in the drainage of Shantee Creek and defects in the
design, construction, maintenance, and management of sanitary
and storm sewer systems, factors the plaintiffs alleged caused
extensive flooding on June 21, July 4-5, July 10, and July 12.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Transportation, which operates the
railroad tracks that run parallel to Laskey Road just north of
the plaintiffs' neighborhood, is accused of failing to maintain
and redesign a culvert to prevent obstructions of the Shantee
Creek drain.

Other defendants named in the suit included, Lucas County
commissioners, Lucas County Engineer Keith Earley, CSX
Transportation, and several unnamed John Does.

Plaintiffs, represented by Williams, Jilek, Lafferty, Gallagher
& Scott, believe that the class would consist of at least 75
other homeowners and involve more than 150 residents.

In addition to asking that the complaint receive certification
for class action, plaintiffs want the defendants to adopt an
emergency plan of action to improve sewer systems to prevent
future flooding and "expeditiously" repair damage to the
property of the homeowners.

They also seek for undetermined compensatory damages as well as
payment for costs and attorney fees in bringing the lawsuit.

For more details, contact Williams, Jilek, Lafferty, Gallagher &
Scott Co., L.P.A., 500 Toledo Legal Building, 416 North Erie
Street, Toledo, Ohio 43604-6301, (Lucas Co.), Phone: 419-241-
2122, Fax: 419-245-3849, Web site: http://www.WJLGS.com.


OIL COMPANIES: Post-Katrina Fueled Gasoline Prices Prompts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson, Mississippi lawyer John Arthur Eaves Jr. commenced a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi against oil companies and distributors over the
increase in gasoline prices after Hurricane Katrina, the AFX
reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Chevron USA, Inc.,  
     -- Citgo Petroleum Corp.,  
     -- Hunt-Southland Refining Co.,
     -- BP America, Inc.,  
     -- BP American Production Co.,  
     -- ConocoPhillips Co.,  
     -- Conocophillips Pipe Line Co.,
     -- Conocophillips Specialty,  
     -- Exxon Mobil Corp.,
     -- ExxonMobil Oil Corp.,
     -- Exxonmobil Pipeline Co.,  
     -- Murphy Oil USA, Inc.,  
     -- Shell Oil Products Co., LLC,  
     -- Marathon Petroleum Co., and
     -- Hunt Refining Co.  

The suit, which listed thirty-nine Mississippi residents most
from the southern part of the state as plaintiffs, accuses the
defendants of price gouging during an emergency.

The lawsuit claims gasoline prices in Mississippi were at or
near $3 after Katrina "and it was only two years ago that
Mississippians were paying less than $1.50 a gallon."

According to the lawsuit, "Hurricane Katrina was the worst
natural disaster to befall our state, and it is unthinkable that
anyone would try to take advantage of Mississippians and our
businesses at such a time."

It further states, "With skyrocketing gas prices over the last
year and record oil company profits, it is time to take a stand
to fight this egregious behavior and hold accountable those
responsible for escalating gas prices that are busting the
budgets of Mississippi families and businesses from Biloxi to
Batesville."

According to Mr. Eaves, he will ask a federal judge to allow the
case to be tried as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of anyone
who has purchased gasoline in Mississippi since Katrina.

The suit is "Coleman et al v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00249-KS-MTP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi under Judge Keith Starrett,
with referral to Judge Michael T. Parker.

Representing plaintiffs is John Arthur Eaves of the John Arthur
Eaves Law Office, 101 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39201,
Phone: (601) 355-7961, E-mail: johnjr@eaveslaw.com.


ROLLING STONES: Fan Files Lawsuit Over Cancelled N.J. Concert
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Rolling Stone fan has filed a class action against the band
over the cancellation of one of its concert in Atlantic City,
New Jersey, WGAL 8 Susquehanna Valley reports

Rosalie Druyan filed the suit at the Manhattan Supreme Court.  
Her complaint alleges that singer Mick Jagger, who came down
with a sore throat that forced the cancellation of the show just
four hours before its scheduled start, had sought medical advice
and was aware that he might have to postpone the concert.  

According Mrs. Druyan, she received a Ticketmaster e-mail on her
BlackBerry notifying her of the cancellation when she was a few
kilometers from Atlantic City.  By then it was too late to
cancel a $300 reservation at the Trump Taj Mahal and too rainy
to drive back to Brooklyn (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 1, 2006).

Mrs. Druyan contends the late cancellation cost her and other
fans a lot of money on non-refundable hotel reservations.  She
is seeking $51 million.

For more details, contact Martin Druyan, 450 7th Ave., New York,
NY 10123, Phone: 212-279-5577.


ROTONICS MANUFACTURING: Investor Files Calif. Suit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rotonics Manufacturing, Inc. faces a purported class action in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles over its
proposed merger with a subsidiary of Spell Capital Partners,
LLC.

On Sept. 13, 2006, a person alleging to be a stockholder of the
company filed a putative class action challenging aspects of the
proposed merger.  

The suit names the company and eight officers and directors of
the company, together with Rotonics Holding Corp. and Spell
Capital Partners Fund III LP, as defendants.  

Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty
and self-dealing.  In the complaint, plaintiff alleges generally
that the proposed merger resulted from unfair dealing and the
merger consideration of $3.00 was an inadequate purchase price.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and various
forms of declaratory, injunctive and an unspecified amount of
monetary relief, including an injunction against consummation of
the merger or, in the alternative, rescission of the transaction
and imposition of a constructive trust.

Gardena, California-based Rotonics Manufacturing, Inc., (AMEX:
RMI) -- http://www.rotonics.com/-- is in the business of  
manufacturing and marketing of plastic products for commercial,
agricultural, refuse, pharmaceutical, marine, recreation,
medical waste, healthcare, retail, recreation and residential
use, as well as an array of custom-molded plastic products to
customers in a variety of industries, located in diverse
geographic markets.  Its products include various types of
storage tanks, bin lids, refuse containers for automated
removal, medical waste containers, agricultural/livestock
products, kayaks, outdoor polysteel lamp posts, furniture,
planters and other rotonically molded items.  The company has
nine manufacturing locations in North America.  


SOUTH DAKOTA: S.D. Court Nixes Suit Over Denied Financial Aid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota
dismissed a purported class action filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), alleging that a rule, which denies
students convicted of a drug crime from getting financial aid is
unconstitutional, Carson Walker of The Associated Press reports.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Charles B. Kornmann ruled that
drug-using college students are not entitled to receive
financial aid, since such assistance is not an entitlement.

The judge specifically pointed out, "Persons convicted of drug
trafficking or possession offenses are not a suspect class. ..."
"The Constitution affords no right to a higher education," he
concluded.  "Likewise, there is no fundamental right to the
receipt of federal student financial aid."

He also concluded that the Department of Education is justified
in tying school funding to drug use because it's intended to
deter drug-related crime on college campuses and "prevents
taxpayer subsidization of such conduct."

Filed in March, the lawsuit affects every college student who
applies for federal financial aid.  In addition to the ACLU,
Kraig Selken, a Northern State student and two college students
from different states are named as plaintiffs in the legal
action (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).

The case specifically challenges a provision in the Higher
Education Act that denies financial aid to convicted drug
offenders. The ACLU said that the provision is unconstitutional
because it punishes people twice for the same crime and creates
a class of people deemed unworthy of receiving federal financial
aid for college without a good reason.

Put in place in 2000, the provision denies federal financial aid
to any student for up to a year for their first drug conviction,
and the penalties increase for second and third offenses.  

After that time has passed students can qualify for federal
financial aid again, but it's a rule ACLU think is
unconstitutional.   About 200,000 people nationwide have been
denied financial aid since the provision went into effect.

Plaintiffs are considering whether to appeal the dismissal,
according to Tom Angell, campaign director for Students for
Sensible Drug Policy Foundation, which joined the ACLU in the
lawsuit.

The suit is "Students For Sensible Drug Policy Foundation, et
al. v. Spellings, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01010-CBK," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under
Judge Charles B. Kornmann.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Graham A. Boyd, M. Allen Hopper and Adam Wolf of ACLU
         Drug Law Reform Project, 1101 Pacific Ave., Suite 333,
         Santa Cruz, CA 95060, US, Phone: (919) 613-7173, Fax:
         919-613-7231, E-mail: gboyd@aclu.org, ahopper@aclu.org
         and awolf@aclu.org;

     (2) Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University School of Law,
         Science Drive & Towerview Road, Durham, NC 27708-0360,
         US, Phone: 919-613-7173, Fax: 919-613-7231, E-mail:
         chemerinsky@law.duke.edu; and


     (3) Ronald Arthur Wager of Bantz, Gosch & Cremer, L.L.C.,
         P.O. Box 970, Aberdeen, SD 57402-0970, Phone: 225-2232,
         Fax: 225-2497, E-mail: rwager@bantzlaw.com.


ST. LAWRENCE: Appeals Court Upholds Decision in Beauport Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lawrence Cement acknowledges with reservations the decision
rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which partially upheld
its challenge of the May 2003 Superior Court judgment in the
class action filed by residents and property owners of Beauport,
Quebec.

Plaintiffs alleged having suffered undue inconveniences and loss
of property value from the operations of the St. Lawrence Cement
plant in this municipality from 1991 to 1997.

The company is pleased that the Court of Appeal has granted its
appeal in part and that it has reversed the legal foundation for
the judgment of the Superior Court, namely that there would
exist under Quebec civil law a no fault regime of liability for
the inconveniences caused to neighbors.

However, since the company was using state-of-the art pollution
control equipment and consistently complied with regulatory
emission standards, the company deplores the ruling of the Court
of Appeal that, under the particular circumstances of the case,
one should infer from the reported dust fallouts, that the
company's equipment was probably not maintained in optimal
operating conditions at all times. According to the judgment,
this would constitute a fault, which would make the company
responsible for the inconveniences of its neighbors.

Regarding compensation to the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal
has reduced by at least 20% the sums awarded by the Superior
Court as it did not find any fault by the company in respect to
noise complaints, and that the company could not be liable for
some of the dust fallouts.

Subject to a closer reading of the judgment, St. Lawrence Cement
will decide whether or not it intends to seek leave to appeal
the judgment before the Supreme Court.

St. Lawrence Cement Group is a leading producer and supplier of
products and services for the construction industry, namely
cement, concrete, aggregates and construction.  The company
operates in Canada and on the eastern seaboard of the United
States, and employs a total of 3,200 people.

For more details, contact Nicole Jarry of St. Lawrence Cement
Group, Inc., Director, Corporate Communications, Phone: 514-340-
1555, ext. 206.


UNITED STATES: Class Actions Costly, Threatens N.Y.'s Position
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions are one factor that is threatening New York's
position as the world's financial capital, according to a
jointly authored opinion piece by New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and Charles Schumer, the state's senior U.S. senator,
Reuters reports.

Published in The Wall Street Journal, the opinion piece noted
that data showing the total value of U.S. securities class
actions or "frivolous suits" jumped to $9.6 billion last year,
up from $150 million in 1997.  

Both politicians pointed out in wrote that the United Kingdom
and other countries have laws that far more effectively
discourage "frivolous suits."

Class actions are proving very costly to big corporations that
have faced it.  Most of them insist that, even if they want to
fight a case they consider meritless, it is often cheaper to
settle rather than deal with the distraction and risks of a
trial.

In recent years, the government has passed class-action reforms.
These measures though have largely failed to curb the dominance
of big plaintiffs' firms, some of whom recently secured record-
setting settlements stemming from accounting frauds at Enron and
WorldCom.

Pressure though is now mounting for more reform as businesses
struggle under the weight of regulatory and legal pressures.

A case in point is the recent interview by Reuters of the CEO of
auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, who said that the cost of
litigation in the U.S. reached a point where he believes it is
threatening U.S. competitiveness broadly.

Additionally, proposals have been drafted by two influential
industry groups that seek to protect corporations and accounting
firms from criminal cases brought by prosecutors and civil
lawsuits brought by shareholders (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2,
2006).

The proposals aim:

      -- to limit the liability of accounting firms for work
         they do on behalf of clients,
   
      -- to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers
         instead of companies, and

      -- to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

Essentially, the proposals are attempts to scale back some of
the requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, according to
an earlier report by Reuters.  

One of the groups that made the proposals is a committee formed
by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The other group was formed by:

      -- Harvard Law professor Hal Scott;

      -- R. Glenn Hubbard, a former chairman of the Council of
         Economic Advisors for President George W. Bush; and

      -- John Thornton, a former president of Goldman Sachs,
         where he worked with current Treasury Secretary Henry
         Paulson, Jr.

Reportedly, some members of the groups said that they expect
that the administration will use many of their recommendations
to limit what they see as overzealous state prosecutions by
figures such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
and abusive class actions by investors.

                           Proposals

Among proposals now being considered by the groups is the
possible elimination of shareholder securities fraud lawsuits
under an anti-fraud rule, known as Rule 10b-5, and permitting
only the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring these
cases.

Yet another proposal would require some investor suits to be
handled by arbitration panels, which typically close their
sessions to the public.  These panels have traditionally been
seen as friendlier to defendants than trial courts.

Another proposal, according to published reports, is forcing
prosecutors to target individuals instead of companies.  

                           Reactions

Some legal experts, though, doubt such measures will find many
backers.  Class-action attorneys see reform efforts as a way to
make it harder for investors to recoup losses and an attempt to
put their firms out of business.

Others critics see the effort as part of a plan to cater to Bush
Administration constituents.  In addition they see it as a way
to insulate politically connected companies from prosecution at
the expense of investors (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).

                    Recent Litigation Trends

According to recently compiled data, the federal securities
fraud class actions have fallen to a decade low.  In the first
six months of 2006, 61 cases were filed, 31 percent below 2005,
according to legal consultant Cornerstone Research.

Even the widening stock options backdating scandal has not led
to a deluge of securities fraud suits so far.  Many plaintiffs'
lawyers have turned instead to less-popular "derivative suits"
in which investors sue on behalf of the company.  Settlements in
these cases are often much lower than in shareholder class
actions.  

Part of the reason for the overall decline could the May
indictment of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Class
Action Reporter, May 22, 2006).  Since that time, the firm has
lost about a third of its personnel, including 25 partners,
closed several offices and been fired by big clients such as
pension funds in New York and Ohio.

However, legal experts refute that statement, pointing out that
Milberg Weiss is only part of the reason class actions have
slowed.  They pointed out that the improving economy and better
governance practices in corporate America could explain why
there are fewer cases.  

Also, courts are dismissing more suits in the pretrial phase if
they do not think they have merit, according to James Cox, a
Duke Law School professor, who studies class-actions.

Despite the decline in class actions, corporate leaders still
want new legal curbs because they remain a major headache. The
suits are "a very expensive cost of doing business," says Arthur
Jakoby, a partner at Herrick Feinstein LLP, which specializes in
defending securities fraud class actions.


XL CAPITAL: Conn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against XL Capital
Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
filed have opposed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On June 21, 2004, a consolidated and amended class action
complaint was served on the company and certain of its present
and former directors and officers as defendants in a putative
class action, "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al.," filed in
U.S. District Court for District of Connecticut.

The Malin Action purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Nov. 1, 2001 and Oct. 16, 2003,
and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in
various public and shareholder and investor reports and other
communications the alleged inadequacy of the company's loss
reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance
America, Inc.) and that, as a consequence, the company's
earnings and assets were materially overstated.

On Aug. 26, 2005, the court dismissed the amended complaint
owing to its failure adequately to allege "loss causation," but
provided leave for the plaintiffs to file a further amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended
complaint, which is similar to the amended complaint in its
substantive allegations.

On Dec. 31, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  The plaintiffs have opposed the
motion, according to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., Case no.
3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Peter C. Dorsey.  

Representing the Company is Leonard A. Spivak of
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, 80 Pine St., New York, NY 10005,
Phone: 212-701-3000, Fax: 212-269-5420, E-mail:
lspivak@cahill.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman - CA,
         401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         ramzia@mwbhl.com;  

     (2) George Edward Barrett, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217
         Second Avenue, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-244-
         2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com;  

     (3) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
         Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com;

     (4) James W. Oliver, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins - SF, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
         mail: jimO@lcsr.com; and

     (5) David A. Rosenfeld, Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747-
         4806, Phone: 631-367-7100, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@cauleygeller.com.


XL CAPITAL: Insurance Antitrust Suit Yet to Receive Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a multi-district insurance brokerage antitrust
suit, which names XL Capital Ltd. as defendant, is awaiting a
ruling on a motion to certify the suit as a class action.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action multi-
district lawsuit, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed
a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new defendants,
in the pending action approximately 30 entities, including:

     -- Greenwich Insurance Co.,
     -- Indian Harbor Insurance Co., and
     -- XL Capital Ltd.

In the MDL, named plaintiffs have asserted various claims
purportedly, on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased
insurance.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements.  The named
plaintiffs have asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act,
various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law claims alleging
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Discovery in the MDL continues.  Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in late November 2005.  On Feb. 1,
2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to further amend
their amended complaint to, among other things, add additional
defendants, including:

     -- X.L. America, Inc., and
     -- XL Insurance America, Inc.

That motion was denied without prejudice.  On or about Feb. 13,
2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification.  
Defendants filed an opposition to the class certification
motion, as well as a separate motion seeking to exclude the
testimony of the expert witness upon whom plaintiffs have relied
in seeking class certification.  

These motions are presently pending before the court, according
to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2006.  Discovery has been proceeding since the
fall of 2005.


* Few Attorneys General Object to Settlement Under CAFA
-------------------------------------------------------
Few attorneys have exercised the power to object to class action
settlements under the newly enacted Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA), Peter Geier of The National Law Journal writes.

CAFA, which took effect on January 2005, extends federal
jurisdiction over class actions.  It also requires defendants to
notify state attorneys general and federal regulators of
proposed settlement agreements to prevent attorneys from
crafting abusive settlements favoring lawyers over consumers.

But so far, only Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist has
invoked the power to object to a settlement under CAFA.  The
attorney general objected to a proposed coupon settlement over
undisclosed automatic surcharges improperly added to guest bills
at hotels run by Wyndham International Inc.  

In July, the office announced a $2.3 million settlement,
instead.  The suit is "State of Florida v. Wyndham International
Inc., No. 02-CA-1296 (Leon Co., Fla., Cir. Ct.)."

Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, and California have not formally
objected to a settlement since the new law took effect,
according to the article.  

Regarding jurisdiction, the article states that in the area of
private class action, there are those who suggest that CAFA
could become a powerful tool by plaintiffs and public interest
lawyers, and even attorneys general, because of the greater
access that CAFA's settlement-review provision gives them into
corporate practices and behavior.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APOLLO GROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Apollo Group, Inc. (APOL)
between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona against defendant Apollo Group, Inc. and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.  

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 2, 2007
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.  


CONNETICS CORP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, announces that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Connetics
Corp. between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006.  The class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Connetics.  No class
has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 1, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Warner Chilcott Limited (WCRX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Sept. 20, 2006 through Sept. 25, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 2,
2007, for appointment as a lead plaintiff.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2006.  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  * * *