CAR_Public/060126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 19

                           Headlines

AES CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Remanded Antitrust Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: CA Judge Remands "Berry" Case to State Court
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Investors File Amended Suit over Accounting
BOSTON MARKET: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Request for Class Survey
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: CA Judge Orders Filing of Amended Suit

CALIFORNIA: Judge Says Filing Date is Key to CAFA Jurisdiction
COLE NATIONAL: CAFA Failure Deprives VA Court of Jurisdiction
FREIGHTLINER LLC: Workers File Racketeering Lawsuit in NC
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: IL Appeals Court Stresses CAFA Jurisdiction
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Workers File Overtime Pay Suit in CA

IRVING OIL: Faces Lawsuit for Gasoline Price Overcharging
KENTUCKY: Horsemen Mulls Suit to Recover Lost Wagering Revenues
L.L. BEAN: Recalls Safety Kits with Function-intervening Magnets
LIBERTY MUTUAL: IL Appeals Court Denies Appeal for Knudsen Case
MORGAN STANLEY: NY Appeals Court Affirms Ruling For "Shah" Case

PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Egg-containing Products
PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Routers in Danger of Posing Shock Hazard
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Dismissal Motion V. NJ Stock Suit
SHELL PIPELINE: Faces LA Suit Over Oil Pipeline Spill in Nairn
SHELL PIPELINE: Faces LA Suit Over Ruptured Crude Oil Pipeline

SUNDOWN ENERGY: Suit Launched in LA Over Port Sulphur Oil Spill
TEXACO INC.: OH Court Declares Ratner Case as Exempt From CAFA
VAPOTHERM, INC.: Recalls Contaminated Respiratory Gas Humidifier
WYOMING: Casper Residents Complain of Airborne Dirt Pollution

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Bernard Gross Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
MILLS CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud in VA

                        *********

AES CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Remanded Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court dismissed the remanded
antitrust class action lawsuit filed against AES Corporation and
other electric companies.

In November 2000, the Company was named in a purported class
action suit along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful
manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market,
resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices throughout
California. The alleged causes of action include violation of
the Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  On July 30, 2001, the Court remanded
the case back to San Diego Superior Court.  The case was
consolidated with five other lawsuits alleging similar claims
against other defendants.  In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a
new master complaint in the consolidated action, which asserted
the claims asserted in the earlier action and names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C.,

     (2) AES Alamitos, L.L.C., and

     (3) AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C.

In May 2002, the case was removed by certain cross-defendants
from the San Diego County Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court,
which was granted on December 13, 2002.  Certain defendants
appealed aspects of that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 8, 2004, a panel of
the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and
reversing in part the decision of the District Court, and
permitting the remand of the case to state court.

On July 8, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer in state court
seeking for the dismissal of the case in its entirety.  In
October 2005, the state court dismissed the case.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: CA Judge Remands "Berry" Case to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler remanded a class
action lawsuit against American Express Publishing, Corp., back
to state court, citing that the aggregate value of the case to
either side falls short of the Class Action Fairness Act's
(CAFA) $5,000,000 threshold, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.cafalawblog.com.

The plaintiffs filed their suit entitled, "Berry v. American
Express Publishing, Corp.," on March 3, 2005.  It alleges that
cardholders were charged for magazine subscriptions without
their approval.  The defendant would later remove the case to
federal court claiming federal jurisdiction under CAFA.  As a
counterstrike the plaintiffs moved to remand their complaint
back to state court.

Judge Stotler wrote her ruling that plaintiffs contesting
federal jurisdiction under CAFA have the burden of proving that
the claims fall short of the law's jurisdictional amount and at
the same time relying on CAFA's legislative history for support.
The judge also recognized established Ninth Circuit
jurisprudence opposing aggregation of claims for purposes of
testing whether a suit meets the amount in controversy
requirement under diversity jurisdiction.  Nevertheless, CAFA's
legislative history, the court concluded, reveals Congress'
clear intent to allow the aggregation of claims in order to meet
the jurisdictional threshold, but ruled that neither the
plaintiffs nor the Company had proved at least $5,000,000 in
controversy necessary to meet the CAFA threshold.

The suit was styled, "Samuel A. Berry et al. v. American Express
Publishing et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00302-AHS-AN," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
under Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
is Matthew Hale of Matthew S Hale Law Offices, P.O. Box 1951,
Newport News, VA 23601, Phone: 757-596-0309, E-mail:
matthale@cox.net.  Representing the Defendant/s are, Andrew W.
Moritz and Scott M. Pearson of Stroock Stroock & Lavan, 2029
Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086, Phone:
310-556-5800, Fax: 310-556-5959; and Gerald S. Ohn of CAAG -
Office of Attorney General, 300 South Spring St., Suite 1702,
Los Angeles, CA 90013, Phone: 213-897-9176, E-mail:
gerald.ohn@doj.ca.gov.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49c.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Investors File Amended Suit over Accounting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of American Italian Pasta, Inc. filed on Jan. 20,
2005 an amended complaint against the company over alleged
financial manipulation, according to Reuters.  The suit filed in
the U.S. District Court of Kansas City accuses the company of
improper inventory, underreporting marketing allowances paid to
distributors and improperly capitalizing costs that should have
been listed as expenses.

Shareholders have filed lawsuits against American Italian since
August, the time when the firm started reviewing its accounting
practices.  Seven suits were consolidated in December.  Two
months earlier, American Italian said it is withdrawing
financial results for the last three years because they
contained errors in accounting for product promotion and
overhead costs.

In the recent filing, plaintiffs say the firm overstated
revenues and earnings, and understated expenses by least 66%.
It is seeking class action status for the period Jan. 23, 2002
and Aug. 17, 2005 inclusive.  The revelations led to the
resignation of co-chief executive officer Timothy Webster,
founder Richard Thompson, and chairman Horst Schroeder, though
he remained a board member.

"We are aware that the lawsuit is just that, an allegation of
wrongdoing, yet it seems to suggest a pattern of behavior that,
if proven, represents a massive fraud," Timothy Ramey, an
analyst at D.A. Davidson & Co., wrote in a research note,
according to the report.

Shares in the company lost more than 40% on Jan. 24 after Mr.
Ramsey highlighted the suit in the research note, and downgraded
the company to "underperform" from "neutral."

Under the consolidation of the suits in December, U.S. District
Judge Ortrie Smith also designated three Iron Workers' Union
locals as lead plaintiffs.  The ironworkers' locals had used
Kent T. Perry & Co. LC of Overland Park for local counsel. Judge
Smith accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to make the New York law
firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross lead counsel.
The judge then gave Pomerantz Haudek 30 days to file an amended
complaint on behalf of all plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 21, 2005).

The complaints alleged that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that The Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company failed to properly expense $6.6 million in promotional
allowances and deduction receivables, that the Company failed to
take timely write-downs for spare parts inventory, that the
Company maintained inadequate reserves for slow moving, damaged,
and discontinued inventories, the Company failed to record $1.9
million in certain fixed asset retirements, and that as a result
the Company's financials were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 5, 2005) reports.

On August 9, 2005, after the market closed, Pasta announced a
$60.7 million charge and an SEC inquiry into the Company's
results.  Specifically, the Company stated the SEC was
investigating it for unspecified restatements and for
transactions in the Company's stock by outsiders in late 2004
and early 2005, for which the Company had received inquiries
from the New York Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange.  In addition, Pasta's Audit Committee is conducting an
internal investigation of certain accounting procedures, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 5, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "In re American Italian Pasta Company
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, under Judge Ortrie D. Smith.  Plaintiff firms involved
in the case:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, E-mail:
         info@abbeygardy.com;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-687-
         1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
         Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E., Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (8) Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000,
         San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax:
         (415) 421-7105, E-mail: info@schneiderwallace.com;

     (9) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         St., Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877-891-9880, Fax:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com;

    (10) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215-638-4847, Fax: 215-638-
         4867; and

    (11) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th St., New
         York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310-209-2468, Fax: 310-209-
         2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


BOSTON MARKET: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Request for Class Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the litigation entitled, "Rippee v. Boston Market Corp.,"
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler denied the plaintiff's
request to conduct a class survey during expedited discovery to
determine the amount in controversy, finding that, under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), "Jurisdictional
discovery . . . should be `sufficiently tailored' to lead to
information concerning the jurisdictional issue," according to
McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

The suit was originally filed in state court, but was later
removed by the defendant to the U. S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  After its removal the District
Court ordered the parties to engage in expedited discovery over
a 90-day period in order to discern the true amount in
controversy.  The plaintiff then requested the authority to
conduct the class survey and obtain the names and contact
information for all of the class members during the expedited
discovery period.

Judge Adler first noted that the amount in controversy is
generally decided from the face of the complaint, however, if
the amount is not facially apparent, the court should consider
the facts in the removal pleadings as well as evidence submitted
by the parties.  She then looked to CAFA's legislative history
for additional guidance, noting, "According to the Report of the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on CAFA, the requirement under
CAFA that the amount in controversy exceed $5,000,000 in the
aggregate may be established `either from the viewpoint of the
plaintiff or the viewpoint of the defendant, and regardless of
the type of relief sought (e.g., damages, injunctive relief, or
declaratory relief).'"

The judge concluded that, since the burden of establishing
jurisdiction was on the defendant, and not the plaintiff, had to
provide the factual basis supporting its assertion that the
amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million minimum under
CAFA.  Since the burden was on the defendant and not the
plaintiff, there was no supporting reason to allow the plaintiff
to conduct a class survey or obtain the requested demographic
information at this stage of the litigation.

In a footnote of her opinion, Judge Adler notes that U.S.
District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, in a previous hearing,
concluded that the defendant carried the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction, and declined to lift the burden from its
traditional keeper, the party invoking the federal court's
jurisdiction, and place it on the party opposing removal,
despite CAFA's legislative history and other decisions to the
contrary.

Another factor weighing against allowing the plaintiff to
conduct a class survey cited by Judge Adler was the clear
Congressional intent that there should not be in-depth
jurisdictional discovery, again referred to CAFA Senate Report
No. 109-14, in which the Senate Judiciary Committee noted,
"allowing substantial, burdensome discovery on jurisdiction
issues would be contrary to the intent of these provisions to
encourage the exercise of federal jurisdiction over class
actions."

In denying the plaintiff's request for a class survey in
connection with the expedited discovery on the amount in
controversy, the court concludes, "Allowing a class survey
during the period of expedited discovery, while the Court's
jurisdiction remains unsettled, would be contrary to the
principle of limited discovery as provided under existing case
law and in the Senate Judiciary Committee Report on CAFA."

For more details on this complaint, visit:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?497.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: CA Judge Orders Filing of Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California judge ordered the filing of consolidated amended
securities fraud complaint against Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc. by March 2006.

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.  These actions were filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from February 2001
to May 2005. These complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The securities class action complaints allege, among other
things, violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and promulgated thereunder.  The complaints
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  The complaints generally allege that the Company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements regarding the Company's business and operations.
These lawsuits followed the Company's restatement of certain
financial results due to stock-based compensation accounting
issues.

On January 12, 2006, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel and ordered that a consolidated complaint be filed
by March 3, 2006.

The first identified suit is styled, "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.  Plaintiff firms in this or similar
case:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Ave., Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Ave., Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York
         Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT, 06106
         Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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

     (9) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Ave.,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;

    (10) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com;

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

    (12) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax:
         info@whhf.com; and

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


CALIFORNIA: Judge Says Filing Date is Key to CAFA Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal district judge, presiding on the case
entitled, "Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc.," declared that the date
of filing, rather than the date of removal, is the key to Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction, according to McGlinchey
Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

Plaintiffs filed the putative class action involving online
travel services in California state court on February 17, 2005,
the day before President Bush signed CAFA into law.  Relying on
CAFA, the defendants removed the action to federal court.

The district court, in deciding to remand the action to state
court, pointed to "Pritchett v. Office Depot, Inc., 404 F.3d
1232 (10th Cir. 2005)," and declared that the "date of
commencement," for CAFA purposes, refers to the original state
court filing date rather than the date of removal to federal
court.  It further concluded that CAFA's "plain language and
legislative history" underscore that the word "commenced" in the
statute limits CAFA's application to actions originally filed on
or after the date of enactment, and not before.

The suit is styled, "Ronald Bush et al v. Cheaptickets Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-02285-PA-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Percy
Anderson with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.  Representing
the Plaintiff/s are, Sabrina S. Kim and Jeff S. Westerman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman, LLP, 355 South Grand Ave.,
Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-617-1200, Fax:
213-617-9185, E-mail: skim@milbergweiss.com.  Representing the
Defendant/s are, Gordon A. Greenberg of McDermott Will & Emery,
2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208,
Phone: 310-277-4110, Fax: 310-277-4730.

For more details, on this complaint visit:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?498.


COLE NATIONAL: CAFA Failure Deprives VA Court of Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the suit entitled, Holland v. Cole National Corp., a Virginia
federal court ruled that plaintiff's failure to plead the Class
Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) $5,000,000 minimum deprived it of
subject matter jurisdiction, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.cafalawblog.com.

Letha Holland and other representatives of a putative class
brought the suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia against Cole National Corp., the owner of the Sears
Optical retail stores.  In the suit, plaintiffs alleged
fraudulent conduct by employees related to the sale of extended
warranties and kits for eyeglasses, including Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Magnusson-
Moss claims.

Citing lack of federal jurisdiction to hear the case, the
Company filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  The Company
maintains that there were no valid federal questions and an
insufficient amount in controversy to meet the $75,000 minimum
amount requirements under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

The opinion, which in reality is a Report and Recommendation
from the Magistrate Judge, recommends that the district court
grant the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
dismiss the suit.  Most of the opinion is devoted to the court's
determination that the RICO and Magnusson-Moss warranty claims
were without merit and should be dismissed, however, the
Magistrate Judge does consider the federal court's subject
matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

Although the class had far more than 100 members and the
diversity requirements of CAFA were clearly met, the court
determined that the plaintiffs did not allege more than $5
million in actual damages, so there was no federal jurisdiction,
even under CAFA.

Plaintiffs argued that potential damages for the class could be
greater than $5 million in view of the Company's gross sales and
the potentially thousands of class members, however, according
to the court opinion, they failed to specifically allege damages
in excess of $5 million in their complaint, which they could
have easily done as the "masters of their claims."  That failure
was found to preclude federal jurisdiction under CAFA, since the
$5,000,000 minimum amount in controversy requirement was not
met.

Additionally, in the opinion, the Magistrate Judge included an
extensive analysis of pre-CAFA case law prohibiting aggregation
of claims to meet the jurisdictional minimum amount in
controversy threshold, and seemed to ignore CAFA's express
allowance of claims aggregation.  The plaintiffs presumably
could have survived the motion to dismiss by alleging that there
was more than $5,000,000 in controversy, which would have
supported original federal jurisdiction under CAFA.

The suit is styled, "Holland v. Cole National Corp. et al., Case
No. 7:04-cv-00246-jct-mfu," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Virginia under Judge James C. Turk with
referral to Judge Michael F. Urbanski.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are John Eric Lichtenstein, Devon James Munro and
John Palmer Fishwick, Jr. of LICHTENSTEIN, FISHWICK & JOHNSON,
PLC, POST OFFICE BOX 601, ROANOKE, VA 24004-0601, Phone:
540-343-9711 and 540-343-5890, Fax: 540-343-9713 and
540-345-5789, E-mail: jel@vatrials.com, devon@vaonline.com and
jpf@vaonline.com.  Representing the Defendant/s are Richard
Cullen and Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr. of MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
Phone: 434-977-2500 and 804-775-1000, Fax: 804-698-2061 and
775-1061.


FREIGHTLINER LLC: Workers File Racketeering Lawsuit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------
Five autoworkers from three major facilities filed a class-
action federal racketeering lawsuit against the United Auto
Workers (UAW) union and Daimler-Chrysler subsidiary Freightliner
LLC.

The workers, who announced the lawsuit on Jan. 24 at a press
conference outside of UAW headquarters in Detroit, allege an
illegal scheme to install a "company union" and repeated
violations of workers' rights.  The workers are pursuing the
case with free legal aid from the National Right to Work
Foundation.

The lawsuit is filed in the U.S District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Practice Act (RICO).  It alleges a pattern of violations
of longstanding federal law that bars employers from delivering
"things of value" to unions.  The RICO statutes are used to
prosecute criminal enterprises, e.g., organized crime, gang
activities, and union corruption.

The complaint outlines a secret quid pro quo arrangement between
Freightliner and the UAW in which union officials agreed in
advance to significant concessions at the expense of the
Freightliner workers at its non-union facilities in North
Carolina in exchange for valuable company assistance in
organizing those workers.

Specifically, Freightliner and the UAW union expressly agreed to
limitations on wages, cancellation of an employee profit sharing
bonus, an increase in the health care costs shouldered by
employees, and other concessions.  These actions effectively
handed certain control of the union over to the company.  UAW
officials outlined their lengthy list of concessions in a once-
secret document titled "Preconditions to Card Check Procedure."
In a related case, the National Labor Relations Board's General
Counsel already found the preconditions to be illegal.

In return, Freightliner agreed to provide valuable organizing
assistance outlined in a document titled "Card Check Procedure,"
including holding compulsory "captive audience" meetings on
company time during which union organizers could propagandize
employees, granting wide access to unsuspecting employees, and
not making any negative comments about unionization.

Freightliner also denied employees secret ballot elections when
choosing whether to unionize.  The "Card Check Procedure"
required Freightliner to automatically recognize the union when
organizers present the requisite number of signed authorization
cards.  In such "top down" organizing drives, employees are
frequently coerced or misled into signing such "authorization"
cards, which are then counted as "votes" in favor of
unionization.  Workers have also complained that signed cards
are difficult to revoke.

"To get help in coercing thousands of workers into union ranks
and to obtain at least $1 million in annual dues revenues, UAW
officials sold out the very workers they sought to represent,"
said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan
Gleason.  "It takes tremendous courage for workers to stand up
to pressure from both their employer and the union brass, and
the National Right to Work Foundation is proud to stand with
them."

The suit lists four counts of RICO violations regarding the
enforcement of these corrupt arrangements against the employees
of certain Freightliner facilities.  The employees seek
financial restitution to all employees at the Mount Holly,
Gastonia, and Cleveland, North Carolina, facilities in the form
of treble damages for all dues seized and earnings lost as a
result of the unlawful pact.  Additional Freightliner plants
known to be covered by the secret agreement are located in High
Point, North Carolina, and Gaffney, South Carolina.

For more information, contact: Justin Hakes, Phone:
703-770-3317; Stefan Gleason, Phone: 703-856-7399.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: IL Appeals Court Stresses CAFA Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stresses that
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) does not apply to
removed cases originally filed in state court before CAFA's
effective date, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.cafalawblog.com.

Judge Frank Easterbrook noted that the trend toward removing
such actions in the opening line of his opinion in "Schorsch v.
Hewlett-Packard Company," "Ever since Congress enacted the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 defendants have been trying to
remove suits that were pending in state court on February 18,
2005, although the statute applies only to suits `commenced'
after that date."  The Seventh Circuit rejected similar removal
attempts in "Knudsen v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 05-
8010 (7th Cir. June 7, 2005)" and in "Pfizer, Inc. v. Lott, No.
05-8013 (7th Cir. August 4, 2005)."

Although the rule may seem ironclad, Judge Easterbrook did note
that the variance among states regarding when a suit is deemed
to have been filed.  While a federal suit is "commenced" when
filed, Judge Easterbrook explained that states differ
considerably regarding the conditions that must be met for an
action to "commenced" there.

Nonetheless, the suit filed against Hewlett Packard in Illinois
State Court in 2003 didn't satisfy CAFA upon removal. "Knudsen
and Pritchett hold, and we reiterate, that creative lawyering
will not be allowed to smudge the line drawn by the 2005 Act:
class actions `commenced' in state court on or before February
18, 2005, remain in state court."

The Seventh Circuit rejected the argument that redefining the
class commenced a new action, especially where the same
underlying transaction is at issue: "Amendments to class
definitions do not commence new suits."

The suit is styled, "Schorsch v. Hewlett-Packard Company," a
petition for leave to appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No.
1:05-cv-03397, Judge Ruben Castillo presiding.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Richard N. Kessler, Attorney at Law, 640 North
LaSalle St., Suite 590, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 280-
0111, E-mail: rkessler@hkgold.com.  Representing the Defendant/s
is Michael Joseph Hayes of McGuireWoods, LLP, 77 West Wacker
Drive, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 372-1121, E-
mail: mhayes@bellboyd.com.

For more details on this case, visit:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49b.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Workers File Overtime Pay Suit in CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former employees of International Business Machine
Corporation (IBM) filed a nationwide class action in the U.S.
District Court in San Francisco charging the computer giant with
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal and state
labor laws.

The suit, "Rosenburg, et al. v. IBM," was filed by attorneys
from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Lewis Feinberg
Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, and Outten
& Golden LLP and others on behalf of IBM technical employees.

The company employs more than 250,000 workers. The proposed
class includes tens of thousand of systems administrators,
network technicians and other technical staff throughout the
United States.

"IBM's employees, including tens of thousands of technical
support workers, work hard to build the company's annual sales
of more than $90 billion," said Lieff Cabraser partner James M.
Finberg.  "These technical workers deserve to get compensated
for the long hours they put in to make IBM successful."  Mr.
Finberg noted that this case constitutes one of the largest
class action lawsuits, both in numbers of employees and total
damages, ever filed against a corporation for failure to pay
overtime wages.

The complaint charges that IBM unlawfully characterizes its
employees who install and maintain computer software and
equipment as "exempt" under state and federal labor laws in
order to deprive them of overtime pay.  The proposed classes
consist of current and former IBM technical support workers with
the primary duties of installing and/or maintaining computer
software and hardware for IBM who were wrongly classified by the
company as exempt from the overtime provisions of federal law
and/or applicable state wage and hour laws.

"The lawsuit seeks to affirm the principle that software and
hardware installation and maintenance employees, including IT
staff, are entitled to protection under federal and state
overtime pay laws," said Steven G. Zieff, a partner with Rudy,
Exelrod & Zieff.  "A corporation cannot avoid paying overtime
wages simply by providing a fancy sounding title to workers who
are entitled to overtime pay under the law."

Plaintiff Exaldo Topacio, 40, was a technical support worker for
IBM in its New York Network Support division responsible for
installing and maintaining computer software and hardware for
the company.  "There were many occasions when I was required to
work in excess of 40 hours a week -- but I never received
overtime pay for this.

"What they did to me and other tech support workers is simply
unfair.  I worked hard for the company, and was not compensated
for all the hours I put in for IBM," said Topacio who left IBM
in 2004 and now runs his own small construction business.

Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C. principal Todd F. Jackson
said: "Workers are entitled to overtime pay unless they fall
under a specific legal exemption, such as computer programmers
who develop software.  The plaintiffs and class members in this
lawsuit are responsible for installing software and maintaining
computer networks, not developing new software.  They do not
qualify for the software development exemption, or any other
exemption, under wage and hour laws."

"Ironically, IBM recruits employees by touting that it is a
company 'where you can find work/life balance and make a
difference,'" said Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP.  "We
believe the evidence will show that IBM failed to comply with
its basic obligation to pay its employees fairly and in
accordance with the law."

The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to issue an
injunction requiring IBM to provide overtime pay to eligible
employees as well as compensation and damages to current and
former employees who were denied overtime.

In addition to the law firms listed above, the plaintiffs are
also represented by the Los Angeles firm of Spiro, Moss,
Barness, Harrison & Barge, LLP; the Dallas firm of Lee &
Braziel, LLP; the Houston firm of Bruckner Burch, PLLC; and the
Oakland firm of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian.

Plaintiffs' attorney, Phone: 1-866-397-1008; Web site:
http://www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstIBM.com;Press contact:
James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Phone: 415-956-1000; or Todd F. Jackson of Lewis Feinberg
Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Phone: 510-839-6824; or Steven G. Zieff
of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, Phone: 415-434-9800 or
800-869-0165; or Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone:
212-245-1000; Ira Spiro of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison &
Barge, LLP, Phone: 310-235-2468; or J. Derek Braziel of Lee &
Braziel, LLP, Phone: 214-749-1400; or Richard Burch of Bruckner
Burch, PLLC, Phone: 713-877-8065; or David Borgen of Goldstein,
Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, Phone: 510-763-9800.


IRVING OIL: Faces Lawsuit for Gasoline Price Overcharging
---------------------------------------------------------
Option consommateurs and Ms. Ginette Bechard filed a motion for
authorization to institute a class action against Irving Oil on
Jan. 20.  According to the Petitioners, the oil company
overtaxed gasoline prices.

The Fuel Tax Act requires Quebec consumers to pay a tax of a few
cents for each liter of fuel they purchase.  The law also
provides for a lower rate of tax in border regions in order to
take into account competition between gas stations on both sides
of the border.  This tax is also reduced in regions termed
"peripheral" or "designated".

However, on May 25, 2004, the Court of Appeal ordered Irving Oil
to reimburse $884,779.00 in overcharged taxes.  In its judgment,
the Court reveals that from January 1993 to December 1997, the
oil company charged customers taxes, which were higher than what
was permitted under the law at its service stations located near
the Quebec/New Brunswick border.  The oil company would have
done the same thing in other regions.  This was a repeat
offence.  Indeed, in 1993, the multinational corporation was
ordered to remit over $188,000.00 to Revenue-Quebec for a
similar infraction.

In so doing, Irving Oil would have contravened not only the Fuel
Tax Act, but also the Competition Act, the Consumer Protection
Act and the Civil Code of Quebec.  Consumers would thereby have
incurred losses caused by the multinational.  The class action
aims at compensating consumers.

Option consommateurs and Mrs. Ginette Bechard are represented by
Eric David of the firm Beauregard and Partners, and David
Schulze of Hutchins Grant & Partners.

For further information, contact: Jannick Desforges, Head of the
legal department, Option consommateurs, Phone: (514) 598-7288.


KENTUCKY: Horsemen Mulls Suit to Recover Lost Wagering Revenues
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national horsemen association is considering legal options,
possibly a class action, to stop signal piracy and to channel
back to their account revenue from wagering on Thoroughbred
racing, according to BloodHorse.  The National Horsemen's
Benevolent and Protective Association, received a proposal from
the Louisiana HBPA to pursue such a plan.  Louisiana HBPA Sean
Alfortish estimates revenue lost to illegal wagering at billions
of dollars.  Kent Stirling is the executive director of the
Florida HBPA.

According to the report, national HBPA affiliate representatives
admitted horsemen have lost control over the signals and
revenue, even in the United States.  They receive revenue from
source-market fees, but are unable to get their part in other
deals official hosts enter into.


L.L. BEAN: Recalls Safety Kits with Function-intervening Magnets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L.L. Bean of Freeport, Maine is voluntarily recalling about
4,100 units of auto safety kit, auto aid in a bottle, winter
safety kit, and outdoorsman in a bottle.  Consumers are advised
to stop using recalled products immediately.

The commission says the products have a flashlight that relies
on a powerful magnet and copper coil for manual recharging.  The
magnet adversely affects the polarity of the compass rendering
it unreliable.  The magnet could be powerful enough to disrupt a
heart patient's Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator (ICD).  The
product's packaging lacks appropriate warning information.
There have been no reported incidents or injuries related to the
product.

Each kit contains a variety of safety equipment including a
"Forever Flashlight," which does not use batteries.  Shaking the
flashlight for 30 seconds provides about 5 minutes of light.
The Outdoorsman in a Bottle kit contains a compass.  Other items
which could be included in the kits include gloves, a blanket,
emergency vest, a water bottle, a rain poncho and a knife. L.L.
Bean is written on the bottle or blanket with these kits.

The product was manufactured in the U.S. and sold by L.L. Bean's
stores, catalogs and Web sites from August 2005 through November
2005 for between $20 and $60.

Consumers with recalled kits should contact L.L. Bean
immediately to receive a free warning label for the flashlight.
Consumers with Outdoorsman in a Bottle kits will receive a free
replacement compass/whistle.

Consumer Contact: L.L. Bean, Phone: (800) 555-9717 between 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.llbean.com.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: IL Appeals Court Denies Appeal for Knudsen Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In denying the defendant's appeal in the case styled, "Knudsen,
et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company," the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that new class definition
does not equal "commencement" for Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA) purposes, but hints at other modifications that might,
according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

Dr. Kirsten Knudsen initially filed the class action lawsuit in
Illinois State Court back in 2000 against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company.  The Company removed it to the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after adoption of
CAFA, based in part on the plaintiffs' expansion of the class
definition to include customers of a new corporate entity not a
party to the case.  The District Court later returned the case
back to the State Court, based upon its finding that 2000 came
before 2005.

The Company petitioned the Seventh Circuit for leave to appeal,
arguing that that while 2000 does in fact precede 2005, the act
of removing the action to the Federal Court created a new
action.  Hence, it argues that the Federal Court should hear the
removed action, because it was commenced after the effective
date of the statute.

However, Judge Frank Easterbrook, who wrote the opinion of the
court proclaimed that "Deconstructionist tactics do not permit
its evasion", and denied the petition for leave to appeal.  He
also addressed the possibility that plaintiffs' class action
lawyers would similarly circumvent the underlying purpose of
CAFA by perpetually amending actions brought before February of
2005.

Judge Easterbrook also wrote that the Company "paints a picture
of crafty lawyers tending a garden of pre-2005 class actions, in
which they plant new claims by amendment so that the 2005 Act
never comes into play.  As we have already hinted, however, a
new claim for relief (a new "cause of action" in state
practice), the addition of a new defendant, or any other step
sufficiently distinct that courts would treat it as independent
for limitations purposes, could well commence a new piece of
litigation for federal purposes even if it bears an old docket
number for state purposes.  Removal practice recognizes this
point: an amendment to the pleadings that adds a claim under
federal law (where only state claims had been framed before), or
adds a new defendant, opens a new window of removal."

The suit is styled, "Kirsten Knudsen, et al. v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, No. 05-8010," a petition for leave to appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 05 C 01849, Judge Ruben
Castillo presiding.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Robert A.
Holsten of Holstein Law Offices, LLC, 19 South LaSalle, Suite
1500, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 906-8000.  Representing
the Defendant/s is George Mario Velcich of Belgrade & O'Donnell,
PC, 20 North Wacker, Suite 1900, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
(312) 422-1700, E-mail: gvelcich@bodpc.com.

For more details on this complaint, visit:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?499.


MORGAN STANLEY: NY Appeals Court Affirms Ruling For "Shah" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this securities fraud appeal for the case, "Shah v. Meeker,
04-5965," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed a district court ruling and holds that all investors
should read Fortune Magazine, according to Robert Loblaw of
http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/.

Following on the heels of New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer, many investors who lost money during the "dot com" bust
sued brokerage houses claiming that their analysts were biased
in favor of corporate clients.  Most of these cases met little
success, as courts routinely hold that the two-year statute of
limitations for such claims has expired.

In this case, plaintiff Sandip Shah claimed that he did not
discover Morgan Stanley's fraudulent practices until Mr.
Spitzer's investigation in 2002, so that his 2003 class action
lawsuit was timely.

Specifically, Mr. Shah is the lead plaintiff for a putative
class of holders of publicly traded Morgan Stanley common stock
purchased between July 1, 1999 and April 10, 2002.  He is
appealing the dismissal by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York of his securities fraud action
against the Company, its subsidiary Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,
its chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Philip J. Purcell, and
senior analyst and managing director of Morgan Stanley & Co.,
Inc., Mary Meeker.

According to court documents, defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
and 9(b), as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C.  78u-4(b), and to strike certain
allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Finding that plaintiff was on inquiry notice more than two years
before filing suit, the district court concluded that the claims
were time-barred and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court and pointed to
several articles in the financial press that should have put
investors on inquiry notice of the Company's practices.  In
particular, a 2001 Fortune article provided a detailed basis for
each of the claims that Mr. Shah now advances.  Since, Mr. Shah
filed suit more than two years after that article appeared, he
and the other putative class members are out of luck.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49e.


PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Egg-containing Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. of Mountain Lakes, N.J. is recalling
certain Frozen Aunt Jemima Cinnamon French Toast 12.5 oz.
cartons and Frozen Aunt Jemima 'Home Style' Low Fat Waffles 20
oz. cartons.

These products were manufactured with egg that is not listed on
the carton.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
egg may run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

This voluntary recall was initiated after the Company received
an email from a consumer informing the Company that egg was not
listed on the carton.

Retail Carton Code     Description        Recommend  Use By Date
                   Retail Label Weight    (lot codes on or after
                                                  are the issue)

19600-05130 AJ Low Fat Homestyle Waffle - 20 oz.  Nov. 17, 2006
19600-05890 AJ French Toast Cinnamon - 12.5 oz.   June 12, 2006

Consumers allergic to or have a severe sensitivity to eggs are
advised not to consume these products.  Products may be returned
to the store where they were purchased for a full refund.  The
products are safe for people not allergic to eggs.  This warning
does not apply to any other Aunt Jemima frozen ready-to-eat
items or other Aunt Jemima products such as pancake mixes or
syrups.

Consumer contact, Phone: 1-800-554-5680.


PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Routers in Danger of Posing Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Porter-Cable of
Jackson, Tenn., are recalling about 70,000 units of Porter-Cable
890 Series Routers.  Consumers are advised to stop using the
recalled products.

The company says the motor coil insulation of the routers can be
worn away by vibration from the motor, which could pose a shock
hazard.  No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled Porter-Cable routers are tools used in conjunction
with various bits to cut and shape wood.  The model and serial
numbers are printed on the nameplate on the top of the router.
Routers marked with a "T" above "PORTER+CABLE" on the nameplate
are not included in this recall.

Model No. Porter-Cable Product Name  Serial Number

891   2 1/4 Peak HP Gripvac(TM) Router  10001 through 24647
892   2 1/4 Peak HP Router Kit        10001 through 68442
893PK  2 1/4 Peak HP Multibase Router Kit 10001 through 68442
894PK  2 1/4 Peak HP Multibase Router Kit
       with Gripvac(TM) Attachment        10001 through 24647
895PK  2 1/4 Peak MP Multibase Router Kit
       with Router Table Height Adjuster  10001 through 68442
8902  2 1/4 Peak HP Variable-Speed Motor  10001 through 68442

The products, which were manufactured in the U.S., is sold in
major home improvement stores and hardware stores nationwide
from September 2003 through December 2005 for between $180 and
$269.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled routers
immediately and contact Porter-Cable for a free inspection, and
repair if necessary.

Consumer contact: Porter-Cable (http://www.porter-cable.com),
Phone:(800) 949-6348 (toll-free) between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Dismissal Motion V. NJ Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SVNTE), a specialty
pharmaceutical company dedicated to developing, manufacturing
and marketing novel therapeutic products that address unmet
medical needs, filed a motion to dismiss a second amended
securities fraud complaint pending in a New Jersey federal
court.

On December 20, 2002, a purported shareholder class action was
filed against the Company and three of its former officers. The
action is pending under the caption "In re Bio-Technology
General Corp. Securities Litigation," in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  Plaintiff alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company between April 19, 1999 and
August 2, 2002.  The complaint asserts that certain of the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading because the Company restated its earnings and
financial statements for the years ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as
described in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated, and
its press release issued, on August 2, 2002.

Five nearly identical actions were filed in January and February
2003, in each instance claiming unspecified compensatory
damages.  In September 2003, the actions were consolidated and
co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation, which
provided for the lead plaintiff to file an amended consolidated
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed such amended complaint and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the action.  On August 10, 2005, citing the
failure of the amended complaint to set forth particularized
facts that give rise to a strong inference that the defendants
acted with the required state of mind, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the action, without prejudice, and
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

On October 11, 2005 the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, again seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
purporting to set forth particularized facts to support their
allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company and its former
officers.  On December 13, 2005 the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.

The first identified suit is styled, "AFIK Holding SPRL, et al.
v. Bio-Technology General Corp., et al., Case No. 02-CV-6048,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
under Judge Harold A. Ackerman.  Plaintiff firms in this or
similar case:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), 515
         North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL,
         33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., 2900,
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;

     (4) Dekel-Sabo Law Office, Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky
         St., Ramat Gan, Phone: 972.3.6133310, Fax:
         972.3.6133321, E-mail: dekel-sabo@isdn.net.il;

     (5) Glancy and Binkow of 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
         311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-
         mail: info@glancylaw.com;

     (6) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

     (9) Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), 1818 Market
         St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6611.


SHELL PIPELINE: Faces LA Suit Over Oil Pipeline Spill in Nairn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Pipeline Company, LP faces a class action lawsuit that is
seeking damages arising out of the release of petroleum products
from its pipeline in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana in
conjunction with Hurricane Katrina, according to McGlinchey
Stafford of http://www.hurricanelawblog.com/.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  Named as plaintiffs in the suit are,
Anna Z. Zibilich Lincoln, John J. Pennison, Jr., K.J. Johnson
and Harold J. Treadaway, Jr., who are all residents of
Plaquemines Parish.  The class is defined as all property owners
of Plaquemines Parish, who have had real or personal property
damaged and/or irrevocably destroyed as a result of the
negligent release of substantial quantities of petroleum
hydrocarbons onto property and waters near the Company's
pipelines and transportation systems at Nairn, Louisiana within
Plaquemines Parish.

According to the complaint, there are common issues of law and
fact as to:

     (1) Whether the Company is liable to the Plaquemines Parish
         residence for negligently allowing the release of
         substantial quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons into
         and onto property owned by individuals who live in or
         about Nairn, Louisiana;

     (2) Whether the Company is liable to the claimants for
         failure to contain the spill;

     (3) Whether the Company is liable pursuant to Louisiana
         Code Article 2317 for damage to property of the people
         of Plaquemines Parish;

     (4) The Company's negligence is ultimately found to prolong
         the time, which claimants cannot return to their
         property;

     (5) Whether the claimants' property is permanently damaged
         so that their property's fair market value is
         diminished; and

     (6) The extent of damages caused by the defendant's
         negligence.

The suit is styled, Lincoln et al v. Shell Pipeline Company LP,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04197-GTP-DEK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr. with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Scott R. Bickford of Martzell &
Bickford, 338 Lafayette St., New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
(504) 581-9065, E-mail: usdcedla@mbfirm.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?4a1.


SHELL PIPELINE: Faces LA Suit Over Ruptured Crude Oil Pipeline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Pipeline, LLC and Shell Pipeline, LP faces a class action
lawsuit over the release of petroleum products from a crude oil
pipeline in lower Plaquemine Parish, Louisiana that ruptured
during Hurricane Katrina and caused damage to several properties
in the area, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.hurricanelawblog.com/.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  Plaintiffs in the suit are Frank, Clara,
Kevin and Greta Frelich; Leo Roth, Vincent Frelich, Sr., Janice
Ferach; and Robin and Hewitt Gauthier, all residents of
Plaquemines Parish.

According to the suit, the pipeline rupture and resulting spill
was proximately caused by the acts and omissions of defendants
for the following reasons:

     (1) Breach of legally imposed duty of reasonable care;

     (2) Failure to maintain their pipeline;

     (3) Failing to shut in the pipeline and remove all crude
         oil from within the pipeline;

     (4) Violation of applicable portions of the oil Pollution
         Act of 1990, as set forth in 33 U.S.C. 2701, et. esq.,
         thus constituting negligence per se;

     (5) Violation of certain provisions of the Code of Federal
         Regulations, which require defendants to take necessary
         and appropriate steps to avoid the spillage of crude
         oil;

     (6) Failure to follow its own procedures for prevention of
         the crude oil spill; and

     (7) Failing to form, implement, follow or comply with
         defendant's internal policies and procedures, as set
         forth by defendants and/or as required by governmental
         agencies in disaster evacuation planning reporting
         requirements.

The suit is styled, "Frelich et al. v. Shell Pipeline LLC et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04199-GTP-DEK," filed in the U.S. Dsitrict
Court for the District of Louisiana under Judge G. Thomas
Porteous, Jr. with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Patrick Wayne Pendley of Pendley
Law Firm, 24110 Eden St., P.O. Drawer 71, Plaquemine, LA 70765-
0071, Phone: 225-687-6396, E-mail: pwpendley@pendleylawfirm.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?4a0.


SUNDOWN ENERGY: Suit Launched in LA Over Port Sulphur Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sundown Energy, LP faces a class action lawsuit that is seeking
damages arising out of the release of petroleum products from
its storage facilities near Port Sulphur within Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana in conjunction with Hurricane Katrina,
according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.hurricanelawblog.com/.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the suit's plaintiffs are Roy and Margaret Blanchard;
Christopher and Glenda Jenkins, who are owners of the "Cajun
Kitchen Plaquemines, Inc.;" LF. Hingle, Jr.; and Kathleen and
Allen Ketnoe.  The class is defined a all property owners of
Plaquemines Parish, who have had a real or personal property
damaged and/or irrevocably destroyed as a result of the
negligent release of substantial quantities for petroleum
hydrocarbons onto property in or near Port Sulphur, Louisiana in
the are known as West Potash Field (or Slater Field.)

According to the complaint, there are common issues of law and
fact as to:

     (1) Whether the Company is liable to the Plaquemines Parish
         residence for negligently allowing the release of
         substantial quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons into
         and onto property owned by the residents and/or
         business owners of Plaquemines Parish;

     (2) whether the Company is liable to the claimants for
         failure to contain the spill;

     (3) whether the Company is liable pursuant to Louisiana
         Code Article 2317 for damage to movable and immovable
         property of the claimants;

     (4) the Company's negligence is ultimately found to prolong
         the time which claimants cannot return to their
         property;

     (5) whether the claimants' property is permanently damaged
         so that their property's fair market value is
         diminished; and

     (6) the extent of damages caused by the defendant's
         negligence.

The suit is styled, "Blanchard et al. v. Sundown Energy, LP,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04198-ILRL-SS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge Ivan L.
R. Lemelle with referral to Judge Sally Shushan.  Representing
the Plaintiff/s is Scott R. Bickford of Martzell & Bickford, 338
Lafayette St., New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (504) 581-9065, E-
mail: usdcedla@mbfirm.com.  Representing the Defendant/s is Carl
David Rosenblum of Jones Walker (The Woodlands), 10001 Woodloch
Forest Dr., Suite 350, The Woodlands, TX 77380, Phone:
281-296-4552, E-mail: crosenblum@joneswalker.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49f.


TEXACO INC.: OH Court Declares Ratner Case as Exempt From CAFA
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio federal court declared that a state case filed the day
before the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) effective date is
not covered by the new law, since it was "commenced" before
CAFA's enactment.

Joel Ratner filed the putative class action lawsuit in Ohio
State Court on February 17, 2005, one day before CAFA's
effective date, against Texaco, Inc., Shell Oil and others,
raising two Ohio state law claims.  Mr. Ratner limited the class
definition to himself and all other similarly situated Ohio
residents.

The defendant oil companies filed their notice of removal on
April 11, 2005, claiming jurisdiction under CAFA, as it amended
28 U.S.C.  1332(d).  The Tenth Circuit had previously faced a
similar issue -- when is an action "commenced" under CAFA -- in
the now familiar "Pritchett v. Office Depot".  As in the
Pritchett case, Mr. Ratner argued that the action was
"commenced" when suit was initially filed in state court, and
Texaco and Shell responded, as in Pritchett, that the action was
"commenced" when it was removed to federal court.

The oil company defendants attempted to distinguish the
Pritchett case as being "at odds with both the weight of
authority and with the purpose and structure of [CAFA]", an
argument quickly disposed of by the court.  Essentially, the
court applied the "plain and ordinary meaning" for the disputed
term "commenced" in determining that the date of commencement of
the civil action was the date the complaint was initially filed
in state court.

The balance of the decision contained similar reasoning to and
extensive citations from the Pritchett case.  In it's ruling the
Court also rejected the plaintiff's attempt to recover
attorney's fees for the alleged improper removal by the
defendants.

The suit is styled, "Ratner v. Texaco Inc. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00946-LW," filed in the U.S. District for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, under Judge Lesley Wells.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Daniel R. Karon of Goldman,
Scarlato & Karon, Ste. 1500, 55 Public Square, Cleveland, OH
44113, US, Phone: 216-622-2995, Fax: 216-622-1852, E-mail:
dkaron@gsk-law.com.  Representing the Defendant/s are, Thomas J.
Collin of Thompson Hine, 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square,
Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-566-5509, Fax: 216-566-5800, E-
mail: Tom.Collin@ThompsonHine.com; and Thomas Demitrack of Jones
Day, North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone:
216-586-7141, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:
tdemitrack@jonesday.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49d.


VAPOTHERM, INC.: Recalls Contaminated Respiratory Gas Humidifier
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vapotherm, Inc. is recalling its Vapotherm(R) 2000i and 2000h
respiratory gas humidifier after the FDA received reports of
Vapotherm units becoming contaminated with Ralstonia spp, and
other bacteria.  The Vapotherm 2000i and 2000h respiratory gas
administration delivers moisture to and warms breathing gases
through a flexible nasal tube for patients receiving
supplemental oxygen.  The environments of use include home,
hospital or sub-acute institutional settings.

A statement from the FDA says exposure to Ralstonia spp bacteria
may cause patients to develop tracheitis (infection of the
trachea), sepsis (infection in the bloodstream), pneumonia (lung
infection), or other serious infections.  There is a reasonable
probability that immuno-compromised patients or premature
newborns could develop pneumonia, sepsis and in the most severe
cases, death.  The FDA recommends the use of alternative devices
until the source of the contamination has been identified.

In October 2005, Vapotherm issued new procedures for
disinfecting the Vapotherm(R) 2000i and 2000h humidifiers, but
these procedures have not been effective in eliminating
Ralstonia spp. contamination in the devices.

Patients who have been exposed to the Vapotherm system should be
monitored for signs and symptoms that may suggest infection,
which may include, but are not limited to:

     (1) changes in temperature;

     (2) poor feeding, irritability; and

     (3) changes in hematologic indices.

Clinicians may want to consider Ralstonia infection in the
differential diagnosis of symptomatic patients even if the
organism has not been isolated.

Public contact: David Lain, Chief Regulatory Officer, Vapotherm,
Inc., 198 Log Canoe Circle, Stevensville, MD 21012, Phone:
410-604-3977.


WYOMING: Casper Residents Complain of Airborne Dirt Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Robertson Road met at the Oregon Trail School
gymnasium on Jan. 23 to discuss the dirt problem caused by a
nearby construction work, The Casper Star-Tribune reports.

Between 80 and 100 homeowners are complaining about the dust
that are blown off around the naturally windy area of Casper
from the activities of property developer IGC Management.  They
said the particles ruined properties, from carpets to cars.

Developer Kevin Keller told the assembly his firm complied with
the city of Casper's dust control standards, using plastic snow
fences and tackifier system to control the spread of dirt.

According to the report, when the crowd realized IGC is beyond
fault, they turned to the City of Casper and the City Council
for a solution.  Casper City Councilwoman Barb Peryam, who
attended the forum, said the council will look at the issue.  It
is meeting Feb. 7, 2006.

During the course of the meeting, there were whispers and rumors
of a class action, according to the report.  Many wanted to know
if they could be compensated for the damages caused by the dirt.

For more information, call Jesse (last name unknown), the
manager of Casper Construction, Phone: (307) 277-5505; Kevin
Keller, owner of IGC Management, Phone: (307) 637-7641.



                New Securities Fraud Cases

AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Amkor Technology Inc.
(AMKR) between Oct. 27, 2003 and July 1, 2004, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Amkor and certain officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's financial performance.
These statements are alleged to be false and misleading because
Defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented that:

     (1) the Company was forcing its customers to accept
         delivery of inventory well in excess of demand for
         those products;

     (2) the Company was experiencing rapidly increasing costs,
         negatively impacting upon margins; and

     (3) the Company stuffed its distribution channel ahead of a
         note offering in order to inflate operating results.

Starting April 27, 2004, Amkor began issuing press releases
announcing potential problems.  On that date the Company
indicated it was experiencing weakness for its cell phone
products.  Amkor shares reacted negatively to the news, falling
from $13.42 per share to $9.16 per share, or 31.7%.  Then on
July 1, 2004, Amkor announced that it would not meet its
expected guidance for net income in the second quarter of 2004.
Shares reacted negatively again, falling from $8.18 per share to
$5.79 per share, a one-day decline of 29.2%.  Then on Aug. 22,
2005, Amkor announced that the Securities and Exchange
Commission issued a formal order of investigation concerning
trading in the Company's securities.

If you bought Amkor securities between October 27, 2003 and July
1, 2004, inclusive, and would like to obtain information about
the lawsuit, then you are invited to call (888) 753-2796 to
speak with an advisor.

For more information, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Amkor Technology, Inc. (AMKR) between Oct.
27, 2003 and July 1, 2004, inclusive.  Also included are those
who purchased Amkor in a secondary offering on November 6, 2003.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements regarding Amkor's financial condition.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) Amkor was stuffing its customers with inventory far in
         excess of demand and, as a result, future sales would
         be impacted;

     (2) Amkor was experiencing rapidly rising material costs
         which were far in excess of budgeted material costs,
         thereby negatively impacting profit margins; and

     (3) Amkor had stuffed its distribution channels prior to
         its note offering in order to artificially inflate the
         Company's operating results so that the Company could
         raise $152 million.

On April 27, 2004, Amkor issued a press release announcing that
the Company was experiencing weakness for its cell phone
products.  On this news, Amkor common stock fell from $13.42 to
$9.16 per share.  Then, on July 1, 2004, Amkor announced that it
could not meet its expected guidance for net income in the
second quarter of 2004.  In response to this announcement, the
price of Amkor common stock declined from $8.18 to $5.79 per
share.  The Securities and Exchange Commission has also issued a
formal order of investigation concerning certain transactions in
the Company's securities by insiders or former insiders and
persons associated with them.

Contact Schatz & Nobel (http://www.snlaw.net),Phone:
(800) 797-5499 (toll-free); E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Amkor Technology, Inc.
(AMKR) between Oct. 27, 2003 and July 1, 2004, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendant Amkor 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.

For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, P.A. The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202; E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com; Phone:
410/986-0036.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Bernard Gross Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action (numbered 06-
0298) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Louis H. Pollak,
on behalf of purchasers of Amkor Technology Inc. (AMKR)
securities between Oct. 27, 2003 and July 1, 2004.

The action is pending against defendants Amkor Technology, Inc.,
James J. Kim, chief executive officer, Kenneth T. Joyce, chief
financial officer, John N. Boruch, president and chief operating
officer during the class period until January 2004 and Bruce
Freyman, president and chief operating officer from January,
2004 to August, 2004.

The Complaint (available at http://www.bernardmgross.com)
charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that during the class period
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's increasing financial
performance.  These statements were each materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was stuffing its customers with
         inventory far in excess of demand for the products and,
         as a result, customer inventories were rising above
         historical levels such that future sales would be
         impacted;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing rapidly rising
         material costs which were far in excess of budgeted
         material costs, thereby negatively impacting the
         Company's profit margins;

     (3) that the Company had stuffed its distribution channels
         prior to its note offering in order to artificially
         inflate the Company's operating results so that the
         Company could successfully raise $152 million; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
         statements about the Company and its business were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and
         therefore materially false and misleading.

On Oct. 27, 2003, the start of the class period, Amkor issued a
press release announcing that the company had returned to
profitability.  Then, on April 27, 2004, Amkor issued a press
release announcing that the Company was experiencing weakness
for its cell phone products.  Upon this news, the price of Amkor
common stock declined on extremely heavy trading volume.

On July 1, 2004, Amkor issued a press release announcing that it
could not meet its expected guidance for net income in the
second quarter of 2004.  In response to this announcement the
price of Amkor common stock declined from $8.18 per share to
$5.79 per share on extremely heavy trading volume of 17.2
million shares.

Then, on Aug. 22, 2005, Amkor issued a press release announcing
that the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a formal
order of investigation concerning certain trading in Amkor
securities.  The SEC investigation relates to transactions in
the Company's securities by certain individuals, including
certain insiders or former insiders and persons associated with
them.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.

For more information, contact: Bernard M. Gross PC, Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll free).


MILLS CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of The Mills Corp. (MLS)
between Aug. 14, 2003 and Jan. 6, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.  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.

For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com, Phone:
410/986-0036.

                            *********


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, Teena Canson and Lyndsey Resnick,
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  * * *