CAR_Public/060307.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 47

                            Headlines

ARKANSAS: Parties Argue Over Class Status of Teachers' Pay Suit
BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Labor Lawsuit to Get Day in Court This Year
BELLERIVE DEVELOPMENT: Faces Suit Over Jessamine County Project
BERKELEY PREMIUM: Paying $2.5M to Settle Herbal Drug Complaints
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Suit Filed in La. Over Sale of Human Tissue

CALLAWAY GOLF: Trial in Tenn. Consumer Fraud Suit Set this Year
CMS ENERGY: Paying $28M to Settle 401(k) Pension Suit in Mich.
DORAL FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointed in N.Y. Suit
FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Wins Favorable Ruling in Fetus Disposal Case
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Abreva Suit Settlement Trial Set April

HAWAII: Honolulu Paying $30M to Settle Labor Suit, Report Says
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Schaffer Suit Settlement Trial Set March 16
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois
INTEL CORPOPORATION: Faces Consumer Lawsuits in Several States
JANUS CAPITAL: Md. Court Reviews Dismissal Motion in Stock Suit

LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation
LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT: Patient's Family Files Suit V. Nursing Home
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Moves to Dismiss Ill. Amended Stock Suit
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Obesity Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Teacher Named in Criminal List Sues Educ. Officials

MILTON BRADLEY: Recalls Party Game Ensemble After Injury Reports
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Brokers' Calif. Overtime Suit for $42.5M
NEW YORK: Erie County Faces Suit Over Long-Delayed Aid to Needy
NORBORD INC: Faces Oriented Strand Board Antitrust Suits in Pa.
ORKIN EXTERMINATION: Fla. Appeals Court Reinstates $2.25M Fine

PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Court Reinstates Atlantic Lawsuit
PROHEALTH CARE: Seeks Dismissal of Wis. Uninsured Patient's Suit
PROVO CRAFT: Recalls Metal Charms for Lead Poisoning Hazard
ROSS ACQUISITION: Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Peanuts
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ordered to Pay $67M in Price-Fixing Suit

SHEET METAL: Mo. Labor Union Wants Racial Bias Lawsuit Dismissed
ST. PAUL: Seeks Court Approval for Minn. ERISA Suit Settlement
ST PAUL: Settlement Reached for Securities Litigation I in Minn.
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: New Ky. Shareholder Suit Tempers Allegations
WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Reverses Class Ruling in "Gottlieb"

WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Thimerosal Side Effects
WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Medical Monitoring Sought in Pempro Cases
XCEL ENERGY: Court Reviews Nevada Natural Gas Lawsuit Dismissal
XCEL ENERGY: E Prime Settles N.Y. Suit Over NYMEX Manipulation
XCEL ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Suit in Kans., No Discovery Yet

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit

                          *********

ARKANSAS: Parties Argue Over Class Status of Teachers' Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Van Buren School District in Arkansas says a lawsuit over
teachers' wages should not proceed as a class action because
it's impossible to determine who would be in that group, The
Associated Press reports.

Former teacher Steve Jones sued the district in 2003, claiming
he was not compensated for some required non-instructional
duties.  Crawford County Circuit Judge Mike Medlock granted
class-action status to that case last year, allowing about 500
Van Buren teachers to join the lawsuit.

However, in an appeal, school district attorney Mitch Llewellyn
argued before the state Supreme Court that there were no records
to show which teachers might not have been compensated for
duties they performed.


BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Labor Lawsuit to Get Day in Court This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by workers of the University of Ballarat
against the institution will go to trial as class action later
this year, according to Green Left Weekly.

Interlocutory action against the university's use of Australian
Workplace Agreements was heard in the Federal Court on February
22 and 24.  The Melbourne Federal Court Justice Neil Young
dismissed application for injunction against the university
after the latter agreed to issue a clarifying statement
regarding its labor contracts, according to The Courier (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 28, 2006).

Law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman lodged a class action against
the university in February alleging that up to 700 staff members
were misled when the university said key employment conditions
would be safeguarded under the AWA.  The lead plaintiff in the
case is Dr. Jeremy Smith, the branch president of the National
Tertiary Education Union.

Lawyer for the employees is Kamal Farouque of Maurice Blackburn:

     Kamal Farouque
     Assistant: Rosemary Hamer
     Phone: 03 9605 2827
     Fax: 03 9600 2404
     Email: rhamer@mbc.aus.net
     Web site: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/)

Ballarat University on the Net: http://www.ballarat.edu.au/.


BELLERIVE DEVELOPMENT: Faces Suit Over Jessamine County Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Brannon family is suing the builders of a shopping center that
is being constructed in northern Jessamine County, Kentucy
according to Associated Press.

Israel and Denise Vasquez filed a suit against Bellerive
Development Company and Central Rock Mineral Company in Fayette
County Circuit Court on March 3.  The Vasquez family alleges
construction work caused permanent damage to their home and that
of others around the Brannon Crossing Center.  They want the
judge to certify the suit as class action to include affected
residents.

Representing the Vasquez family is:

     Mason L. Miller
     Miller & Wells PLLC
     367 West Short Street
     Lexington, Kentucky 40507
     (Fayette Co.)
     Phone: 859-281-0077
     Fax: 859-281-0079

To contact Bellerive Development Co. Nicholasville, KY 40356,
call 859-887-3131.


BERKELEY PREMIUM: Paying $2.5M to Settle Herbal Drug Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati-based Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals and its
subsidiaries have agreed to repay Ohio and 15 other states $2.5
million to settle a consumer complaint, Nutra Ingredients
USA.com reports.

The company agreed to the settlement maintaining it did not
defraud customers regarding the effects of its herbal dietary
supplements that include Enzyte, Avlimil and Rogisen.  The four
subsidiaries involved in the settlement are Boland Naturals,
Lifekey, Wagner Nutraceuticals and Warner Health Care.

Meanwhile, Premium Nutraceuticals continues to defend itself
against a federal class action over false advertising of Avlimil
and Rogisen.  The suit alleged that the claimed sexual and night
vision enhancing benefits of the dietary supplements are untrue.
It also claimed that the company is billing debit and credit
cards without customers' permission (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
3, 2006).

The lawsuit followed the admission of conspiracy to commit mail
and wire fraud by four former officials at Berkeley.  The
company is currently under investigation by the FBI, the
Internal Revenue Service and the Food and Drug Administration.
Its owner Steve Warshak, his wife Carri, and mother Harriet, as
well as Cincinnati lawyer Paul Kellogg and related companies are
defendants in the FTC lawsuit.

Mr. Warshak has not been charged, according to Nutra Ingredients
USA.com.  Another five of the former Berkeley executives have
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud, but are cooperating
with the continuing investigation of Berkeley.  Each of the
defendants could face up to 20 years in prison, the report said.

The case is styled "U.S. of America v. Contents of
Nationwide Life Insurance Annuity Account No. 0961 in the name
of Steve E. Warshak et. al (1:05-cv-00196-SJD-TSH)," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under
Judge Susan J. Dlott, with referral to Timothy S. Hogan.
Representing the defendant(s) are: Elissa J. Germaine of Latham
& Watkins, LLP of 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-395-8256; E-mail:
elissa.germaine@lw.com; and Shane H. Freedman of Latham &
Watkins LLP, One Newark Center, 16th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102,
Phone: 973-639-7532; E-mail: shane.freedman@lw.com.

Representing the plaintiff are William E. Hunt, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, Atrium II, 221 E Fourth Street, Suite 400, Cincinnati,
OH 45202, Phone: 513-684-3711, Phone: william.hunt@usdoj.gov;
and Donetta Donaldson Wiethe, U.S. Department of Justice - 1,
Atrium II, 221 E Fourth Street, Suite 400, Cincinnati, OH 45202,
Phone: 513-684-3711, E-mail: donetta.wiethe@usdoj.gov.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Suit Filed in La. Over Sale of Human Tissue
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York medical supply company is facing a class action in
federal court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for illegally selling
tissue and bone to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
and other hospitals in the state, Associated Press reports.

According to the report, Darrel Bourque learned in January that
the tissue transplanted in his neck during spinal surgery a year
ago came from Biomedical Tissue Services.  Mr. Bourque is
advised to undergo blood testing to determine whether he has
contracted a disease as a result of the tissue transplant.  The
suit is seeking:

     (1) damages,

     (2) establishment of a comprehensive medical monitoring
         program, and

     (3) treatment of any future disease or complication related
         to the implants.

Biomedical Tissue Services owners Michael Mastromarino and
Joseph Nicelli and others are accused of illegally removing
tissues from funeral parlors and city morgues.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously ordered
Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd. to stop manufacturing operations
after an investigation by the agency revealed "serious and
widespread" deficiencies in the firm's activities.

Authorities, including New Jersey, New York and federal health
officials, are investigating the Fort Lee, New Jersey firm.
Also under investigation are Biomedical Tissue founder Michael
Mastromarino, and a number of New York funeral homes, according
to Allentown Morning Call (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13,
2006).

The report also mentioned that Ken Andres Jr., a New Jersey
lawyer, filed a class action in December in Superior Court in
Atlantic County against Mr. Mastromarino, Biomedical, five
tissue processors and a distributor.  No hospitals are named
defendants in the suit (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

Representing the company and Mr. Mastromarino is:

     Mario F. Gallucci
     732 Castleton Ave.
     Staten Island, New York
     (Richmond Co.)

In Indiana, Brian Springer, who received bone transplant
material from Biomedical Tissue, has also filed a suit seeking
class-action status in Marion Superior Court, according to the
Indianapolis Star (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).  He is
accusing Biomedical Tissue of intentionally acquiring human
tissue harvested from bodies entrusted to New York funeral homes
without obtaining consent from the deceased's families,
according to the report.  He is also claiming that the company
failed to test the bone, skin and tendons for diseases.

Mr. Springer, who had surgery to repair a herniated disk, did
not test positive for any disease, but his attorney, Richard E.
Shevitz, said his client is worried.  The suit requests damages
for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The suit did not specify damages claims.  Mr. Springer is
requesting a jury trial before Marion Superior Court
Judge Cale Bradford.  He is advised by the law firm of Cohen &
Malad.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Trial in Tenn. Consumer Fraud Suit Set this Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit filed against Callaway Golf Co. in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee is set for
the summer of 2006.  The suit is styled "Lundsford v. Callaway
Golf, Case No. 3:04-cv-442 (Lundsford II)."

In the fall of 1999 the Company adopted a unilateral sales
policy called the "New Product Introduction Policy" (NPIP).  The
NPIP sets forth the terms on which the Company chooses to do
business with its customers with respect to the introduction of
new products.

Customers filed several class actions against the policy,
including:

     (1) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 2001-24-IV,
         pending in Tennessee state court (Lundsford I);

     (2) Foulston v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 02C3607, pending in
         Kansas state court;

     (3) Murray v. Callaway Golf Sales Company, Case No.
         3:04CV274-H, pending in the U.S. District
         Court for the Western District of North Carolina; and

     (4) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-
         442, pending in the United States District Court for
         the Eastern District of Tennessee (Lundsford II)

Lundsford I was filed on April 6, 2001, and sought a putative
class action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of
consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased select
Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000. Plaintiff asserts violations of Tennessee and Kansas
antitrust and consumer protection laws and is seeking damages,
restitution and punitive damages.

The court has not made any determination that the case may
proceed in the form of a class action.  In light of the
subsequently filed Lundsford II case, the parties agreed to stay
Lundsford I and to dismiss it without prejudice once the federal
court proceedings in Lundsford II are underway.  Subsequent to
this agreement, plaintiff moved to reactivate Lundsford I and
that motion is currently pending.

In Foulston, a class action was filed on November 4, 2002 on
behalf of Kansas consumers who purchased Callaway Golf products
covered by the NPIP, seeking damages and restitution for the
alleged class under Kansas law.  The trial court in Foulston
stayed the case in light of Lundsford I.  The Foulston court has
not made any determination that the case may proceed in the form
of a class action.

The complaint in Murray was filed on May 14, 2004, alleging that
a retail golf business was damaged by the alleged refusal of
Callaway Golf Sales Company to sell certain products after the
store violated the NPIP, and by the failure to permit plaintiff
to sell Callaway Golf products on the Internet.  The proprietor
seeks compensatory and punitive damages associated with the
failure of his retail operation.  The Company removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, and has answered the complaint denying liability.

Lundsford II was filed on September 28, 2004.  The complaint
alleged that the NPIP constitutes an unlawful resale price
agreement and an attempt to monopolize golf club sales
prohibited by federal antitrust law.  The complaint also alleged
a violation of the state antitrust laws of Tennessee, Kansas,
South Carolina and Oklahoma.

Lundsford II sought a nationwide class consisting of all persons
who purchased Callaway Golf clubs subject to the NPIP on or
after March 30, 2000.  Plaintiff asked treble damages under the
federal antitrust laws, compensatory damages under state law,
and an injunction.  The Lundsford II court has not made a
determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action.  The parties are engaged in discovery and motion
practice.  Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment and to
certify the case as a nationwide class action.  On July 13, 2005
the court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
On July 20, 2005, the court denied plaintiff's motion to certify
the case as a nationwide class action.  The court also denied
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

On September 22, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit denied plaintiff's request to file an interim appeal of
the class certification issue.  The plaintiff's request to the
district court for permission to appeal the adverse ruling on
the summary judgment ruling is pending.  Trial has been set for
the summer of 2006.  The parties are engaged in discovery and
motion practice.

The suit is styled "Lundsford v. Callaway Golf Co et al., case
no. 3:04-cv-00442," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge James H. Jarvis.
Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550
Main Avenue 750 NationsBank Center, Knoxville, TN 37902-2567,
Phone: 865-525-7028, fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail:
filings@ballandscott.com.

Representing the Company are David Ettinger of Honigman, Miller,
Schwartz & Cohen, 2290 First National Building, 660 Woodward
Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-465-7368, Fax: 313-465-
7369, E-mail: dettinger@honigman.com; and Thomas W. Rhodes and
Edward Wasmuth, Jr. of Smith, Gambrell and Russell, 1230
Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3100 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309-
3592, Phone: 404-815-3551, Fax: 404-815-6851, E-mail:
trhodes@sgrlaw.com or ewasmuth@sgrlaw.com.


CMS ENERGY: Paying $28M to Settle 401(k) Pension Suit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. agreed to pay $28 million to employees who lost
money in their 401(k) retirement plans because of an energy
trading scandal that depressed share prices four years ago,
Associated Press reports.

The Jackson-based company admitted in May 2002 that its energy
marketing unit, CMS Marketing Services and Trading engaged in
bogus energy trades so called "round-trip" trades.   The scheme
involves buying up blocks of electricity on the wholesale market
and then reselling that power back to the same company at the
same price.  It did not produce any profit but did artificially
increase sales.  It enabled CMS to artificially inflate revenues
by $5.3 billion in 2000 and 2001, the report said.  CMS and its
executives did not admit any liability.

According to the report, the settlement would cover people in
the plan from Aug. 3, 2000, through Dec. 27, 2004.  The payout
would be made through the company's insurance coverage, CMS
spokesman Jeff Holyfield said.  The settlement remains subject
to the approval by the U.S. District Court in Detroit.  The
401(k) plan has about 9,800 members, consisting of employees,
retirees and former employees, CMS said.

CMS continues to face a class action pending in U.S. District
Court in Detroit in relation to the same trading scandal.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointed in N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed:

     (1) West Virginia Investment Management Board, and

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins, LLP,

as lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, respectively, in
a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Doral
Financial Corporation.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in eighteen
purported class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June
14, 2005, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

These lawsuits, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000 and as late
as May 26, 2005, allege primarily that:

      (1) the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
          disseminating materially false and misleading
          statements during the class period,

      (2) failing to disclose material information concerning
          the valuation of the Company's IOs, and misleading
          investors as to Doral's vulnerability to interest rate
          increases.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred
the two actions not initially filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Richard Owen.

On February 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the
West Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
Robbins, LLP, as lead plaintiffs' counsel.  These lawsuits are
in very early stages and seek unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Doral Financial Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01706-RO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Richard Owen.  Representing the plaintiff/s is Samuel Howard
Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
(LIs), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,
Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Matthew David Slater of
Cleary, Gottleib, Steen and Hamilton, LLP, Phone:
(202)-974-1930, Fax: (202)-974-1999, E-mail: mslater@cgsh.com;
and Nestor Mendez-Gomez and Heidi L. Rodriguez-Benitez of
Pietrantoni, Mendez & Alvarez, 209 Munoz Rivera Ave., Suite
1901, San Juan, PR 00918, Phone: (787) 274-4904 and
(787) 274-4926.


FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Wins Favorable Ruling in Fetus Disposal Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie County, Ohio Common Pleas Court has ruled that Firelands
Community Hospital did not violate state law with the way it
stored 88 fetuses or fetal tissue, according to Morning
Journal.com.

Judge Tygh M. Tone sided with the defendant in the 1997 class
action filed on behalf of women who had miscarriages or
stillbirths at the hospital now known as Firelands Regional
Medical Center.  Plaintiffs in the suit are Libby Mowery, who
was formerly known as Libby Walker, and Joanna Hayth.  The women
have complained that a morgue employee used containers to store
the fetal tissue for up to 10 years instead of disposing of
them.

Defendants are:

      (1) Firelands hospital; and

      (2) former employee, Patricia Lukas, who was the histology
          technician at Firelands hospital's morgue.

According to the report, Ms. Lukas retained some of the fetal
tissue instead of disposing them for religious reasons.

Judge Tone relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion
rights case Roe v. Wade for case law when he dismissed four of
six major claims contained within the complaint against the
hospital.  He quoted case law that defines a "person" and set
precedent that legal rights of a "person" have "generally been
contingent upon live birth."  He refused to extend the
definition of a "person" to include fetal tissue," in his
ruling.

The judge ruled that:

     (1) the hospital did not violate Ohio law regarding
         unlawful possession of a corpse and inhumane
         disposition of a fetus;

     (2) were not "mishandling of a body or fetus" against
         common law;

     (3) did not commit fraud by omission by not telling the
         women how the fetal tissue would be disposed of; and

     (4) did not negligently inflict emotional distress because
         the women were not near and did not witness firsthand
         the disposal.

However, the judgment allows the women to pursue punitive
damages claims against the hospital and the former employee on
the grounds of intentionally causing emotional distress by
storing the fetal tissue in containers on a shelf in the
hospital morgue.

Michael Murray McDermott, Inc. Alliance, Ohio (Mahoning & Stark
Cos.) a co-counsel for the women, said the decision will be
appealed.  The case has already gone to the 6th District Court
of Appeals in Toledo for rulings on various issues, according to
the report.  Jude Tone has set a case status conference for May
26 a separate entry.

Ms. Lukas' attorney is Jeanne Marie Mullin of Reminger &
Reminger Co., L.P.A. Sandusky, Ohio (Erie Co.).  Jim Knepp of
Toledo is Firelands' co-counsel.

For more information on James R. Knepp, II of
Robison, Curphey & O'Connell, LLC, Ninth Floor, Four Seagate,
Toledo, Ohio 43604, (Lucas Co.) call 419-249-7900.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Abreva Suit Settlement Trial Set April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Intervention, Inc., et al., v.
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., et al., (Case No.
CGC-02-406294)."

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons or entities in the
U.S. who purchased Abreva from July 2001 through February 3,
2006, who resided in the U.S. at the time of purchase. Purchased
Abreva from an authorized retailer at a location within the
U.S., and did not purchase Abreva for resale to others.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard A. Kramer,
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco,
located at Civic Center Courthouse, Department 304, 400
McAllister St., San Francisco, CA, on April 26, 2006 at 1:30
p.m.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 10,
2006.

For more details, contact Law Offices of Donald P. Driscoll,
1231 Solano Avenue, Suite C, Albany, CA 94706, Phone:
(510) 527-4500 or (800) 350-8564, Fax: (510) 527-9883; and Lori
A. Schechter of Morrison & Foerster, Phone: (415) 268-6355, Fax:
(415) 268-7522, E-mail: lschechter@mofo.com.


HAWAII: Honolulu Paying $30M to Settle Labor Suit, Report Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honolulu has tentatively settled a class action that alleges the
city did not properly pay police officers and firefighters over
a three-year period, according to the Honolulu Advertiser.

The case was filed on behalf of more than 1,500 officers under a
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  It claimed that from
1999 to 2002:

     (1) Honolulu didn't pay officers for time they spent on
         activities such as work-related travel, command
         briefings before and after their shifts, missed meal
         breaks, and for cleaning and maintaining vehicles;

     (2) officials improperly calculated overtime;

     (3) that employees were not compensated for all work
         associated with the job; and

     (4) that the city's comp-time policies violate the FLSA.

More than 600 Honolulu firefighters have also signed onto the
suit (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2006).

The settlement involves some $30 million, two unnamed sources
familiar with the settlement told the Advertiser.  The City
Council is yet to vote on the matter, the said.

Alex Garcia, O'ahu chapter chairman for the State of Hawai'i
Organization of Police Officers, posted information on the
settlement at http://www.honolulupoliceunion.com,according to
the report.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Schaffer Suit Settlement Trial Set March 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
will hold fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "Schaffer v. Hewlett-Packard Company, (Case No. 2:04-cv-
71391-JCO-SDP)."

The case was brought on behalf of a class defined as, all end
users who purchased one of these models of HP Pavilion computer
models: 8655c, 8660c, 8750c, 8754c, 8755c, xl756 and xl759.  The
proposed Settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether HP sold
Pavilion desktop computers with defective motherboards that
caused the computers to "hang, freeze or lock" on a recurring
basis.

The hearing will be held on March 16, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, E.
Liberty St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by February 10,
2006.

For more details, contact Elwood S. Simon and John P. Zuccarini
of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250,
Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-
mail: esimon@esimon-law.com and zuccarinis@aol.com; and Thomas
J. Foley of Foley, Baron, (Farmington Hills), 33533 W. Twelve
Mile Road, Suite 350, Farmington Hills, MI 48331-5611, Phone:
248-488-1533, Fax: 248-488-1254, E-mail: tfoley@fbmlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.hppavilionsettlement.com/.


INTEL CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The court trial pending in a consumer fraud class action in
Illinois state court over Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 microprocessor
were stayed pending an appellate review of the class
certification order.

In June 2002, various plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Third
Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, against:

     (1) Intel Corporation,

     (2) Gateway Inc.,

     (3) Hewlett-Packard Company, and

     (4) HPDirect, Inc.,

alleging that the defendants' advertisements and statements
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems containing Intel Pentium 4 processors
are less powerful and slower than systems containing Intel
Pentium III processors and a competitor's microprocessors.

In July 2004, the Court certified against Intel an Illinois-only
class of certain end-use purchasers of certain Pentium 4
processors or computers containing such microprocessors.  The
Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this
ruling.  In January 2005, the Court granted a motion filed
jointly by the plaintiffs and the Company that stayed the
proceedings in the trial court pending appellate review of the
Court's class certification order.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The suit is styled, "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel
Corporation, Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and HPDirect,
Inc., (formerly Deanna Neubauer, et al. v. Intel Corporation,
Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and HPDirect, Inc.)," filed in
the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.


INTEL CORPOPORATION: Faces Consumer Lawsuits in Several States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation faces at least 79 separate class actions filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California and the District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas and Tennessee
state courts.  The suit alleges various consumer damages,
including that arising from paying higher prices for the
Company's microprocessors.

Additionally, the consumer suits allege violations similar to
complaints filed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) against the
Company.  In June 2005, AMD filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the
Company and its Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions
in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and
Professions Code, including providing secret and discriminatory
discounts and rebates and intentionally interfering with
prospective business advantages of AMD.

AMD's complaint sought unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the
Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against the
Company's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees.

All the federal class actions were consolidated unto the Multi-
district Litigation Panel (MDL) in the District of Delaware.
All California class actions have been consolidated to the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  Intel
disputes AMD's claims and the class-action claims, and intends
to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


JANUS CAPITAL: Md. Court Reviews Dismissal Motion in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group Inc. said that a Maryland federal court is
planning to dismiss claims brought against the money management
firm by shareholders who sought relief from a plunge in the
company's stock.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Company said that the U.S. District Court in Baltimore
issued an order indicating its intent to dismiss claims against
it and its affiliates.

A Company spokesman told Reuters that the case involved
shareholders who alleged they were harmed by a drop in Janus
shares due to the its involvement in a trading scandal that came
to light in September 2003 during an industry-wide
investigation.

The court is hearing a number of cases against various companies
and defendants in the mutual fund scandal that have been granted
class action status.  In August, Judge J. Frederick Motz
dismissed some claims against the Company.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed with prejudice the securities class action complaint
filed against Leadis Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: LDIS) and certain
of its current officers and directors.

The complaint had alleged that the Company violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements in the prospectus for its June 2004 initial public
offering.  Cooley Godward, LLP, represented the Company and its
officers and directors in the litigation.

The suit is styled, "Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis
Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the plaintiff/s is
Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
patc@mwbhl.com.

Representing the defendant/s are Grant P. Fondo and Laura R.
Smith of Cooley Godward LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650 843-5458, Fax:
650 857-0663, E-mail: gfondo@cooley.com or smithlr@cooley.com.


LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT: Patient's Family Files Suit V. Nursing Home
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nursing home operator Longwood Management Corp. is facing a
class action that alleged elder abuse because of insufficient
staffing, according to DailyNews.com.  The company runs 31
homes, including 10 in San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles,
California.

The family of one patient Estelle Benkle of Sherman Oaks, is
lead plaintiff in the case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
on March 3.  The complaint alleges that Longwood failed to meet
California's minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, putting elderly
residents at risk and billing insurance companies, MediCare and
MediCal for a level of care the patients never received,
according to the report.

The case cites a California law enacted in 2000 that require
live-in care facilities to provide a minimum 3.2 nursing hours
per patient to improve patient care.

The plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Ray Garcia
     Knapp, Petersen & Clarke,
     A Professional Corporation
     500 North Brand Boulevard, 20th Floor
     Glendale, California 91203-1904
     (Los Angeles Co.)
     Phone: 818-547-5000; 213-245-9400
     Telecopier: 818-547-5329

Mr. Garcia also filed a similar lawsuit in January against
Beverly Healthcare.

Longwood Management on the Net: http://www.longwoodmgmt.com/.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Moves to Dismiss Ill. Amended Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corporation filed a motion seeking to dismiss an
amended securities class action filed against it and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The suit is styled, "Allan
Selbst v. McDonald's Corporation, Jack M. Greenberg, Matthew H.
Paull and Michael J. Roberts, Case No. Case No. 04C-2422."

Three nearly identical actions were initially filed in the same
court, alleging violation of federal securities laws.  On
October 19, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its amended and
consolidated class action complaint, alleging, among other
things, that the Company and individual defendants misled
investors by issuing false and misleading financial reports and
earnings projections in a series of press releases and other
public statements between December 14, 2001 and January 22,
2003, thereby overstating the Company's current and anticipated
earnings.  The amended complaint seeks class action
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On January 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On September 21, 2005, the Court denied
this motion.  The lead plaintiff then filed its First Amended
Complaint on October 7, 2005.  On November 16, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled, "Selbst v. McDonald's Corp, et al., (Case
No. 1:04-cv-02422)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning.
Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100 and 800-449-4900, E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland &
Ellis LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100,
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
rkopecky@kirkland.com.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Obesity Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action on behalf of Ashley Pelman and
Jazlen Bradley filed a second amended complaint against
McDonald's Corporation.  The suit is styled, "Ashley Pelman, a
child under the age of 18 years, by her mother and natural
guardian, Roberta Pelman and Jazlen Bradley, a child under the
age of 18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel
Bradley v. McDonald's Corporation, (Case No.02 Civ. 7821
(RWS))."

On or about February 17, 2003, two minors, by their parents and
guardians, filed an Amended Complaint against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
suit is seeking class action status on behalf of individuals in
New York under the age of 18 (and their parents and/or
guardians), who became obese or developed other adverse health
conditions allegedly from eating the Company's products.

On September 3, 2003, the Court dismissed all counts of the
complaint with prejudice.  On January 25, 2005, following an
appeal by the plaintiffs, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Court vacated the District Court's decision to dismiss alleged
violations of Section 349 of the New York Consumer Protection
Act as set forth in Counts I-III of the amended complaint.  On
December 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint.  In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the
Company:

     (1) engaged in a deceptive advertising campaign to be
         perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-than-in-
         fact;

     (2) failed adequately to disclose its use of certain
         additives and ingredients; and

     (3) failed to provide nutritional information about its
         products.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages; an order
directing defendants to label their individual products
specifying the fat, salt, sugar, cholesterol and dietary
content, an order prohibiting marketing to certain individuals'
funding of an educational program to inform children and adults
of the dangers of eating certain foods' sold by defendants; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled, "Ashley Pelman, et al., v. McDonald's
Corporation, et al., 02 Civ. 7821," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Robert
W. Sweet.  Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Hirsch, 350
Fifth Avenue, Suite 2418 New York, NY 10118, Phone:
(212) 947-3800.  Representing the Company are Bruce Roger Braun,
Bradley E. Lerman, Thomas E. Quigley, Winston & Strawn LLP (IL),
35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-5600,
Fax: (312)-558-5700, E-mail: bbraun@winston.com,
blerman@winston.com, tquigley@winston.com; and Anne Kimball, 225
West Wacker Drive #2800, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
(312) 201-2000.


MICHIGAN: Teacher Named in Criminal List Sues Educ. Officials
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Eaton Rapids elementary school teacher filed a libel class
action in Ingham County over his inclusion in a state list of
school employees with criminal charges, according to Detroit
Free Press.

Eric Frohriep is suing three Department of Education officials
for the embarrassment, humiliation and stress he suffered
because of the appearance of his name in the list.  Mr. Frohriep
said it appeared in the list he committed three felony and four
misdemeanor convictions.  But, according to him, he has never
been convicted of any crime, and was six years old at the time
of the first alleged conviction.

The list was developed at the request of the Department of
Education as part of a program to identify criminals working in
public schools.  The list was submitted to school district
officials earlier this year.  The Ingham County judge already
banned its release after receiving multiple complaints about
mistakes in the state list.

Mr. Frohriep is seeking in excess of $25,000.  He is represented
by:

     Michael Woodworth
     Hubbard, Fox, Thomas, White & Bengtson, P.C.
     5801 West Michigan Avenue, P.O. Box 80857
     Lansing, Michigan 48908-0857
     (Eaton & Ingham Cos.)
     Phone: 517-886-7176
     Fax: 517-886-1080


MILTON BRADLEY: Recalls Party Game Ensemble After Injury Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Milton Bradley, of East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, is voluntary
recalling 461,000 units of Chicken Limbo Electronic Party Game.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled products
immediately.

The company said the game's two side poles do not fit into their
bases properly making the game unstable.  This can cause the
game to completely fall apart if touched, hitting children
playing the game as well as bystanders.

Milton Bradley has received 46 reports of the Chicken Limbo
party game collapsing unexpectedly.  This includes 23 reports of
injuries including bumps, bruises, welts and red marks, four
reports of cuts, one chipped tooth and one fractured foot.

The recalled "Chicken Limbo" is a plastic electronic game
consisting of two red vertical poles set in yellow bases and an
orange horizontal bar with a plastic white chicken at the center
of the bar.  The game is intended for children age 4 and up.

The China-made game were sold at discount department and toy
stores nationwide from June 2005 through January 2006 for about
$25.  Consumers are advised to take the recalled Chicken Limbo
game away from children immediately and contact Milton Bradley
to receive a free repair kit.  The kit contains two yellow
plastic replacement side poles to stabilize the toy.

Picture of recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06096.jpg

For additional information, contact Milton Bradley at (800) 245-
0910.  Milton Bradley on the Net: http://www.miltonbradley.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Brokers' Calif. Overtime Suit for $42.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley agreed to pay approximately $42.5 million to
settle a class-action suit over unpaid overtime wages of
California brokers.

The settlement was reached in late January.  It is applicable to
more than 4,000 class members of a suit filed by Linda Garett
and Erik Hoyer, according to Mark Thierman, counsel for the lead
plaintiffs in the case.

The suit, which was filed in July, alleged that the Company
failed to pay its brokers and financial advisor trainees in
California overtime wages, and made improper deductions from
their salary.

Asked about what the settlement would mean to the industry, Mr.
Thierman told MarketWatch, "It means the industry has to start
treating brokers more as advisors whose primary duty must be
advising clients and not as salespeople if they want to avoid
paying overtime."  He adds that he is expecting more settlements
to come from other Wall Street firms that have yet to settle
similar suits, such as Citigroup Inc. unit Smith Barney,
Wachovia Corp. unit Wachovia Securities, and Bear Stearns Cos.
And according to him, "There's more to come."

The Company, which faces a similar case pending in New York,
told MarketWatch that the California settlement has no bearing
on other cases.  "Each state's laws are unique," Andrea
Slattery, a Company spokeswoman pointed out.  She adds that the
firm maintains its position that financial advisors are exempt
professionals under the law and shouldn't be paid on an hourly
basis or forced to keep track of their work time.  "However, we
have settled this litigation to put the matter behind us,"
according to Ms. Slattery.

Besides the Company, two other firms: UBS AG unit UBS Financial
Services and Merrill Lynch & Co. also agreed to settle over
unpaid wages claims.  UBS agreed in February to pay up to $89
million to settle class-action wage and hour claims nationwide,
while Merrill Lynch agreed in August to pay up to $37 million to
settle claims in California.

Generally, brokerage firms argued that their brokers are exempt
from overtime pay, since they are compensated almost entirely
through commissions and fees rather than salary.  Merrill's
August settlement in a California case didn't include an
admission to the contrary, but nevertheless appeared to
acknowledge arguments that a federal labor law exempting
commissioned employees from overtime applies only to workers at
traditional retail sales establishments, such as clothing
stores, not financial firms.

For more details, contact The Thierman Law Firm, 7287 Lakeside
Dr., Reno, NV, 89511-7652, Phone: (877) 99 LABOR or
(775) 284-1500, Fax: (415) 723-7078 or (775) 703-5027, E-mail:
laborlawyer@pacbell.net.


NEW YORK: Erie County Faces Suit Over Long-Delayed Aid to Needy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Budget cuts are pulling New York's Erie County into another
lawsuit over the wait welfare recipients endure to get benefits,
News 4 Exclusive reports.

The Western New York Law Center claims that the recipients are
waiting too long for benefits.  The Erie County Department of
Social Services is now targeted in a class action demanding that
applications be processed in a timely manner.

The suit says Erie County violated the law by "failing to
process applications and provide food stamps, Medicaid, and
public assistance in a timely manner."  Kathleen Lynch of the
Western New York Law Center told News 4 Exclusive, "The law
recognizes there are people with immediate needs, people without
food and without shelter, and we have to be able to take care of
these people."

The social services department lost 22 percent of its work force
during the budget crisis, and some workers have caseloads of up
to a thousand clients.  Erie County social services commissioner
Michael Weiner told News 4 Exclusive, "We have alarmingly-high
caseloads.  We are not meeting mandates for prescribed time
lines."  He said though that some positions are being restored,
and that will help.

Federal Judge John Elfvin ordered the immediate processing of
applications for those who filed suit.

The suit is styled, "Martin, et al., v. Werner, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00094-JTE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge John T. Elfvin.
Representing the plaintiff/s are, Marc Cohan, Erin E. Oshiro and
Petra T. Tasheff of Welfare Law Center, 275 Seventh Ave., Suite
1506, New York, NY 10001, US, Phone: 212-633-6967, Fax: 212-633-
6371, E-mail: cohan@welfarelaw.org, oshiro@welfarelaw.org and
tasheff@welfarelaw.org; and Joseph A. Kelemen of Western New
York Law Center, 237 Main St., Suite 130, Buffalo, NY 14203,
Phone: 816-855-0203, Ext. 2, Fax: 716-855-0203, E-mail:
jkelemen@wnylc.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Howard B. Frank of Erie County
Attorney, 95 Franklin Street, 746 Rath Bldg., Buffalo, NY 14202,
Phone: 716-858-8033, E-mail: hfrank@dssl.co.erie.ny.us.


NORBORD INC: Faces Oriented Strand Board Antitrust Suits in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norbord Inc. and six other North American oriented strand board
(OSB) producers were named as defendants in five lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Each of the lawsuits alleges that seven North
American OSB producers violated U.S. antitrust laws by allegedly
agreeing to fix prices and reduce the supply of OSB from June 1,
2002 through the present.

Sawbell Lumber Co., Norwood Sash & Door Manufacturing Co.,
Columbare Inc., West Lumber Co., and Frontier Lumber Co. Inc.
are the named plaintiffs in the five lawsuits.  Each named
plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action,
with the named plaintiff serving as the representative of a
class of persons and entities that purchased OSB in the U.S.
directly from any of the named North American OSB producers
between June 1, 2002 and the present.  Norbord understands that
multiple lawsuits are commonly filed in the U.S. with respect to
the same allegations.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are entirely without
merit and intends to defend them vigorously.  Any further
statements will be made as the Company responds to the lawsuits
according to the procedures and schedules established by the
Court.

Some of the suits are styled:

     (1) "New Deal Lumber & Millwork Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-
         Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00971-PD"

     (2) "Frontier Lumber Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-pacific
         corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00920-PD"

Contact information: Robin Lampard, Vice President, Treasurer:
Phone: (416) 643-8843, E-mail: robin.lampard@norbord.com or
Roberta D. Liebenberg of Fine, Kaplan And Black, 1835 Walnut
Street, 28th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-567-6565,
Fax: 215-568-5872, E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com.


ORKIN EXTERMINATION: Fla. Appeals Court Reinstates $2.25M Fine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Extermination Co. has until Friday to decide whether to
appeal a federal court's decision reinstating more than $2
million punitive damage award to a Florida homeowner, according
to Orlando Sentinel.

In February, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld
a 2003 arbitration ruling awarding Collier $2.25 million after
his house suffered severe termite damage while under a lifetime
contract with Orkin.  Mr. Black appealed to the federal court in
Atlanta to have the punitive damages reinstated after Orkin
succeeded in removing it.  The arbitration panel's original
total award was $4.2 million including $750,000 in compensatory
damages and $1.2 million in attorneys' fees.

The Circuit Court supported the arbitration panel's "explicit
findings" that shows gross negligence and fraud on the part of
Orkin.  Mr. Black's suit started a racketeering investigation
against Orkin by the Florida Attorney General's Office.

Orkin -- http://www.orkin.com/-- is a $670 million Atlanta-
based company with nearly 8,000 employees.  It is a subsidiary
of Atlanta-based Rollins Inc.

Orkin faces several lawsuit filed over its termite work in
Florida.  The complaints include writing contracts with fine-
print disclaimers on repair and re-treatment guarantees; not
doing adequate treatments and inspections; denying claims as a
matter of policy, and forcing subcontractors to make repairs
without the required building permits, so the work could not by
certified by inspectors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2004).


PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Court Reinstates Atlantic Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
San Jose California's 6th Court of Appeal has reinstated a
lawsuit filed against several paint manufacturers by California
cities and counties, according to Reuters.

The suit was filed in 2000 in Santa Clara County in behalf of
every California City and county against companies affiliated
with:

     (1) Millennium Chemicals,

     (2) Atlantic Richfield Co.,

     (3) American Cyanamid Co.,

     (4) Conagra Grocery Products Co.,

     (5) E.I. du Pont de Nemours and

     (6) Co., O'Brien Corp., Glidden Co. and Sherwin-Williams
         Co.

The suit, which has earlier dismissed by a lower court before
trial, alleged that the manufacturers covered up health risk of
lead paint especially to children.  It seeks to force the
manufacturers to clean up lead paint used in low-income housing
and government buildings.

Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara's granting summary judgment in
favor of NL Industries, Inc. in the class action filed against
it, styled "Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.,
case no. CV788657."  The suit also names other former pigment
manufacturers, the Lead Industries Association (LIA) and certain
paint manufacturers (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2005).

The County of Santa Clara sought to represent a class of
California governmental entities (other than the state and its
agencies) to recover compensatory damages for funds the
plaintiffs have expended or will in the future expend for
medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other
costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint,
disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages (Class Action
Reporter, May 5, 2005).

Plaintiffs in the case include Santa Cruz, Solano, Alameda, San
Francisco, and Kern counties, the cities of San Francisco and
Oakland, the Oakland and San Francisco unified school districts
and housing authorities and the Oakland Redevelopment Agency
have joined the case as plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, May
5, 2005).

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  In July 2003,
the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all
remaining claims.

Santa Clara County is represented by Joe Cotchett of Cotchett
Pitre, Simon & McCarthy Beverly Hills, California
(http://www.cpsmlaw.com/)


PROHEALTH CARE: Seeks Dismissal of Wis. Uninsured Patient's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ProHealth Care asked Waukesha County Circuit Judge Patrick
Haughney to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Muskego, Wisconsin
couple, who claimed they were unfairly overcharged due to their
lack of insurance, The Greater Milwaukee Today reports.

Malinda and Robert Laughlin sued the Company after Mrs. Laughlin
was charged about $14,000 to have her gall bladder removed, a
procedure that would normally cost only $2,500 to $3,700 if they
were insured, according to their attorney, Clint Krislov.

Mr. Krislov told The Greater Milwaukee Today, "This is a matter
of substantial importance to everybody who shows up at a
hospital and has to deal with these huge differentials between
people who have insurance and people who don't."  He adds, "We
believe this to be a brazenly unfair difference in charges
between people."

The couple is seeking class-action status for the suit, which
potentially could open it up to thousands of uninsured people
whom Mr. Krislov said were "one health care crisis away from
bankruptcy."

However, the Company's attorney, Gary Ahrens, argues that the
case should be dismissed on summary judgment because the facts
are not in dispute.  He told the Greater Milwaukee Today that
the Laughlins claimed there were two key areas in dispute:
whether the charges were reasonable and the nature of the
discounts given to insurance companies.

Mr. Ahrens pointed out that it was not inappropriate that the
Laughlins were not told of the discount offered to insured
people.  He reiterates, "Discounts are not inherently wrong."

He also said the case should be dismissed because the Laughlins
are not seeking damages, something he said was a key element in
any such judgment, and they have also failed to show any
evidence to support their claims.  According to Mr. Ahrens,
"They don't have a right to get any money from the defendants.
The only issue before this court, and Mrs. Laughlin understands
this, is how much they owe."  Mr. Ahrens though told The Greater
Milwaukee Today that the plaintiffs could still litigate their
claims that the charges were inappropriate in a counter-suit
filed against them if the case they filed was dismissed.

Additionally, Mr. Krislov also complained to the judge that the
plaintiffs were prohibited from seeking certain documents, but
the Company was able to get depositions and other information.
Mr. Ahrens though replied that that matter had been settled.

After hearing from both sides, Judge Haughney said that his
decision would be forthcoming in the next 90 days.


PROVO CRAFT: Recalls Metal Charms for Lead Poisoning Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Provo Craft & Novelty Inc., of Spanish Fork, Utah is recalling
29,000 Art Accentz Changlz Metal Charms.  Consumers are advised
to stop using recalled products immediately.

The company said the recalled charms contain high levels of
lead, posing a serious risk of lead poisoning and adverse health
effects to young children.  No incidents or injuries have been
reported with the charms.

The charms are small silver-colored metal shapes that include
flowers, bugs, pumpkins, and picture frames.  "Art Accentz,"
"Changlz," "Provo Craft," and "For ages 3 and over" are printed
on the charm's packaging.  The charms were sold as decorations
for craft projects such as scrapbooks, home decor and jewelry
making.

The China-made charms were sold in small craft and scrapbook
retails outlets from April 2004 through July 2005, and at Pamida
Stores from January 2005 through April 2005, for about $3.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the charms away from
children and ensure any charms being used are not accessible to
children, and call Provo Craft for a full refund.

Pictures of the recalled charms:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06093a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06093b.jpg

For additional information, contact Provo Craft at
(800) 955-9490 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday.  Provo Craft on the Net:
http://www.recall.provocraft.com.


ROSS ACQUISITION: Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Acquisition Co. Inc., dba Galerie of Hebron, Kentucky is
recalling all lots of 4.95 oz packages of CHOXIE(TM) brand
truffles and balls that are feared to contain undeclared peanuts
or peanut butter.  The company warns that people who have
allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
reaction if they consume these products.  Product in this recall
is: CHOXIE Double Dark Truffles UPC Code 768395345129.

The company is also recalling as a precautionary measure, not
because of an undeclared allergen:

CHOXIE(TM) Milk Chocolate Truffles UPC Code 768395345099
CHOXIE(TM) Milk Chocolate Peanut Butter Balls UPC Code
           768395345105
CHOXIE(TM) Milk Chocolate Caramel Balls UPC Code 768395345112

The recalled items were distributed to and sold in Target(TM)
and SuperTarget(TM) retail stores nationwide.

The products come in 4.95 oz clear acetate packages marked with
UPC code listed above on the back bottom left corner.  No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that CHOXIE(TM)
Milk Chocolate Peanut Butter Balls were within packages of
CHOXIE(TM) Double Dark Truffles.

Production of the products has been suspended until the company
and FDA are certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased these items are advised to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-859-538-8500.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ordered to Pay $67M in Price-Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. are
facing $67 million in restitution payment and criminal fines for
illegally fixing Dynamic Random Access Memory prices, according
to DongA.com.  The payment is a settlement relating to a class
action alleging DRAM price collusion by its U.S.-based
affiliates last year, the report said.  It is separate from the
$300 million fine, payable in five-year installments, imposed
last November by the U.S. Ministry of Justice to settle a
federal class action.

Meanwhile, Hynix is also in talks to settle with the U.S.
Justice Department a DRAM class action, a spokesperson said.
The negotiation is not related to an agreement Hynix entered to
pay a $182 million fine for price collusion last May.  The
company is setting aside $355.6 million in 2004 as a loss,
according to the spokesperson.

Last year, Samsung Electronics and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung
Semiconductor Inc. agreed to pay a $300 million fine to settle
accusations it secretly conspired with industry rivals to fix
prices and cheat customers, federal officials said Thursday,
according to Associated Press (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25,
2005).

The Company's guilty plea ended a three-year probe by the
Justice Department into charges that the Company conspired with
other firms in e-mails, telephone calls and face-to-face
meetings to fix prices of memory chips, used in digital
recorders, personal computers, printers, video recorders, mobile
phones and many other electronics, between April 1999 and June
2002 Press (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2005).


SHEET METAL: Mo. Labor Union Wants Racial Bias Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet Metal Workers Local 2 denied accusations of racial
discrimination lodged against it by five Kansas City, Missouri
residents, according to Kansas City Star.  It is seeking
dismissal of the class action in federal district court.

Five sheet metal workers initiated a class action against the
union local in January for allegedly discriminating against
African-American workers, The Kansas City Business Journal
reports (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

The plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert G. Franklin,

     (2) Glenn E. Steele,

     (3) Edward W. Lewis,

     (4) Darryl Bailey, and

     (5) Leon Booker

Filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City by attorney Arthur
Benson of Arthur Benson & Associates, the suit alleged that the
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 2 bypassed
African-American members as their names rose to the top of job-
assignment lists.  It specifically claimed that about 45
African-American union members were affected by Local 2's
alleged practice of referring white workers whose names were low
on job-assignment lists or who allegedly weren't union members
for jobs that black members were in line to receive according to
the union's protocol (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

According to the complaint, "This disparity has resulted in
African-American members, including plaintiffs, receiving
significantly less work hours and earning significantly less in
wages than their white counterparts."  In addition, the suit
also alleged that the union retaliated against black members
after the plaintiffs filed complaints with regulators.

The suit sought:

     (1) back pay;

     (2) compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages;

     (3) attorneys' fees and other costs;

     (4) interest; seniority;

     (5) full union benefits; and

     (6) an order for the union to treat members "in a non-
         discriminatory manner."

The suit was styled, "Franklin et al v. Local 2 of the Sheet
Metal Worker's International Association, Case No. 4:06-cv-
00004-GAF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, under Judge Gary A. Fenner. Representing
the Plaintiffs are, Arthur A. Benson and Jamie Kathryn Lansford
of Arthur Benson & Associates, 4006 Central, P.O. Box 119007,
Kansas City, MO 64171, Phone: (816) 531-6565, Fax: (816) 531-
6688, E-mail: abenson@bensonlaw.com and jlansford@bensonlaw.com.


ST. PAUL: Seeks Court Approval for Minn. ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. reports that a settlement was
reached in a suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota and captioned, "Spiziri v. The St. Paul
Travelers Companies, Inc., et al."

An alleged beneficiary of the St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc.'s 401(k) savings plan commenced the putative class action
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors captioned on Dec. 28, 2004.  The
complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) based on allegations similar to those in
"In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I."  On June 1,
2005, the Company and the other defendants in Spiziri moved to
dismiss the complaint.

On January 4, 2006, the parties in Spiziri entered into a
stipulation of settlement.  The settlement remains subject to
court approval.

The suit is styled, "Spiziri v. St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 0:04-cv-05096-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R.
Tunheim with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.  Representing
the plaintiff/s are, Karl L. Cambronne of Chestnut & Cambronne,
222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-339-7300,
Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com; and
Michael Jaffe of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270
Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4606, E-mail:
jaffe@whafh.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Peter W. Carter of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-mail:
carter.peter@dorsey.com; and Michael J. Chepiga of Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-
3954, Phone: 212-455-2598, E-mail: mchepiga@stblaw.com.


ST PAUL: Settlement Reached for Securities Litigation I in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. reports that a settlement was
reached in the consolidated securities class action styled, "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I, Master File No.
04-CV-3801 (JRT/FLN)," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit names Travelers Property Casualty Corporation (TPC) and
its board of directors as defendants.  It was in connection with
the Company's merger with St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC).

Beginning in August 2004, following post-merger announcements by
the Company, various shareholders of the Company commenced
fourteen putative class actions against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Plaintiff
shareholders alleged that certain disclosures relating to the
April 2004 merger between TPC and SPC contained false or
misleading statements with respect to the value of SPC's loss
reserves in violation of federal securities laws.  These actions
were consolidated under the caption, "In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation I," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were appointed.

An additional putative class action based on the same
allegations was brought in New York State Supreme Court.  This
action was subsequently transferred to the District of Minnesota
and was consolidated with "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities
Litigation I."

On June 24, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The complaint did not specify damages.
On August 23, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I," moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint.  On November 22, 2005, the
parties reached an agreement to settle the case.  On December
28, 2005, the Court approved the settlement.

The suit is styled, "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities
Litigation I, Master File No. 04-CV-3801 (JRT/FLN)," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under
Judge John R. Tunheim with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.
Representing the plaintiff/s are, Jon Adams, Thomas A. Dubbs,
Lynda J. Grant of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Ave
12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0866, 212-907-0871
and 212-907-0857, E-mail: jadams@labaton.com, tdubbs@labaton.com
and lgrant@labaton.com.  Representing the Defendant/s are,
Carolyn Glass Anderson of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651 Nicollet
Mall, Ste. 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123, Phone:
(612) 341-0400, Fax: (612) 341-0844, E-mail: cga@zimmreed.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Michael J. Chepiga, Paul C.
Curnin and Michael J. Garvey of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP,
425 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone:
212-455-2598, 212-455-2519 and 212-455-7358 E-mail:
mchepiga@stblaw.com, pcurnin@stblaw.com and mgarvey@stblaw.com;
and Marisa A. Hesse of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St.,
Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, E-
mail: hesse.marisa@dorsey.com.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: New Ky. Shareholder Suit Tempers Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders suing Tempur-Pedic International sharply lowered
their estimate of questionable insider trading that occurred
while the Company was allegedly keeping its stock price
artificially high, The Kentucky.com reports.

In new federal court action that combines five lawsuits
previously filed against Tempur-Pedic, shareholders accuse the
Company of fraud and violating federal securities laws.  The new
suit charges that the Company wanted to keep Tempur-Pedic's
stock price artificially high last summer while four executives
or directors sold $8.4 million worth of stock.

Earlier lawsuits placed the total as high as $131.9 million,
including sales of $124.5 million by TA Associates, an
investment fund manager and the Company's largest institutional
investor.  TA Associates is not mentioned in the consolidated
lawsuit filed by Mark Solomon, an attorney in San Diego, Calif.

The Company, which makes visco-elastic mattresses and other
products, has said the lawsuits are "baseless" and that it has
done nothing wrong.  The company said it plans "to vigorously
defend" against the allegations.

The plaintiffs, who filed the class action to represent all
shareholders who lost money when the Company's stock price fell
in September, are the Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund and
five individuals.  They claim that the Company made "false and
misleading statements" about future sales and profits to keep
the stock price in the $19- to $20-per-share range between April
22 and Sept. 19 while four insiders sold $8.4 million worth of
shares.  Then Tempur-Pedic lowered its estimates, "sending the
company's shares plummeting, falling 28 percent" on Sept. 19 to
$11.70 a share, the plaintiffs said.

In addition to the company, seven Tempur-Pedic officers and
directors are named as defendants.  Plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages and a jury trial, but no trial date has been
set.

In a Dec. 28 order, Judge Joseph M. Hood instructed the
plaintiff to apply for the consolidation of the claims.  He also
designated San Diego-based Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead counsel for the stockholders.  It designated
the institutional investor, the Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity
Fund, as the lead plaintiff in the new case, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 18, 2006).

The suit is styled, "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
under Joseph M. Hood.  Representing the plaintiff/s are,
Michelle M. Ciccarelli of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
US, Phone: 619-213-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423; and Andrei V. Rado
of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P. - New York, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229.

Representing the defendant/s are, Michael D. Blanchard of
Bingham McCutchen, LLP - Hartford CT, One State Street,
Hartford, CT 06103-3178, Phone: 860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2800,
E-mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com; and Barry D. Hunter of
Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 250 W. Main Street, 2700 Lexington,
Financial Center, Lexington, KY 40507, Phone: 859-231-0000, Fax:
859-231-0011.


WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Reverses Class Ruling in "Gottlieb"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., reports that the Third District
Court of Appeal reversed the certification of a class in the
suit, "Gottlieb, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 02 18165CA 27, Cir. Ct.,
Jud. Circuit, Dade City."

On February 1, 2005, the Florida Circuit Court certified a
statewide medical monitoring class of asymptomatic Prempro users
who have used the product for longer than six months.  However,
on appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal, in an opinion
dated February 15, 2006, reversed the certification of the
class.

Numerous putative class actions were filed on behalf of current
or former Prempro users in federal and state courts throughout
the U.S., including in Florida, New Jersey and West Virginia,
and in foreign jurisdictions, including British Columbia,
Canada.  Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege personal
injury resulting from their use of or Prempro and are seeking
medical monitoring relief and purchase price refunds as well as
other damages.  The Company opposes class certification for
these cases.


WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Thimerosal Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was served with approximately 380
lawsuits, 11 of which are putative class actions, in various
federal and state courts throughout the U.S., including in
Massachusetts, Florida, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington,
Pennsylvania, New York, California and Kentucky, alleging that
the cumulative effect of thimerosal, a preservative used in
certain vaccines manufactured and distributed by the Company as
well as by other vaccine manufacturers, causes severe
neurological damage, including autism in children.

The relief sought by these state and nationwide classes
generally includes medical monitoring, a fund for research,
compensation for personal injuries and injunctive relief.


WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Medical Monitoring Sought in Pempro Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., reports that plaintiffs in federal
Pempro cases that were denied class certification plan to file
single state class certification motions in an Arkansas federal
court seeking statewide medical monitoring classes in West
Virginia, Illinois and California.

Numerous putative class actions were filed on behalf of current
or former Premarin or Prempro users in federal and state courts
throughout the U.S., including in Florida, New Jersey and West
Virginia, and in foreign jurisdictions, including British
Columbia, Canada.  Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege
personal injury resulting from their use of Premarin or Prempro
and are seeking medical monitoring relief and purchase price
refunds as well as other damages.  The Company opposed class
certification for these cases.

Previously, the federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) ordered that all federal Prempro cases be
transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Plaintiffs
filed a Master Class Action Complaint in the MDL seeking damages
for purchase price refunds and medical monitoring costs.  The
complaint sought to certify a 29-state consumer fraud subclass,
a 29-state unfair competition subclass and a 24-state medical
monitoring subclass of Prempro users.

A class certification hearing was held on June 1-3, 2005, and
the District Court denied certification of all the proposed
classes.  No appeal was filed.  Plaintiffs recently announced
their intention to file single state class certification motions
in that sought statewide medical monitoring classes in West
Virginia, Illinois and California.


XCEL ENERGY: Court Reviews Nevada Natural Gas Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada's order that dismissed a consolidated lawsuit against
Xcel Energy, Inc. and several other defendants over the sale of
natural gas in the U.S..

On Nov. 29, 2004, a class action complaint, styled, "Utility
Savings and Refund Services LLP vs. Reliant Energy Services
Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California by Utility Savings and Refund Services,
LLP, and subsequently served on the Company.  The lawsuit, filed
on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers,
alleges that the Company falsely reported natural gas trades to
market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise
natural gas prices in California and engaged in a conspiracy
with other sellers of natural gas to inflate prices.

On Sept. 14, 2004, a class action complaint, styled, "Fairhaven
Power Company vs. Encana Corporation et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by
Fairhaven Power Co. and subsequently served on the Company.  The
lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that The Company falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.

On Dec. 13, 2004, a class action complaint, styled, "Abelman Art
Glass vs. Ercana Corporation, et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California by Abelman
Art Glass and subsequently served on the Company.  The lawsuit,
filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers,
alleges that the Company falsely reported natural gas trades to
market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise
natural gas prices in California and engaged in a conspiracy
with other sellers of natural gas to inflate prices.

This cases were consolidated with "In re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566" and assigned to U.S. District Judge
Philip M. Pro of Nevada.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which was granted on December 19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently
appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The consolidated suit is styled, "In RE: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral
to Judge Peggy A. Leen.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Alan
G. Crone of Crone & Mason, PC, 5100 Poplar Ave., Suite 3200,
Memphis, TN 83137, Phone: 901-683-1850, Fax: 901-683-1963; and
Paul Alexis Del Aguila of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77 West Wacker
Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601, US, Phone: (312) 456-8400.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Frederic G. Berner, Jr. of
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, 1501 K Street, NW Washington,
DC 80005, Phone: 202-736-8000, Fax: 202-736-8711; and Robert E.
Craddock, Jr. of Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, P.O. Box 775000,
Memphis, TN 92177-5000, Phone: 901-537-1000, Fax: 901-537-1010.


XCEL ENERGY: E Prime Settles N.Y. Suit Over NYMEX Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc. reports that its subsidiary, E Prime, Inc.
reached a tentative settlement in a purported class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled, "Cornerstone Propane v. Reliant
Energy, et al."

On Feb. 2, 2004, a purported class action complaint, styled,
"Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. et al. v. E Prime inc. et
al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against e prime and three other defendants
by Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P., Robert Calle Gracey and
Dominick Viola on behalf of a class who purchased or sold one or
more New York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures and/or
options contracts during the period from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec.
31, 2002.  The complaint alleges that defendants manipulated the
price of natural gas futures and options and/or the price of
natural gas underlying those contracts in violation of the
Commodities Exchange Act.  In February 2004, the plaintiff
requested that this action be consolidated with a similar suit
involving Reliant Energy Services.  In February 2004,
defendants, including E Prime, filed motions to dismiss.  In
September 2004, the U.S. District Court denied the motions to
dismiss.

On Jan. 25, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  On Sept. 30, 2005, the
U.S. District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 17, 2005, defendants filed a petition
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
challenging the class certification.  On Dec. 5, 2005, E Prime
reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs that will
require court approval.  The settlement will be paid by e prime
and is not expected to have a material financial impact on the
Company.

The suit is styled, "Cornerstone Propane v. Reliant Energy, et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor
Marrero and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
         (415)-398-8700

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com

     (3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
         Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900

     (4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280

Representing the defendant/s are, Robert C. Micheletto of Jones
Day (NYC), 222 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212)-326-3690, Fax: (212)-755-7306, E-mail:
rmicheletto@jonesday.com.


XCEL ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Suit in Kans., No Discovery Yet
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc. faces a purported class action complaint in a
Kansas federal court styled, "Learjet, Inc. v. e prime and Xcel
Energy et al."

On Nov. 4, 2005, the suit was filed in state court for Wyandotte
County of Kansas on behalf of all natural gas producers in
Kansas.  The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Inc., Xcel Energy,
Inc. and other named defendants conspired to raise the market
price of natural gas in Kansas by, among other things,
inaccurately reporting price and volume information to the
market trade publications.  On Dec. 7, 2005, the defendants
removed this matter to the U.S. District Court in Kansas.  This
case is in the early stages no discovery has been conducted and
E Prime and the Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

The suit is styled, "Learjet, Inc., et al v. ONEOK, Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in the U.S. District of
District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to
Judge James P. O'Hara.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Jennifer Gille Bacon of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Twelve
Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64105,
Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax: 816-374-0509, E-mail:
jbacon@stklaw.com; and Donald D. Barry of Barry Law Offices,
L.L.C., 5340 West 17th Street, P.O. Box 4816, Topeka, KS 66604,
Phone: 785-273-3153, Fax: 785-273-3159, E-mail:
dbarry@inlandnet.net.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Zwerling, Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Chicago Bridge &
Iron Co. N.V. (NYSE: CBI) on March 9, 2005 through February 15,
2006.

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 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period which caused
Chicago Bridge & Iron shares to trade at artificially inflated
prices.  These statements were allegedly materially false and
misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose or
indicate that:

     (1) the Company's earnings had been overstated because of
          improprieties in claim recognition for two Company
          projects and cost assessments applicable to two other
          projects;

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to report accurate financial results
         or ascertain the true financial condition of
         Chicago Bridge & Iron;

     (3) the Company failed to properly recognize revenue;

     (4) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
          accordance with GAAP;

     (5) defendants had issued false and misleading financial
         projections to the investors for fiscal year 2005 which
         the Company could only achieve by overstating its
         revenues and earnings; and

     (6) that as a result, the value of Chicago Bridge & Iron's
         net income and financial results were materially
        overstated during the Class Period.

On February 3, 2006, after the markets closed, Chicago Bridge &
Iron announced the immediate employment terminations of
Defendants Gerald M. Glenn as Chairman, President and CEO of the
Company and Robert B. Jordan as Executive Vice President and COO
of the Company.  The Company also announced that all previous
earnings guidance issued by Chicago Bridge & Iron for 2005 is no
longer operative.  On February 6, 2006, Chicago Bridge & Iron
shares trading on the NYSE closed at $22.33 on unusually high
trading volume, down $6.67 a share from the previous trading
day's close.

For more information, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. at
1-800-721-3900, E-mail: at sfuchs@zsz.com.  On the Net:
http://www.zsz.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Micron Technology Inc. (NYSE: MU)
between February 24, 2001 and February 13, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Micron, Wilbur G. Stover, Jr., Steven R.
Appleton, and Michael W. Sadler with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Micron engages in the
manufacture and marketing of semiconductor devices worldwide.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive
         behavior to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of DRAM sold to OEMs in violation of
         Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act;

     (2) that Micron's financial results throughout the Class
         Period were materially inflated as a direct result of
         the price-fixing conspiracy due to the Company's
         illegal behavior of price-fixing; and

     (3) that the Company's financial projections during the
         Class Period lacked a reasonable basis because they
         were issued while the Company involved itself in an
         illegal price-fixing scheme.

While the Company engaged in an illegal price-fixing scheme,
Company insiders sold 132,000 shares for gross proceeds of
$4,536,000.  Additionally, during the Class Period, the Company
issued more than $632 million worth of debt and sold over $480
million worth of warrants and completed numerous stock-for-stock
acquisitions.

For more information, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Darren
J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) at 1-888-299-7706
(toll-free) or 1-610-667-7706; E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.  On
the Net: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO) between
October 25, 2004 and January 27, 2006, inclusive.

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP is seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants Take-Two,
Paul Eibeler, Karl H. Winters, and Gary Lewis.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made numerous misrepresentations about the success of the
Company's video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," and the
strong contribution that it was making to the Company's overall
revenues.  As alleged in the Complaint, defendants failed to
disclose that it had improperly hid pornographic materials
directly in the programming of the "Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas" game.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose
the inclusion of the pornographic materials in order to obtain a
rating of "Mature 17+" by the Entertainment Software Rating
Board (ESRB), a private independent group that rates video
games.  As alleged in the Complaint, had the ESRB known of the
pornographic materials contained in the game, it would have
assigned it a rating of "Adults Only 18+" and it would not have
been carried for sale in the major retail chains, such as Wal-
Mart and Target, who refuse to carry such games.  Indeed, when
it was subsequently disclosed that the ESRB had revised its
rating on the game to "Adults Only 18+," the Company was forced
to reduce its financial guidance.

On January 27, 2006, the last day of the Class Period, it was
announced that the City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles had
filed an action against the Company and its subsidiary for
making misleading statements in the marketing of "Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas," and engaging in unfair competition.  The
action sought disgorgement of the Company's profits from the
sales of the game in California before the game was re-rated.

In direct response to this announcement, Take-Two's stock price
plunged approximately $2.34 per share, or 13.7%, on more than 21
million shares traded -- approximately ten times the average
daily trading volume during the preceding 12 months.  Prior to
the announcement, however, company insiders, including the
defendants, were able to capitalize on the inflated stock price,
and sell more than 661,000 shares of their personally-held Take-
Two stock for proceeds of over $18 million.

For more information, contact plaintiff's counsel Eric J. Belfi
or Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP at Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818; Fax: (212) 682-1892; E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.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 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  * * *