CAR_Public/061012.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 203

                            Headlines

AGIO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Gas Fire Pits Due to Fire Hazard
AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Chancery Court Dismisses Wage Suit
BLACK & DECKER: Recalls Blower/Vacuums to Repair Cord Connection
BP PLC: London Pension Fund Named in N.Y. Negligence Lawsuit
CABLEVISION SYSTEM: Law Firm Challenges Proposed Insider Buyout

CARD SERVICE: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Fraud Lawsuit
GUNNS LTD: Tamar Valley Firm Threatens to Sue Over Pulp Mill
IMAX CORP: Named as Defendant in Canadian Securities Litigation
INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs File Motion to Stay Judge's Removal
INSURANCE COS: Survey Shows Insurers Attract More Litigation

JIM'S MARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. coli Contamination
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Hearing of Hurricane Damage Claims Postponed
MCDONALD'S CORP: Calif. Labor Suit Names Additional Defendants
MURPHY OIL: $330M Oil Spill Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
NATURAL SELECTION: Sued in Neb. Over Spinach E. Coli Outbreak

PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Denies Review of Investors Suit
PHILIP SERVICES: Plaintiffs in Pollution Suit Amend Complaints
PREMCOR INC: Parents File Counterclaim in Ill. Vapor Lawsuit
ROYAL DUTCH: N.Y. Court Rejects Certain Claims in Nigeria Case
SANDRIDGE FOOD: Recalls Chicken Salad for Undeclared Soy Content

SECURITIES LITIGATION: Exec. Insurance Enhanced as Suits Rise
SIDLEY AUSTIN: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Age Bias Lawsuit
SONY ENERGY: Hitachi Recalls Notebook Batteries Due to Fire Risk
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Tobacco Companies Appeal "Lights" Ruling
UPS INC: Cal. Appeals Court Upholds ADA Violations Suit Ruling

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH: Faces "Reverse" Race Discrimination Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Delivers Defense in Pennsylvania Labor Suit
WORLDCOM INC: GSC's Motion to Revoke Opt-Out Decision Denied


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Lawsuit
TVIA INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AGIO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Gas Fire Pits Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Agio International, of Hong Kong, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 22,000
Units of outdoor gas fire pits.

The company said if the regulator hose for the propane cylinder
contacts the burner during use, the hose can rupture, presenting
a risk of a fire outside of the unit.

Agio has received eight reports of hoses rupturing, including
three reports of fire.  Two of these fires resulted in minor
damage to decks.  No injuries have been reported.

The fire pit is an outdoor gas fire pit with a surrounding
housing that serves as a table.  The fire pits were sold in
various shapes and sizes, including oval, hexagonal, round and
octagonal.  They have various style tabletops, including real
and faux marble, slate, ceramic or stone.  The bases of the fire
pits have various styles, including mountain stone, field stone,
flag stone, cobblestone, stucco, brick and wicker.  The model
number 98500 or 98500A is printed on the top of the label on the
side of the sliding drawer holding the propane tank, or, on some
models, on the back of the hinged door that lifts up to get to
the propane tank.

These outdoor gas fire pits were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Costco, BJ's, Home Depot Expo Design Center,
Lowe's and other stores nationwide, and by various on-line
retailers, from September 2005 through July 2006 for between
$400 and $1,400.  Units sold by Costco were included as part of
a five-piece furniture grouping.

Pictures of the recalled outdoor fire pits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07004a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07004b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07004c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the fire pits immediately,
and contact Agio to receive a free repair, which consists of a
tie that will keep the regulator hose from contacting the
burner, and instructions.

For more information, contact Agio-USA, the recall coordinator,
at (800) 598-6532 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.agio-usa.com.


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Chancery Court Dismisses Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Chancery Court Judge Thomas Quinn ruled that American
InterContinental University Online (AIU Online) had properly
paid three former admissions advisors all of the compensation,
including overtime, to which they were entitled.

After a nine-day bench trial and extensive briefing of the facts
and the law, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to
prove even a single one of their allegations against the
university.

"The record is replete with references to overtime work being
reported to and approved by defendant," the court found.  Not
only had plaintiffs failed to prove that the university had in
any way violated the law, but in fact, the court found, the
university's overtime practices were "sound business policy."

Judge Quinn also noted that AIU Online maintained a general
practice of compensating its hourly employees that was even more
generous than the law required.

In June of last year, Judge Quinn denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class action.

"We are gratified that the court's final determination has
vindicated both AIU Online's policy and the AIU Online managers
who applied it," said Eric Israel, senior vice president and
general counsel for Career Education Corp.'s University Group.

"AIU Online remains committed to ensuring that it provides an
outstanding environment for its students to learn, faculty to
teach, staff to work, and for all of these stakeholders to
continue to grow and develop their careers," added Dr. Alan
Drimmer, President of AIU Online.

A similar overtime action "Vennet et al. v. American
Intercontinental University Online et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-
04889," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006).

Plaintiff alleges overtime violations pursuant to Section 6(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1928, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The suit seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney' fees costs and other
relief for defendants violations of the state and federal labor
statutes.  

The company is a subsidiary of Career Education Corp. --
http://www.careered.com-- which offers high quality education  
to more than 85,000 students across the world in a variety of
career-oriented disciplines.


BLACK & DECKER: Recalls Blower/Vacuums to Repair Cord Connection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 272,000 units of Black & Decker BV4000 Type 1 Blower/Vacs.

The company said a loose connection between the blower/vac and
an extension cord can cause overheating, posing a fire hazard.

Black & Decker has received 187 reports of smoking, melting
and/or fire near the blower/vac's plug, including one report of
a fire extending beyond the unit.  Black & Decker has received
seven reports of minor burns, none of which required medical
treatment.

This recall involves Black & Decker model BV4000 Type 1
blower/vacs.  The model and type number are printed on a
nameplate on the right side of the unit.  The blower/vacs have
an orange housing and a black blower assembly.

These Black & Decker BV4000 Type 1 Blower/Vacs were manufactured
in Mexico and are being sold at home center, hardware and
discount stores nationwide from April 2004 through July 2005 for
about $70.

Picture of the recalled Black & Decker BV4000 Type 1
Blower/Vacs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07005.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the blower/vacs immediately
and contact Black & Decker for a free repair kit.

For additional information, consumers can contact Black & Decker
at (866) 853-2138 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.blackanddecker.com.


BP PLC: London Pension Fund Named in N.Y. Negligence Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The pension scheme of the City of London Corporation has learned
that it is named as party to a lawsuit filed by lawyers in the
U.S. who are claiming negligence against BP plc after a shutdown
of the latter's operation in Alaska.

The City of London Corporation is the local government authority
covering London's financial center.  Its pension scheme is worth
GBP420 million and holds GBP20 million worth of BP shares.  The
Corporation -- as it said -- did not initiate the lawsuit
against BP, but its manager, ABN AMRO Mellon, did.

A Corporation spokesman said: "As a matter of practice, the City
of London would not expect to initiate actions against companies
in which it holds shares, and we have not initiated this action
against BP.

"However, the standing instruction we have with our global
custodian, ABN AMRO Mellon, is that if it judges a class action
to have merit and a reasonable prospect of success, we will
allow our name to be attached to that action."

The lawsuit was filed by Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins on behalf of Unite Here National Retirement Fund,
claiming that BP's directors were negligent in handling safety
and environmental processes at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield.  It is
seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for
shareholders.

In August, a class action in relation to the shutdown was
brought on behalf of U.S. shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

United Kingdom-based BP plc -- http://www.bp.com-- is a holding  
company that has three operating segments: Exploration and
Production; Refining and Marketing; and Gas, Power and
Renewables.  Exploration and Production's activities include oil
and natural gas exploration and field development and
production, together with pipeline transportation and natural
gas processing.  

For more details, contact Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100 or (877) 992-2555, Fax: (631) 367-
1173, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/.


CABLEVISION SYSTEM: Law Firm Challenges Proposed Insider Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a class action to
challenge a proposed buyout of the publicly held shares of
Cablevision System Corp. by the Dolan family, which owns a
controlling share of the company, in an effort to take the
company private.

The claims asserted relate to whether the offered price is fair
and adequate to the public shareholders of the company and
whether the process utilized in proposing and considering this
offer comports with the company's Board of Directors' fiduciary
obligations.

In 2005, the Dolan family proposed to acquire outstanding,
publicly held interests in Cablevision following a pro rata
distribution of Rainbow Media Holdings (Class Action Reporter,
March 14, 2006).

On Oct. 24, 2005, the company received a letter from the Dolan
family group withdrawing that proposal and recommending the
consideration of a special dividend.  

On Dec. 19, 2005 the Board decided not to proceed with the
proposed special dividend, and on Jan. 31, 2006 the Board
expected to begin reconsideration of a possible special dividend
at its regularly scheduled meeting in March 2006.

On April 7, 2006, Cablevision's Board of Directors declared a
special cash dividend of $10.00 per share, which was paid on
April 24, 2006 to holders of record at the close of business on
April 18, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

On Aug. 8, 2006, the company disclosed it expected the need to
restate previously issued financial statements in connection
with grants of stock options and Stock Appreciation Rights.

Bethpage, New York-based Cablevision Systems, Corp. (NYSE: CVC)
-- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable operator in the  
U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies.  Cablevision owns
all of the outstanding common stock of CSC Holdings.  

For more information, contact Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq. of
Wechsler Harwood LLP, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
povers@whesq.com, Website: http://www.whesq.com.


CARD SERVICE: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a purported class
action filed against Card Service Center over allegations the
company sent a deceptive letter to collect debt from a customer,
Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Brown filed a suit over a letter she
received from the company stating that unless she made
arrangements to pay within five days, the matter "could" result
in referral of the account to an attorney and "could" result in
"a legal suit being filed."

Ms. Brown's lawyers argued that the company's use of the word
"could" was deceptive since the firm had no intention of
referring Ms. Brown's account to an attorney and no intention of
filing a lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr. dismissed the suit,
finding that "the letter neither states nor implies that legal
action is imminent, only that it is possible."  He said the
letter "states only that legal action and referral to an
attorney 'could' result from plaintiff's noncooperation."

Plaintiff attorneys appealed.  Recently, the 3rd Circuit wrote
on a 10-page opinion, that the plaintiff may have a valid claim
that the letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act's ban on false, misleading or deceptive communications.  

U.S. Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote in an opinion joined
by Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Morton I. Greenberg that on
remand, Ms. Brown will have a valid claim if she can prove,
after discovery, that the company "seldom litigated or referred
debts such as [Ms.] Brown's and those of the putative class
members to an attorney."

Ms. Brown's lawyers are Cary L. Flitter of Lundy Flitter
Beldecos & Berger -- http://www.lfbb.com-- in Narberth, and  
David A. Searles of Donovan Searles in Philadelphia.

Card Service Center was represented in the appeal by attorneys
Joshua M. Rubins, Thomas J. Cahill and Daniel G. Gurfein of
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke -- http://www.ssbb.com/-- in  
New York, along with Thomas W. Dymek of Stradley Ronon Stevens &
Young -- http://www.stradley.com-- in Philadelphia.


GUNNS LTD: Tamar Valley Firm Threatens to Sue Over Pulp Mill
------------------------------------------------------------
An olive business located in Australia's Tamar Valley will seek
compensation or file class action if it is damaged by air
pollution from a proposed pulp mill of Gunns, Ltd., ABC Online
reports.

According to Peter and Diane Henning from Lentara Olives, they
have spent a significant amount of money in the last seven years
to establish their high quality virgin olive oil business at
Exeter, north of Launceston.  And so, if the mill affected them,
they would be prepared to mount a class action with other local
businesses, Mr. Henning told the Resource Planning and
Development Commission.

Specifically, Mr. Henning stated that in the event that the pulp
mill does go ahead and produces air pollution, which interferes
with the quality of the product which his company is now
starting to produce, or undermines the enterprise's viability,
then they should be getting compensation for that.


IMAX CORP: Named as Defendant in Canadian Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imax Corp. was named as a defendant in two proposed securities
class actions filed in Canadian courts under the captions,
"Silver v. Imax Corp., Court File 06-CV-318004CP" and "Cohen v.
Imax Corp., Court File 51579CP," The Mondaq News Alerts reports.

Initially, Marvin Neil Silver and Cliff Cohen, both would-be
plaintiffs in a proposed class action against the company and
certain of its directors and officers, filed separate statements
of claim.

Mr. Silver's claim is the first to invoke the secondary-market
liability provisions that were recently added to the Securities
Act (Ontario) under Bill 198.  These amendments require a
plaintiff to obtain leave of the court to make out a claim for
misrepresentations in public filings and statements that affect
purchases in the secondary market, subsequent to an initial
public offering of shares.

The two claims allege that company misrepresented its revenues
during the period from March to August 2006, in that figures
disclosed in its fourth quarter and annual reports were in
excess of actual revenues.

Both plaintiffs contend that the company and the individual
defendants knowingly misstated the financials in order to
inflate its share price and the value of the directors' own
shareholdings.  

In August 2006, the company issued a press release stating that
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had made an informal
inquiry about the company's timing of revenue recognition for
its movie theatre systems, which caused a significant drop in
the company's share price.

The plaintiffs maintain that they and members of the putative
class would not have bought Imax shares during the period from
March 2006, when the allegedly inflated numbers were released,
to the date of the press release, if they had known the true
state of the company's revenues.

The disposition of these claims will be watched with interest,
according to The Mondaq News Alerts, as it should set the ground
rules for granting leave to seek a remedy under the Bill 198
amendments and may provide guidance on establishing the
underlying merits of such a claim.

IMAX Corp. (NASDAQ: IMAX) -- http://www.imax.com-- is an  
entertainment technology company specializing in large-format
and three-dimensional film presentations.  


INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs File Motion to Stay Judge's Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the protracted class action, "Cobell v. Norton,"
in which thousands of American Indians claim that the government
mismanaged billions of dollars in federal trust funds, filed a
motion to stay the removal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit of Judge Royce Lamberth from the
case.

According to the motion, "plaintiffs move for a 90-day stay of
the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court."

The motion also states that a stay is warranted, since during
the 10-year course of the litigation:

      -- more than 3,260 filings have been made in the district
         court;

      -- the court has issued more than 80 published opinions;
   
      -- has made hundreds of procedural and substantive          
         rulings, and has heard more than 200 days of testimony.

Beyond that, the motion states, "Judge Lamberth is intimately
familiar with all aspects and details of the case in away that
cannot be summarized based on a cold record and objective data."

The motion pointed out that the effort required of a newly
assigned judge to step into those shoes truly would be
Herculean- and it also will be unnecessary if the U.S. Supreme
Court reviews the case and ultimately reverses the decision to
remove the judge.

Furthermore, the motion states that irreparable harm, which
satisfies the good cause requirement, exists not merely because
the case would be reassigned to a new judge, but rather because
removing Judge Lamberth would undermine the integrity of the
judicial process based solely on inferential evidence of
"apparent bias."  It goes on to state that specifically, "no
evidence of actual bias has been found and no actual bias has
been concluded."  

Back in July, the D.C. Circuit ordered the removal of the Judge
Lamberth, finding that he had lost his objectivity.   The three-
judge panel from the D.C. Circuit thus concluded that this was
one of those "rare cases in which reassignment is necessary"
(Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).  

In so ruling, the panel ordered that a new judge be reassigned
to the case.  That task now falls on the hands of Judge Thomas
Hogan, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

The panel -- composed of judges David Tatel, Janice Rogers Brown
and and Laurence H. Silberman -- also stated: "Our ruling
presents an opportunity for a fresh start... We expect both
parties to work with the new judge to resolve this case
expeditiously and fairly."

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs announced that they would be asking
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the July 11 decision to remove
Judge Lamberth from their case citing apparent bias (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2006)

Lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, a Blackfeet Indian from Browning,
Montana, pointed out that it is unprecedented for a federal
judge to be reassigned under these circumstances, especially
since he has presided over the complex case for 10 years.

                       Case Background

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

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

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

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

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

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The motion is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1347

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

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

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

For more details, contact

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

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


INSURANCE COS: Survey Shows Insurers Attract More Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A survey by Texas-based law firm Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P.,
revealed that the insurance industry is a magnet for lawsuits,
according to The Business Insurance.

The firm's survey indicated that the average insurer is involved
in nearly 1,700 pending cases this year-more than five times the
average number faced by companies in other industries.

In its survey, entitled, "Third Annual Litigation Trends Survey
Findings," the firm questioned 422 companies, including 311 in
the U.S., 45 in the United Kingdom and 66 in 22 other countries.  

The law firm reported that of those companies 16 or about 4% of
the sample were insurers.  Those insurers were identified in
three categories:

      -- about two-thirds with revenues over $1 billion,

      -- 22% with revenues between $100 million and $999
         million, and

      -- the rest with revenues below $100 million.

Other survey participants were in a dozen other industries
ranging from financial services and energy to manufacturing,
technology and health care, and had annual revenues ranging from
less than $100 million to more than $1 billion.

The annual litigation trends survey found that in this year
alone the average respondent faced 305 pending lawsuits in the
U.S. or abroad.  Insurers though were the leaders in this
category with an average of 1,696 pending suits per company.

According to the law firm, the number is more than five times
the averages posted by the next most litigious industries: 364
for energy companies and 333 for financial services.

Additionally, the firm's survey also found that insurers are
most the likely to be embroiled in class actions.  About 69%
percent of the insurers reported being involved in at least one
pending class action versus 65% for companies in the
retail/wholesale industry, 51% for manufacturing companies and
43% for financial services firms.

Not surprisingly the survey revealed that insurers' litigation
costs are among the highest.  According to the firm, the 311
U.S. companies surveyed averaged $12 million in annual
litigation costs, excluding judgments and settlements.  

However, the participating insurers averaged $36 million in
litigation costs, topped only by engineering and construction
firms, with $39 million.

The survey is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1345

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


JIM'S MARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. coli Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim's Market and Locker, Inc. of Harlan, Iowa, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 5,226
pounds of ground beef that may be contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7.

The products subject to recall include:

     -- 10-pound boxes of "PACKED FOR: DAVIS MOUNTAIN ORGANIC
        BEEF, 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC 3-1 BEEF PATTIES."
        Each box bears the lot code "G6-540" or "G6-544."

     -- Five-pound packages of "DAVIS MOUNTAINS 100% ORGANIC
        BEEF, LEEAN GROUND BEEF 90/10."
        Each package bears the lot code "G6-544."

     -- One-pound packages of "MASTER CHOICE 100% ORGANIC ANGUS
        BEEF, 90/10 GROUND BEEF."  Each package bears the lot
        code "G6-544."

     -- One-pound packages of "DAVIS MOUNTAINS 100% CERTIFIED
        ORGANIC GROUND BEEF."  Each package bears the lot code
        "G6-544."

     -- 10.5-pound boxes of "NEBRASKA, BEEF GROUND BEEF PATTY 6
        OZ." Each box bears the lot code "G6-541."

     -- 60-pound boxes of "SPECIALLY SELECTED FOR: FARNER-BOCKEN
        FOOD SERVICE BEEF PATTIE MIX 6/10#."  Each box bears the
        lot code "G6-542."

     -- One-pound packages of "PACKED FOR: IRWIN COUNTRY STORE,
        BEEF GROUND BEEF 16 OZ."  The package bears the lot code
        "G6-541."

     -- One-pound blocks of "PACKED FOR: IRWIN COUNTRY STORE,
        BEEF GROUND BEEF PATTIES 4-1."  The product bears the
        code "G6-541."

     -- 10-pound boxes of "DISTRIBUTED BY: STUBE RANCH, WAGYU
        BEEF, BEEF GROUND BEEF PATTIES, 8 OZ. PATTIES."  The
        product bears the lot code "G6-546."

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 2424" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing.  
FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of this product.

The ground beef products were produced on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1
and distributed to one retail establishment in Iowa and
distributors in Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New
York, Texas and Wisconsin.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to food-borne illness.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact company President Jim Goeser at (712) 755-5158.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Hearing of Hurricane Damage Claims Postponed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry G. Sullivan, Jr. of the 24th Judicial District Court
in Louisiana postponed a hearing in a class action against
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. that alleges it
failed to pay homeowner claims in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports.

In that postponed hearing, plaintiffs would have sought to force
the insurer to file audited financial statements in a timely
fashion.  The judge set a new hearing for Oct. 16, 2006 to give
the plaintiffs time to review defendant's filings.

Geraldine Oubre of Avondale and Linda Gentry of New Orleans
filed the suit last year, alleging their claims were not handled
according to the law (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).

Specifically, the suit alleges that the insurer's Louisiana
Citizens Fair Plan, the state property insurance plan of last
resort, failed to comply with state law requiring the claims
adjustment process to begin within 30 days of a catastrophic
loss.  It also alleges that the plan failed to pay a claim
within 30 days of a satisfactory proof of loss.

The suit also claims that Citizens did not file its 2005
financial statement by March 1, as required by the plan, and
that its 2004 annual statement was filed in May 2006.  

The plaintiffs say they are entitled to know the financial
condition of Citizens because of the annual payments, which must
be made on the bonds sold to help pay Hurricane Katrina claims.

Judge Sullivan granted class-action status to the suit in the
middle of this year (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).

The Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, the suit's sole defendant is a
domestic insurance company, domiciled in Louisiana, bearing NAIC
No. AA1211.  It provides fire and casualty insurance policies to
the citizens of Louisiana, including the two named plaintiffs.
Previously, Terry Lisotta, Citizens' chief, stated in court that
claims forms mailed out to its policyholders were returned
because the customers have moved.

The suit is "Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, Case No.
625-567," filed in the 24th Judicial District, Parish of
Jefferson, Louisiana, under Judge Henry Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Madro Bandaries, PLC, #25339, 210 Huey P. Long Ave.,
         Gretna, LA 70053, Phone: (504) 361-4287, Fax: (504)
         362-1405; and

     (2) Anna E. Dow, #5040, 10988 N. Harrell's Ferry, Suite 18,
         P.O. Box 3456, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: (225) 272-
         0707, Fax: (225) 273-3590.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Calif. Labor Suit Names Additional Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, which
represents eight former workers in a lawsuit seeking class-
action status in Sonoma County Superior Court over labor abuses
at seven McDonald's restaurants in Santa Rosa, Sebastopol and
Windsor, has amended their complaint, CBS reports.

The suit, originally filed in September 2005 against three
McDonald's restaurants, now includes McDonald's Corp. and four
more franchise stores as defendants.

The complaint also names as defendants the Mendes Family
Enterprises and Robert Mendes of San Mateo County, the owner and
operator of the seven restaurants in Sonoma County.

Plaintiffs claim they were fired in January after they first
sued franchise owner Robert Mendes and his companies DCT Inc.
and Mendes Family Enterprises (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6,
2006).

The suit was filed on behalf of all current and former non-
exempt employees who worked at the restaurants between September
2001 and the present.

The complaint claims the workers were routinely underpaid,
forced to work without rest and meal breaks and required to work
off the clock without pay.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the fast food giant and
its franchises from violating California labor laws and seeks
damages, penalties, restitution and attorney's fees.

Representing plaintiffs is Mark A. Talamantes of Talamantes
Villegas Carrera, LLP, 1550 Bryant Street, San Francisco, CA
94103.


MURPHY OIL: $330M Oil Spill Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana gave preliminary approval to the proposed
$330 million settlement in a class action against Murphy Oil
Corp. for an oil spill that flooded hundreds of homes near its
suburban New Orleans refinery during Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
Reuters reports.

The parties' settlement proposal, negotiated less than a year
after the filed cases were consolidated, would conclude
thousands of claims, with total expenditures and settlement
benefits to be paid by Murphy Oil and its insurers estimated at
$330,000,000 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2006).

Under the terms of the Memorandum, all residential and
commercial properties in the Class Area will receive a cash
payment pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to
court approval following recommendations by a court-appointed
Special Master.  The company believes these payments will be
covered by insurance.  

The entire Class Area will have the benefit of a comprehensive
remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory
bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.

Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty
Arpent Canal.  

The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of
residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation
for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux,
Louisiana.  Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that
was damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

The suit was filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.   The court certified the class
on Jan. 30, 2006.

The judge set a hearing on Jan. 4, 2007 to hear any objections
to the proposal reached by Murphy Oil Corp. and plaintiffs
attorneys.

The judge says notices will be given, advising property owners
of, among other things, terms of the agreement and an
opportunity either to opt into or out of the settlement

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:    

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common    
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-    
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,    
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,    
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and  

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.    
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.    
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:    
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and   
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:   
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NATURAL SELECTION: Sued in Neb. Over Spinach E. Coli Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Chad Wythers and John Berry initiated the first Nebraska
lawsuit related to the recent E. coli outbreak from fresh,
bagged spinach, the Omaha World-Herald reports.

The suit was filed in Lancaster County District Court on behalf
of a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Dole Food Co.,
     -- Natural Selection Foods Manufacturing,
     -- Natural Selection Foods LLC
     -- U Save Foods Inc./SunMart, the Lincoln grocery store
        where Ms. Clark purchased her spinach and
     -- Gary Ebler, manager of a SunMart store in Lincoln.

According to the suit, Ms. Clark was hospitalized with acute
gastroenteritis after eating Dole brand spinach her roommate
bought in early September at a SunMart store in Lincoln.

Ms. Clark, a senior, was hospitalized for four days, and tests
are still being conducted to determine the lasting effects the
E. coli will have on her body, said her attorney, Chad Wythers
of Lincoln-based law firm Berry and Kelley.

Ms. Clark is seeking compensation for medical expenses and her
pain and suffering.  The total amount is still undetermined
because of the ongoing tests, said Mr. Wythers.

The lawsuit says a test of her stool sample confirmed presence
of E. coli O157:H7 bacteria, and she was released from the
hospital Sept. 14.

The Food and Drug Administration had confirmed 199 spinach-
associated cases of illness -- including three deaths -- in 26
states.  The first of the deaths to occur, but the last to be
identified in relation to the outbreak, was that of Bellevue
woman Ruby Trautz, 81.

Health and food safety officials have issued a recall notice and
are advising people not to eat fresh spinach processed by
Natural Selection Foods in California -- sold under Dole and
other brand names -- that is date-stamped Oct. 1 or earlier.

Spinach that is frozen or canned -- and fresh spinach from other
areas or with more current dates -- is believed to be safe.

At least three other lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the national spinach-associated E. coli outbreak, in Utah,
Oregon and Wisconsin.  Mr. Wythers is not ruling out the
possibility of a class action if others affected by the outbreak
come forward.

Representing the plaintiffs are Chad J. Wythers and John Berry
both of Berry & Kelley, Attorneys at Law, 2650 North 48th Street
P.O. Box 4554, Lincoln, NE 68504.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Denies Review of Investors Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene on behalf of San
Diego Padres owner John Moores and other former Peregrine
Systems, Inc. directors in a lawsuit filed in California on
behalf of the company's former shareholders, The San Diego
Union-Tribune reports.

The ruling ends a pre-trial over whether California or Delaware
corporate law should be used to determine the merits of the
shareholder suit.

The lawsuit stems from the 2002 financial collapse of the
company that resulted in eight former executives and others
pleading guilty to securities fraud and other federal charges.  
In addition, nine others are scheduled for criminal trial in
April.  

The corporate fraud at the company pushed it into bankruptcy.  
Under its 2003 reorganization, the company created an
independent litigation trust, which would pursue legal claims
against Peregrine's former directors and executives.  Any
proceeds from the case were designated to go to former
shareholders who lost billions in the meltdown.

The suit, which was filed by lawyers for the trust, alleges
extensive insider trading by certain former executives and board
members, including Mr. Moores.

In April 2005, Judge Joan M. Lewis of the San Diego Superior
Court agreed and ruled that such claims must be made under
Delaware law, where the company was incorporated.  

However, in December 2005, the Fourth District Court of Appeal
in Los Angeles reversed that ruling.  It pointed out that the
trial judge was interpreting California's corporate securities
laws too narrowly.

Under California law, shareholders who prevail in such cases are
entitled to collect triple damages.  Delaware law tends to be
generally more favorable for corporations.

Attorneys for Mr. Moores and other former company directors then
appealed the appellate court's ruling.  The California Supreme
Court rejected their appeal in March and with the recent ruling,
defendants have finally exhausted their appeals.  

San Diego, California-based Peregrine Systems, Inc., which was
acquired by Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P., in Dec. 19,
2005, developed enterprise software solutions in the asset
management, change management, and help desk markets.  The
company's products are now sold under the HP OpenView brand and
are part of the HP Software Global Business Unit.


PHILIP SERVICES: Plaintiffs in Pollution Suit Amend Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta attorneys Goetz, Allen & Zahler, Fayette and south
Fulton residents, filed an amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for the
proposed class action over a nauseating odor coming from an
industrial waste plant owned by the Philip Services Corp., The
Fayette Citizen reports.

Named defendants in the suit are Philip Services Corp. also
known as PSC Recovery Systems and Georgia Recovery Systems, and
AMVAC Chemical Corp.

The amended suit includes a broadened definition of the harm
done to residents and their property.  It now claims eight
counts, including continuing trespass, continuing nuisance,
negligence, negligence per se, injunctive relief, declaratory
judgment, punitive damages and attorney's fees, costs and
expenses.

About 75 people filed the original complaint seeking class-
action status in Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2006).

Residents, represented by attorney Scott Zahler, claimed in the
suit that they have suffered migraine headaches, nosebleeds,
rashes, nausea, sore throats, diarrhea, eye irritation,
dizziness and respiratory problems over the odor due to exposure
to the chemical odorant propyl mercaptan.

The amended suit adds complaints against the organophosphate
pesticide MOCAP (Ethoprop).  It also broadens the reported time
frame for which the chemicals were introduced into the
communities surrounding the PSC plant.  Residents' attorneys
maintain that shipments of MOCAP water wash were brought into
the community in May and June and were released into the air,
water and soil surrounding the plant and in outlying areas.

The suit charges that those releases resulted from mishandling
and mistreatment of the shipments.  It was during the same time
frame that area residents began manifesting symptoms of the
various symptoms of acute overexposure and chronic overexposure
to MOCAP, the suit said.

The suit is "McLendon et al. v. Philip Services Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01770-CAP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Charles A.
Pannell.

Representing defendants are Cari K. Dawson, Richard Thomas
Fulton, James Alan Langlais and Robert Douglas Mowrey all of
Alston & Bird LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic
Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000 or 404-881-
7490, E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com or sfulton@alston.com or
jlanglais@alston.com or bmowrey@alston.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kurt D. Ebersbach, Donald D. J. Stack and Kimberly Ann
         Sturm all of Stack & Associates, 260 Peachtree
         Street, Suite 1200, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-525-
         9205, Fax: 404-522-0275, E-mail:
         kebersbach@stack-envirolaw.com or
         dstack@stack-envirolaw.com or
         ksturm@stack-envirolaw.com;

     (2) Jacob Stanford Eby of Devlin & Robinson, 127 Peachtree
         Street, N.E., Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-
         222-8411, E-mail: jeby@dandrpc.com;

     (3) Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Samuel P. Pierce, Jr. and Scott
         Mitchell Zahler all of Goetz Allen & Zahler, 2859 Paces
         Ferry Road, Overlook III Suite 1740, Atlanta, GA 30339,
         Phone: 770-431-1000 or 770-431-1108, E-mail:
         cmgoetz@goetz-zahler.com or spierce@goetz-zahler.com or
         smzahler@goetz-zahler.com; and

     (4) Michael P. Pryor of Sams Larkin & Huff, 376 Powder
         Springs Street, Suite 100, Marietta, GA 30064, Phone:
         770-422-7016, E-mail: mpryor@samslarkinhuff.com.


PREMCOR INC: Parents File Counterclaim in Ill. Vapor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Richfield and BP Products North America filed
counterclaims on Sept. 27 against Shell Oil subsidiary Equilon
Enterprises and Premcor Refining Group in a class action over
petroleum vapors in the village of Hartford, The Madison St.
Clair Record.

Seven Missouri attorneys filed the suit against Premcor Refining  
Group Inc., Shell Oil and other oil companies in 2003, alleging
that the company's refinery created an underground pool of
gasoline whose vapors are causing damage to Hartford residents'
homes.  They proposed and obtained a positive ruling to make
Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff in the suit.

In 2004, the Edwardsville firm of Goldenberg Heller Antognoli
Rowland Short & Gori in Illinois sued most of the same companies
for individual damages on behalf of 65 plaintiffs.  

The Goldenberg Heller clients did not became part of the  
"Sparks" class.  Apex Oil and Sinclair moved for
reconsideration, and Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack
granted it.  He did not decertify Ms. Sparks as class
representative in the Missouri suit.  Afterwards, Goldenberg  
Heller negotiated with Premcor and Shell Oil on a settlement
that would apply throughout Hartford.  The parties reached an $8
million settlement, and Judge Stack approved it.

The agreement stipulates that $3.5 million of it will be legal
fees handed down to Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli.  The
final approval for the hearing is scheduled for Jan. 11, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006).

On Sept. 5, the Missouri lawyers petitioned Illinois' Supreme
Court directly for a supervisory order against Judge Stack, and
moved for an emergency stay of proceedings in Madison County.

After several motions, on Sept. 12, Justice Thomas Fitzgerald
denied the emergency motion to stay the Madison County
proceedings.  On Sept. 13, Justice Charles Freeman turned down
the Heller firm's motion to deny the supervisory order.

On Sept. 19, Elizabeth Heller objected to the supervisory order
stating the Missouri attorneys "strained the bounds of ethical
propriety" in pursuing the settlement.

On Sept. 20, Equilon attorney Gregory Mollett filed an
objection.

The court has not set a date for a hearing on the supervisory
order, according to the report.

On Sept. 27, attorney Susan Harris of Chicago filed
counterclaims, rebutting Equilon's and Premcor's assertion that
they faced minimal liability compared to other companies that
have refined and transported products at the refinery.

Ms. Harris stated that Atlantic Richfield and BP Products would
be entitled to contribution from the counterclaim defendants
should plaintiffs obtain a judgment for damages as a result of
the leak.

The counterclaim was served on:

     -- plaintiff attorneys:
        * David Helfrey,
        * Philip Graham,
        * Allison Price,
        * Kevin Davidson,
        * David Zevan, and Christopher Dysart of St. Louis, and
        * Norman Siegel and Teresa Woody of Kansas City

     -- Sinclair Oil attorneys:
        * Joseph Nassif,
        * Richard Jacobs,
        * Michael Montgomery, and Crystal Lovett-Tibbs of St.  
          Louis, Bernard Ysursa of Belleville, and
        * Lynn Hart of Salt Lake City, Utah

     -- Apex Oil attorneys:
        * James O'Brien,
        * Theodore Lucas,
        * Vincent Reese and Richard Ahrens of St. Louis, and
        * William Knapp of Edwardsville

     -- Equilon attorneys:
        * Richard Greenberg and Gregory Mollett of St. Louis,
          and
        * Lance Tolson of Houston, Texas

     -- Premcor attorneys:
        * Louis Bonacorsi,
        * Ann Barron,
        * Christopher Schmidt, and
        * James Bennett, all of St. Louis

For more information, contact Teresa Woody at Stueve Siegel  
Hanson Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City,  
Missouri 64112 (Cass, Clay, Jackson & Platte Cos.), Phone: 816-
714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101.

For more details, contact Goldenberg, Heller & Antognoli, P.C.,  
2227 S. State Route 157, P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, Illinois  
62025, Phone: (618) 656-5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail:  
info@ghalaw.com.   


ROYAL DUTCH: N.Y. Court Rejects Certain Claims in Nigeria Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York rejected a motion by Royal Dutch Shell PLC
that seeks to dismiss a certain claim in Nigeria torture case.

Despite that ruling, the judge did grant Shell's application for
dismissal of other counts in the class action.  These were in
regards to extrajudicial killings, the right to life, and
property destruction.

Filed on Sept. 20, 2002, the action was brought on behalf of the
Estate of Dr. Barinem Kiobel, the former Minister of Commerce
and Tourism for River State, and 14 other victims of human
rights violations, individually, and on behalf of those
similarly situated.  

The suit charges violations of customary international law under
the federal Alien Tort Claims Act relating to Shell's oil
operations in Ogoniland, which is an area located in the Niger
River delta area of Nigeria.

The complaint accuses the company of having knowingly
facilitated attacks by the Nigerian military against unarmed
residents after protests against Shell started in Ogoniland in
1992.

Berger & Montague, the law firm representing the Nigerian
plaintiffs charges that that Shell purchased ammunition, used
its helicopters and boats and provided logistical support for
"Operation Restore Order in Ogoniland," a military foray into
Ogoniland.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Shell engaged in
militarized commerce in a conspiracy with the former Military
Government of Nigeria.  It further alleges that an investigation
shows that Shell knowingly instigated, planned, facilitated, and
participated in unprovoked attacks by the Nigerian military
against the unarmed residents of Ogoniland, resulting in
extrajudicial murder, crimes against humanity, torture, rape,
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and
detention, forced exile and the deliberate destruction of
private property.

More than 1,000 residents of Ogoniland have been killed and many
more have been injured or forced to flee Nigeria since the anti-
Shell protests began in 1992.

The company continues deny being responsible for the human
rights violations committed during that period, when General
Sani Abacha ruled Nigeria.

Shell stopped operating in Ogoniland in 1993.  But the area drew
international headlines after writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight
other activists from his Ogoni tribe were executed by Gen.
Abacha's regime in 1995.

The suit is "Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petro, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-07618-KMW-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Kimba M. Wood with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Carey R. D'Avino of Berger &
Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: (215) 875-3000, Fax: (215) 875-4604, Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com.

Representing the defendants is Rory O. Millson of Cravath,
Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-mail:
rmillson@cravath.com.


SANDRIDGE FOOD: Recalls Chicken Salad for Undeclared Soy Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Food Corp. of Medina, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 7,497 lbs of
chicken salad due to an undeclared soy allergen.

The package labels do not specifically state that textured soy
flour, a potential known allergen, is an ingredient.

The recalled chicken salad is in 12-ounce plastic containers of
"GRANDMA'S ORIGINAL RECIPES, CHICKEN SALAD, MADE WITH WHITE
CHICKEN MEAT."  Each label bears the establishment number "P-
2447" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Each case bears the
code "2632323."  Each label also includes one of the following
use by dates: "08/27/06," "09/03/06," "09/08/06," "09/15/06,"
"09/22/06," "09/25/06," "09/29/06," "10/06/06" or "10/08/06."

The chicken salad was produced between July 13 and Aug. 24,
2006, and was shipped to retail stores in Florida, New York,
Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered by the company.  FSIS has received no
reports of illness due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about an allergic reaction should contact a physician.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company President Bill Frantz at (800) 627-2523.


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Exec. Insurance Enhanced as Suits Rise
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance firm ACE USA reports that in response to the rising
costs of settlements resulting from securities litigation,
corporate risk managers are taking a closer look at directors'
and officers' liability insurance.

In a white paper it recent released, which is entitled, "Trends
in Securities Class Action Litigation and Directors and Officers
Liability Insurance," the U.S.-based retail operating division
of the ACE Group of Companies attempts to examine:

      -- the number of class actions pending in federal courts
         during 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005;

      -- the allegations involved, including specific accounting
         allegations; securities judgments;

      -- types of plaintiffs; and

      -- the industries targeted.

In addition, the paper explores new approaches to minimizing and
mitigating directors and officers liability.

According to the white paper's author Carol Zacharias, Senior
Vice President and Counsel, ACE Professional Risk, part of ACE
USA, the amounts paid to resolve securities class actions --
totaling $17.9 billion -- nearly tripled in 2005, up from $5.5
billion in 2004.  

These settlements may well be the tip of the iceberg, according
to the report.  Ms. Zacharias explains, "Securities class action
cases are more expensive to resolve and take longer to close
than ever before; yet are by far the most common type of class
action.  Against this backdrop, corporate risk managers must
take a proactive approach to minimizing and mitigating potential
liability at the executive level."

According to Ms. Zacharias, corporate indemnification may not be
available to protect executives in the event of derivative
actions, corporate bankruptcy, securities judgments against
individual directors, or violations of certain statutes.

Directors and officers' insurance policy terms and conditions,
including an increasingly popular form of coverage known as
"Side A" policies, permits corporations to define and extend the
scope and level of coverage.

Ms. Zacharias comments that with securities class actions
"trending toward increasingly costly litigation, settlements and
regulatory proceedings, corporate risk managers are enhancing
their directors' and officers' liability and related insurance
coverages."

The white paper is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1342

ACE USA -- http://www.ace-ina.com-- is the U.S.-based retail  
operating division of the ACE Group of Companies, headed by ACE
Limited.  ACE USA, through its underwriting companies, provides
insurance products and services throughout the U.S.  The ACE
Group of Companies provides insurance and reinsurance for a
diverse group of clients around the world.

For more details, contact Carla Ferrara, ACE INA Communications,
Phone: 215-640-4744, E-mail: carla.ferrara@ace-ina.com.


SIDLEY AUSTIN: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Age Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a written order denying Sidley
Austin Brown & Wood LLP's petition for high court review of
"EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, N.D. Illinois No. 05 C
0208."

Sidley Austin had requested that the court review the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission 's ability to pursue monetary
damages and other individual victim-specific relief in EEOC's
ongoing age discrimination suit against the firm.

The High Court's refusal means that the question of EEOC's
ability to seek such relief will continue to be governed by the
Feb. 17, 2006, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Seventh
Circuit on the issue.

In that decision, the Seventh Circuit confirmed the EEOC's
authority to seek individual relief such as money and
reinstatement for partners who were downgraded from partner
status by the firm in 1999 and others forced out because of an
age-based retirement policy.

The EEOC case is a "class" age discrimination case brought,
first, with respect to 31 former Sidley & Austin partners who
were involuntarily downgraded and expelled from the partnership
in October of 1999 on account of their age, and, second, with
respect to other partners who were involuntarily retired from
Sidley & Austin since 1978 on account of their age pursuant to a
mandatory retirement policy (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 21,
2005).

"The Supreme Court's decision denying Sidley's request for
review follows a pattern of Sidley's every attempt to avoid
potential monetary liability being unequivocally rejected by the
courts at every turn," said John Hendrickson, EEOC Regional
Attorney in Chicago.

"Although the Supreme Court did not address the ultimate merits
of the question," Mr. Hendrickson added, "the Court's decision
to deny Sidley's request for review leaves the Seventh Circuit
decision in our case standing as the controlling law for the
duration of this case through a jury verdict, and there's not a
shadow of a doubt about what that law is the EEOC can pursue
monetary and other victim specific relief on behalf of the
ousted Sidley partners."

In the ongoing litigation, the EEOC asserts that Sidley violated
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by downgrading a group
of law firm partners to "senior counsel" or "counsel" status in
the fall of 1999 and by maintaining an age-based retirement
policy for partners.  

EEOC's lawsuit seeks monetary damages and reinstatement for
these partners.  The EEOC's case was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago on Jan.
13, 2005, and the case is pending before U.S. District Judge
James Zagel.

The EEOC's case against Sidley arose out of an investigation by
the Chicago District Office into Sidley & Austin's compliance
with the ADEA.  The investigation did not follow a formal Charge
of Discrimination filed by an individual, but began after the
agency received a confidential complaint from within the firm
and Sidley's management itself made statements to the media that
partners had been downgraded to create opportunities for younger
lawyers and also referenced the firm's age-based retirement
policy.

Sidley first pressed its position against individual relief
(including monetary damages) with the District Court, arguing
that because none of the individual partners filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the EEOC, and therefore could not themselves
file an action in court for individual relief, the EEOC could
not seek monetary relief with respect to them.  Like the 7th
Circuit, Judge Zagel twice rejected that position, first in June
2005 and then again in December 2005.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, Judge Zagel said: "The
EEOC's right to bring suit seeking individual relief goes beyond
that of the individual and reaches the territory of public
interest, thereby allowing EEOC to seek relief for individuals,
like the affected Sidley partners in this case, who could not,
for any variety of reasons, do so themselves."

Judge Zagel did not delay the case while Sidley's request for
review of his decision was pending with the Seventh Circuit or
the Supreme Court, so discovery has been ongoing.  Twenty-seven
of the 32 partners who were downgraded from partnership status
in the fall of 1999 have asked to be represented by the EEOC in
the litigation.

The recent decision follows other significant developments in
the case including Sidley's counsel's resignation from its
representation of the firm's former financial director, William
White, who signed an Oct. 21, 1999, letter to the Social
Security Administration stating "it is the general policy of
Sidley & Austin not to permit a partner to continue as a partner
commencing the first of the year following the year age 65 is
reached."  

In a motion filed with the District Court, the EEOC argued that
the representation created a conflict of interest because Sidley
and its counsel had previously taken the position that Sidley
had never maintained an age-based retirement policy.

In addition to Hendrickson, the EEOC is being represented in the
District Court by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour
and Trial Attorneys Deborah Hamilton, Laurie Elkin, and Justin
Mulaire, all of the agency's Chicago District Office. Sidley &
Austin is represented by Grippo & Elden of Chicago.

Jennifer Goldstein and Carolyn Wheeler of the EEOC's Office of
General Counsel Appellate Services in Washington represented the
agency before the Seventh Circuit.  The Solicitor General of the
U.S. represented the EEOC in the Supreme Court.  Carter Phillips
of Sidley's Washington, D.C. office was on the brief for the law
firm in the Supreme Court.


SONY ENERGY: Hitachi Recalls Notebook Batteries Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi is the latest computer maker to recall battery packs of
rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries used in laptop personal
computers that were manufactured by Sony Energy Devices Corp.,
of Japan, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The recall will affect about 16,000 laptop battery packs that
were installed in its Flora 210W and Flora Se210 laptop personal
computers for the Japanese market.

The company said it has not received any reports of overheating
or fires but is launching the recall to reassure its customers.

More than 10 million of Sony's lithium ion batteries are being
recalled.

Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
and International Business Machines Corp., of Armonk, New York,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
are also recalling about 168,500 battery packs and an additional
357,500 battery packs of rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries
used in ThinkPad notebook computers that were manufactured by
Sony Energy Devices Corp., of Japan (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
3, 2006).

According to Sony, the batteries can short-circuit because
shards of metal were left in their cells during production in
Japan.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that it is aware
of at least 47 incidents related to defective laptop batteries.
Among the most alarming incidents -- a laptop that caught fire
during a flight and another that burst into flames in a pickup
truck, totally destroying the vehicle.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Tobacco Companies Appeal "Lights" Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. and other major tobacco companies have asked a
U.S. federal appeals court to throw out Judge Jack B.
Weinstein's decision to certify a national class of "light"
smokers in the Schwab lawsuit, Reuters reports.

In September, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York certified a class that
permits Americans who currently smoke, or ever did smoke "light"
cigarettes, to proceed to trial with their claims that the
tobacco companies conspired for decades to deceive the public
regarding the health risks associated with light cigarettes
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product.

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.

The judge set a trial date of Jan. 22, 2007.

Named defendants in the suit are:   

     -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;   
     -- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;   
     -- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;   
     -- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and   
     -- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco   
        (Investments) Ltd.

A copy of Judge Weinstein's 540-page Memorandum & Order is
available free of charge at:  

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1252

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are:   

     (1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,    
         North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-   
         3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:     
         mabelasic@jonesday.com;
  
     (2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup    
         Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,    
         Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:    
         peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of    
         Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il    
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;   
    
     (3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth    
         Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-   
         5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or    
         Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park    
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:    
         212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;
         and   

     (4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington    
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,    
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W.    
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005; and William P.    
Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th    
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-   
337-8090, E-mail: wpb@ftllaw.com.


UPS INC: Cal. Appeals Court Upholds ADA Violations Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ruling of
Judge Thelton Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California that Atlanta-based UPS Inc.
violated anti-discrimination laws by automatically barring the
deaf and hearing-impaired from driving parcel delivery trucks,
The Sentinel reports.

In 2004, Judge Henderson ruled that Atlanta-based UPS Inc.
violates anti-discrimination laws by barring the deaf and
hearing-impaired from driving parcel delivery trucks, which
according to him was in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  It ordered the company to change its policies
within 30 days (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2004).

Thereafter, he stayed his own ruling that UPS must give hearing-
impaired workers the same employment opportunities as others to
become truck drivers so UPS could appeal to the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 17, 2004).

On appeal, UPS maintained its hiring practice was a safety issue
and it was not discriminating and strongly disagrees with the
court's ruling, according to company spokesman Norman Black.

The appeals court, however, said UPS had no right to
automatically disqualify deaf or hearing-impaired drivers.

"While UPS offered anecdotal testimony involving situations
where a driver avoided an accident because he or she heard a
warning sound, the company ... failed to show that those
accidents would not also have been avoided by a deaf driver who
was compensated for his or her loss of hearing by, for example,
adapting modified driving techniques or using compensatory
devices such as backing cameras or additional mirrors," Judge
Marsha Berzon wrote for a three-judge panel of the appeals
court.

The Disability Rights Advocates filed the suit, alleging that
the company routinely precluded deaf employees from accessing
workplace information, denied opportunities for promotion and
exposed them to unsafe conditions.

UPS agreed to settle the lawsuit for $10 million, under which,
deaf employees will get full access to workplace safety
materials and promotion opportunities.

Further, the company agreed to create a system to track
promotions and provide text telephones and vibrating pagers to
alert deaf employees to emergency evacuations.

The company also agreed to make sure that deaf employees and job
applicants have access to certified interpreters.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys would get $4.1 million of the settlement and UPS would
also set aside $100,000 for a monitoring program.

That settlement resolved all issues in the case except the
truck-driving dispute.

The suit is "Bates v. UPS Inc., Case No. 04-17295."


VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH: Faces "Reverse" Race Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Commonwealth University is a defendant in a purported
"reverse" racial discrimination class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia over its
exclusion a high school student from its minority journalism
program.

The suit was filed by the Center for Individual Rights on behalf
of the parents of Emily Smith, a student of Monacan High School
in Chesterfield County, Virginia.  The student's parents are
Steven and Jane Smith.

According to the suit, Ms. Smith, 15, was accepted last spring
to the Urban Journalism Workshop at VCU, but a week later, she
was rejected after program sponsors learned she was white.  

Besides VCU other defendants in the suit include:

      -- Dow Jones Newspaper Fund,
      -- Media General, Inc.,
      -- Bonnie Davis,
      -- Robert D. Holsworth,
      -- June Nicholson,
      -- Richard J. Levine,
      -- Barbara Martinez,
      -- Thomas W. Mcguirl,
      -- Richard S. Holden and
      -- Thomas A. Silvestri

In particular, the suit alleges that the program violates the
right of non-minority individuals to equal protection under the
laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, the program illegally discriminates on the basis of
their race in violation of federal law, specifically sections
1981, 1983 and 2000d, et. seq. of The Public Health and Welfare
Code.

The defendants, according to the complaint, conspired to operate
the program in a racially exclusive fashion.  Specifically, they
conspired, and each of them acted in furtherance of the
conspiracy, to limit student participation to the following
groups:

      -- African-American,
      -- Asian/Pacific Islander,
      -- Hispanic or
      -- American Indian/Alaskan Native.

As a result of discriminatory refusal to admit Ms. Smith to the
workshop, she has suffered damages, including lost time,
diminished educational opportunities and attainment, and
emotional distress.

The Center for Individual Rights is seeking to enjoin the
defendants from continuing to exclude Caucasian students from
these programs.  They claim in the suit that defendants acted in
gross disregard of Ms. Smith's rights, and, accordingly, an
award of punitive damages is appropriate.

The minority-only summer journalism workshop is offered at more
than two-dozen campuses across the country.  

The complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?12f3

For more details, contact:

     (1) Elliot Bender, 6 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia
         23220, Phone: (804) 648-8000; and  
  
     (2) Michael E. Rosman and Michelle A. Scott of Center for
         Individual Rights, 1233 20th Street, NW, Ste. 300,
         Washington, D.C. 20036, Phone: (202) 833-8400, Web
         site: http://www.cir-usa.org/.


WAL-MART STORES: Delivers Defense in Pennsylvania Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. had completed its defense in a class action
filed by workers in Pennsylvania, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.  

Early this month, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
Judge Mark Bernstein heard testimonies in a lawsuit filed by
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. employees alleging the store denied them
meal and rest breaks, as well as overtime pay (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 6, 2006).

As the retailer wrapped up its defense, Rodney Bridgers, a
lawyer for two ex-employees suing the company, asked Mr.
Peterson if missed breaks and lunches "were a chronic problem"
that Wal-Mart ignored.  Coleman Peterson, Wal-Mart executive
vice president for personnel issues until 2004, denied the
accusations.

Judge Bernstein certified a class on Jan. 16 after seeing
routine skipping of breaks and non-payment of extra work in Wal-
Mart's computer records (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).
That time, the suit is estimated to could cover nearly 150,000
current and former employees.  The class is now being pursued on
behalf of 186,000 workers.

The employees are represented by attorney Michael Donovan, of
Donovan Searles, 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-732-6067, Fax:
215-732-8060.

Representing Wal-Mart is Brian P. Flaherty of Wolf, Block,
Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2097 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone:
215-977-2000, Telecopier: 215-977-2334.


WORLDCOM INC: GSC's Motion to Revoke Opt-Out Decision Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote denied as untimely GSC Partners'
request that the court revoke its prior request for exclusion
from the class action brought against defendants related to
WorldCom Inc.

The notice of the class action was mailed in December to the
class certified on Oct. 24, 2003.  It set an opt-out deadline of
Feb. 20, 2004.  GSC opted out on Feb. 19, 2004.

Afterwards, many individuals and entities filed individual
actions.  Those filed in state court were removed by defendants
and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In early February 2004, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit suspended the close of the opt-
out period pending a ruling on an appeal filed by Individual
Actions seeking a remand to state court.

On May 10, 2004, Citigroup defendants settled for $2.575
billion, subject to reduction based on the level of opt outs
from the class.  Following the Second Circuit's affirmance of
the District Court's opinion on the remand issues, the opt-out
deadline from the class action was reset for Sept. 1, 2004.  

A copy of the Court Order is available for free at:

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1348  

The litigation -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com/-- is a   
consolidated, certified class action pending in the Southern  
District of New York before District Court Judge Denise L.
Cote.  It is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified
class of all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired
publicly traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999
through and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured
thereby.  

                         Lead Plaintiff  

On Aug. 15, 2002, Judge Cote appointed the Comptroller of the  
State of New York, the sole Trustee of the New York State Common  
Retirement Fund, which is the nation's second-largest public  
pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff in the WorldCom  
Securities Litigation and approved lead plaintiff's selection of  
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &  
Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.  Fresno County  
Employees Retirement Association, the County of Fresno,  
California and HGK Asset Management are additional named  
plaintiffs and class representatives.

The consolidated complaint of the lead plaintiff was filed in  
the fall of 2002, and updated in August 2003 and in December  
2003.

On Nov. 7, 2002, Judge Cote ordered the parties to participate  
in settlement negotiations under the supervision of Magistrate  
Judge Michael H. Dolinger.  In the fall of 2003, the court  
invited the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court  
Judge, to assist in oversight of the settlement discussions.

Judge Cote certified the lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 24,  
2003.   

                           Defendants

The director defendants were: Bernard J. Ebbers, former  
president, CEO; Scott D. Sullivan, former CFO; James C. Allen,  
former member of the audit committee; Judith Areen, former  
member of the audit committee; Carl J. Aycock; Max E. Bobbitt,  
former chairman of the audit committee; Francesco Galesi, former  
member of the audit committee; Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.;  
Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., former chairman of compensation  
committee; Gordon S. Macklin; John A. Porter; Bert C. Roberts,  
Jr., former chairman; John W. Sidgmore, former vice chairman;  
and Lawrence C. Tucker,  

Other individual defendants were: David F. Myers, controller and  
senior vice president; Buford Yates, Jr., director of General  
Accounting; and Arthur Andersen LLP.  

Underwriter defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Salomon  
Brothers International Limited; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P.  
Morgan Securities, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd.; Banc of  
America Securities LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (n/k/a  
Deutsche Bank Alex Brown Inc.; Chase Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P.  
Morgan Securities, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Blaylock &  
Partners, L.P.; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; Goldman, Sachs  
& Co.; UBS Warburg LLC; ABN/AMRO Inc.; Utendahl Capital; Tokyo-
Mitsubishi International plc; Westdeutsche Landesbank;  
Girozentrale (n/k/a WestLB AG); BNP Paribas Securities Corp.;  
Caboto Holding SIM S.p.A.; Fleet Securities, Inc.; Mizuho  
International plc.  

The Salomon defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., as  
employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International  
Limited; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at  
Salomon; Citigroup, Inc., corporate parent of Salomon.

WorldCom, Inc. -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- was not a   
defendant because on July 21, 2002, it filed for bankruptcy  
protection.  The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of  
New York confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr.  
20, 2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11  
protection as MCI, Inc.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, announces that a
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. from Feb. 19, 2004
through Mar. 24, 2006.

The complaint charges Encysive and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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:

      -- that stride tests involving Thelin failed to
         demonstrate a statistically significant advantage over
         Bosentan, another drug used to treat pulmonary arterial
         hypertension;

      -- that, in order to portray Thelin's supposed
         superiority, defendants manipulated the stride tests to
         achieve statistically significant results;

      -- that defendants' claims regarding the potential market
         for Thelin were based upon overinflated patient
         numbers;

      -- that, as a result of the defendants' manipulations,
         U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for Thelin
         would not be forthcoming because the FDA would require
         additional clinical trials before approving the drug;
         and

      -- as a result of the above, the company's statements
         concerning Thelin were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On Mar. 24, 2006, after the market closed, Encysive stunned
investors when the company announced that, contrary to its
previous statements concerning the bright future of Thelin, the
company's new drug for the treatment of PAH, the approvable
letter which it received from the FDA requested additional
information concerning Thelin, including a request for
additional clinical trial work.

On this news, shares of Encysive plummeted $4.48, or 49.3
percent, to close, on Mar. 27, 2006, at $4.60 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On July 24, 2006, after the market closed, Encysive announced
that one issue raised in the FDA's March 2006 approvable letter
concerning Thelin remained unresolved.

On this news, shares of Encysive sank an additional $2.49, or
40.3 percent, to close, on July 25, 2006, at $3.69 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Nov. 27,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 and 1-610-667-
7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


TVIA INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Oct. 6, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against TVIA, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Aug. 8, 2006 through Sept. 27, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Dec. 5,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, Phone: (405) 235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *