CAR_Public/070109.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 6

                            Headlines

ALASKA: High Court Sides With State in Suit Over COLA Payments
AMERICAN HONDA: Odometer Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 2007
ARIZONA: Judge Refuses to Delay Mini-Trial in "Flores" Case
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Jan. Hearing Set for Holocaust Suit Deal
AT&T INC: Faces New Ill. Lawsuit Over "Hidden Connection Fees"

BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit for Refusing to Pay Baby's "Treatment"
CANADA: Woman Files Lawsuit Over Cold War "Brainwashing"
CANADA: Lake Cowichan Man Plans to Sue Over Seal Coating of Road
CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge, Jeeps for Faulty ABS, Traction Control
CONMED CORP: Former Sales Reps Ask to Certify N.Y. ERISA Suit

CONNECTICUT: Greenwich Police's Discrimination Lawsuit Revised
DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls Washers, Compressors for Injury Risks
ELI LILLY: Still Faces Health Insurers' Litigation Over Zyprexa
FARMERS INSURANCE: FLSA Suit Remanded to Minn. County Court
FORD MOTOR: Keller Named Interim Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Suit

GREYSTONE & CO: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for TCPA Suit Settlement
HERCULES INC: April 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Pa. ERISA Suit
IDAHO: Local Group Considers Filing Lawsuit Over Property Taxes
IMERGENT INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
IOWA: High Court Rules Out Bail for Convicted Sex Offenders

IOWA: Court Finds Red Light Cameras in Violation of State Law
JACUZZI INC: Faces Suit Over Designer Series Whirlpool Baths
MURPHY OIL: $330M Oil Spill Deal Gets Favorable Court Review
NITROUS OXIDE: Recalls Bursting NOS Kits for Snowmobiles, ATVs
NS GROUP: Faces Lawsuit in Ky. Over PI Acquisition Merger

OAK HOLLOW: President, Board Members Still Face Homeowners' Suit
OKLAHOMA: District Court Ruling in Kids' Medicaid Suit Reversed
PRESCOLITE INC: Recalls Light Fixtures to Replace Trim Ring
ROBERT G. MICHAELS: April 23 Hearing Set for TCPA Suit Agreement
TELE-COMMUNICATIONS INC: Feb. 1 Hearing Set for $52M Settlement

TERMINIX INTL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Undelivered Termite Services
TRAFIGURA: Faces U.K. Lawsuit Over Toxic Waste Dumped in Africa
UNI-MARTS: Local Operators Allege Fraud, Misrepresentation
UNITED STATES: Guatemalan Refugees May Sue to Avoid Deportation
UNITED STATES: Veterans' Home Loans Guarantee Lawsuit Dismissed

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Consumer Suits in Mo., Ill. State Courts

* ACE USA Counsel Talks on Securities Class Suit Risk Management


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces N.Y. Suit Filing


                            *********


ALASKA: High Court Sides With State in Suit Over COLA Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska Supreme Court recently issued a decision that will
save the state from paying millions of dollars of unanticipated
cost-of-living-allowance payments to state retirees living
outside Alaska, according to SitNews.

In 2003, three participants in the retirement systems filed a
class action on behalf of a class of approximately 10,000
nonresident retirees alleging that class members were entitled
to receive a 10% COLA under the either Teacher Retirement System
(TRS)/Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS).

Plaintiffs argued that allowing resident retirees to claim the
COLA violated their right to equal protection by penalizing non-
resident retirees for living out-of-state and thus infringing on
their right to travel.

The lead plaintiff, who had retired to Hawaii, argued that since
island had a higher cost of living than Alaska, he had the same
right to COLA payments from Alaska's retirement system as a
retiree who lived in the state.

However, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs'
claims.  The court found that the state had a legitimate
interest in encouraging retirees to stay in the state.

Specifically, the court found that the state had a legitimate
interest in providing PERS and TRS COLA payments to encourage
retired state employees to remain in the state.  

It also ruled that providing these payments does not
substantially infringe upon the rights of retirees who choose to
live elsewhere.

Plaintiffs had also claimed that they were entitled to receive
back payments that would have multiplied the state's financial
liability had the court ruled in their favor on this issue.

According to Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg, had the non-
resident plaintiffs prevailed the resulting cost in implementing
such an outcome would have created an additional, unplanned
burden to the state's retirement system.

The decision does not affect the right of resident retirees to
continue to receive their ten-percent COLA though.

For more details on the court's decision in "Public Employees'
Retirement System v. Gallant, Supreme Court Nos. S-11926/11945,"
visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1830.


AMERICAN HONDA: Odometer Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of about 6 million cars made by American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc. are being notified of a proposed settlement for certain
class actions involving inaccurate or otherwise faulty
odometers, WSB-TV 2 reports.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
given preliminary approval to the settlement of two consolidated
class actions against American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Honda Motor
Co., the Nippon Seiki Co. and New Sabina Industries Inc. over
faulty odometers, according to Mary Alice Robbins of The Texas
Lawyer (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006).  A final
settlement hearing is set May 2007.

The suits, which allege that odometers on Honda vehicles
inflated the number of miles actually driven, are:

      -- "Karen Vaughn, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.,
         et al.," and

      -- "Sharon McQuiston, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co.
         Inc., et al."

"Vaughn" was filed on April 13, 2004.  Odometer designers Nippon
Seiki and New Sabina were added as defendants in the case in
October 2005.  As alleged in the first amended complaint in
"Vaughn," odometer defects in Honda Odysseys results to
overstatement of mileage.

"McQuiston" was filed on June 23, 2006.  It alleges odometer
defects in all other Honda and Acura vehicles purchased or
leased between April 13, 2002, and Nov. 7.

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaints that the odometers on
approximately 6 million Honda and Acura vehicles misstated the
actual miles driven by between 2 percent and 4 percent.

They alleged that the odometer defects deprived car owners of
the full benefit of the warranties on their vehicles and caused
consumers who leased Honda vehicles to pay for excessive
mileage.

In general, the complaints in both class actions alleged that
the defendants violated the federal prohibition against odometer
tampering, as set forth in Rule 42 of the U.S. Civil Code
Sections 32703(1)-(2) and 32710.

District Judge John Ward granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Nov. 7, 2006.  The agreement is expected to
benefit up to 6 million consumers.  Lawyers for the class could
receive up to $9.5 million in fees.

The settlement covers persons who bought or leased Honda or
Acura vehicles in the U.S., Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands between April 13, 2002, and Nov. 7, 2006.  

Under the agreement, consumers who incurred out-of-pocket
expenses as a result of the odometer defects -- either because
they had to pay for repairs that should have been covered by
warranties or were charged for excessive mileage on leased
vehicles -- can apply for reimbursement.

While acknowledging no wrongdoing in the settlement agreement,
company said in a press statement that in the interest of
customer satisfaction, it has voluntarily agreed to expand by 5
percent its mileage-based agreements.  

The expanded agreements will now include warranties, lease
mileage-based limitations and extended vehicle service contracts
for certain 2002 through 2006 Honda and Acura vehicles and some
of the 2007 Honda Fit models, according to the statement.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Vaughn] Jay Kutchka of Jones Jackson & Moll, PLC, P.O.
         Box 2023, Fort Smith, AR 72902, Phone: 479/782-7203,
         Fax: 479/782-9460, E-mail: jkutchka@jjmlaw.com;

     (2) [McQuiston] James Andrew Holmes of Wellborn Houston
         Adkison Mann Sadler & Hill, P.O. Box 1109, Henderson,
         TX 75653-1109, Phone: 903/657-8544, Fax: 903/657-7227,
         E-mail: jh@wellbornhouston.com;

     (3) [American Honda] Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III of Brown
         McCarroll, Longview, 1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220, P.O.
         Box 3999, Longview, TX 75606-3999, Phone: 903/236-9800,
         Fax: 19032368787, E-mail: ccapshaw@mailbmc.com; or

     (4) Visit: http://www.hondaodometerclassaction.com.


ARIZONA: Judge Refuses to Delay Mini-Trial in "Flores" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona refused to delay a scheduled mini-trial this
week in the class action "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of,
et al.," KVOA.com reports.

The case is a 15-year-old political and legal dispute over
adequacy of Arizona school programs for students learning the
English language.

The judge refusal to delay was made known to the lawyers for
class-action plaintiffs, the state, Republican legislative
leaders and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne
at a Jan. 5 court hearing.

The legislative leaders and Supt. Horne had asked Judge Collins
to postpone the hearing, reasoning that they need more time to
prepare, since the judge had ruled that the plaintiffs could
present evidence on circumstances in numerous school districts,
not just Nogales Unified School District.  

Previously, Judge Collins scheduled a Jan. 9 to 12, 2007 hearing
to determine whether the state has already improved its program
for students learning the English language, according to KVOA
Tucson (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2006).

The hearing is a review of his previous rulings on the issue
after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth vacated
his orders that found the state in contempt for missing a
deadline to improve the program.  

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  

The order was part of a ruling in the class action, which was
originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified students
and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that
guarantees equal opportunities in education.  The state was
fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways
to improve the program.  

The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million
in total fines.  The fines were stopped when the latest version
of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning
programs was passed into law in March.

In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still doesn't
adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out
the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the
basis for funding that it does provide.

The Ninth Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San
Francisco on July 25, 2006.  In August, it vacated orders by
Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public
schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the
general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the
state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes
in education funding and related circumstances since the
original 2000 ruling.

The August ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly
on the latest law regarding the program.  

The suit is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case
No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.   

Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose
A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix,
AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-
734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
jcardenas@lrlaw.com.


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Jan. Hearing Set for Holocaust Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 31, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. for
the settlement of the class action, "In re: Assicurazioni
Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, No 1374."

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 15D of the U.S. Court at
500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, USA.  Claims filing
deadline is March 31, 2007.  Claims form must be submitted to:

    Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A.
    Policy Information Center
    Piazza Duca Degli Abruzzi, 2
    34132 Trieste, Italy

Any questions regarding completion of Claim Forms should be
directed by e-mail to: pic@generali.com.

Deadline for exclusion and filing of objection is Jan. 15, 2007.  
Requests must be submitted to:

    Generali Holocaust Insurance Litigation
    C/O A.B. Data, Ltd.
    Notice Administrator
    P.O. Box 170200
    Milwaukee, WI 53217
    USA

                   Summary of the Litigation

The class action alleges, among other things, that: (a) Generali
(and its related companies) withheld the value and/or proceeds
of insurance policies sold to the Holocaust era victims prior to
and during the Holocaust era; and (b) after the Holocaust,
Generali refused to pay on the policies, did not disclose the
nature and scope of its unpaid policies, and refused to identify
or disgorge the value or proceeds of such policies.

The Court decided that everyone who fits the following
description is a Class member:

All persons worldwide who:

     (1) were:
         -- Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and
         -- during the Class Period were:

        * named in or were parties to any Insurance Policies as
          defined infra, including, but not limited to, the
          insureds, beneficiaries and owners under such
          Insurance Policies; or

        * persons who succeeded to their rights by operation of
          law or otherwise, including but not limited to heirs,
          distributees, legatees, and the like; or

     (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any
         one or more of the foregoing persons (including but not
         limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the
         like), whether or not such claimants in this clause (2)
         are Holocaust Victims; provided however that "Generali
         Settlement Class" and "Releasors" shall not include
         persons:

         * who timely elect to be excluded from the "Generali
           Settlement Class"; or
        
         * who for any reason previously released any one or
           more of the Generali Group from liability in respect
           to the claims being compromised (whether such
           previous release was provided in connection with
           receiving compensation in respect of an Insurance
           Policy or for any other reason).

The Class Period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945.  A
"Holocaust Victim" means any person who was persecuted by the
Nazis (or their allies or by persons acting in concert with them
or pursuant to their direction) at any time on account of
religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or political
views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals,
and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Important terms of the proposed Settlement are:

     * Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under
       valuation and eligibility standards established by The
       International Commission On Holocaust Era Insurance
       Claims (ICHEIC), including all pending and unpaid claims         
       already received by ICHEIC;

     * Generali will process and fund new Claim Forms made as a
       result of this Notice that are postmarked on or before
       March 31, 2007;

     * Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court
       supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used
       in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the
       Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not identical)
       to the criteria used in processing and paying claims
       through ICHEIC.  Generali will bear the cost for
       reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court
       supervision;

     * Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula
       that takes into consideration amounts due on policies,
       currency conversion and interest, among other factors.  
       The minimum payment for any valid claim is $1,000;

     * Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era
       insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will be
       dismissed with prejudice;

     * Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four    
       Named Plaintiffs up to $5,000, as the Court may award;

     * Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the payment
       thereof will not diminish the compensation available to
       Class Members with valid Claim Forms.  At the Settlement
       Hearing, Class Counsel will apply to the Court for
       payment of fees and reimbursement of costs in the amount
       of $3,250,000.


AT&T INC: Faces New Ill. Lawsuit Over "Hidden Connection Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belleville lawyer Christopher Cueto initiated a new class action
against AT&T (Illinois Bell) in St. Clair County Circuit Court
over "hidden fees" charged for connecting local calls from its
directory assistance service, the Madison County Record reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of Linda Cassin, claims the phone
company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  It asserts the extra charge is not
included in the $1.25 fee charged to obtain a number from
directory assistance.

Ms. Cassin claims the phone company charged 12 cents per minute
for phone calls to local toll numbers when those calls had been
connected by a directory assistance operator.

According to the complaint, "Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
customers using Directory Assistance to obtain local toll
numbers are specifically informed that he or she would be
connected 'at no charge' when offered the option to immediately
connect to the recently obtained local toll number."

The suit also claims the company did not distinguish local toll
calls from other types of calls when offering to connect
customers using directory assistance.

"Despite offering directly conflicting information to the
customer, Illinois Bell Telephone Co....charges customers using
Directory Assistance a fee for connecting to a local toll
number," the complaint states.

Ms. Cassin and members of the class seek damages of less than
$74,999 individually.

The suit seeks to discover whether the company:

     -- Omitted, suppressed and/or concealed material facts
        concerning fees and charges;

     -- Engaged in marketing and promotional activities which
        were likely designed to conceal the fact that connecting
        to a local call cost 12 cents per minute;

     -- Knowingly or intentionally engaged in deceitful or
        misleading practices;

     -- Received authorization from customers when the policy of
        connecting to phone numbers "at no charge" changed to
        connecting toll calls at 12 cents per minute;

     -- Would have availed themselves to the connection service
        had they been informed individually about the 12 cents
        per minute charge before connecting to local toll calls;
        and

     -- By charging for connecting customers to numbers obtained
        from directory assistance, engaged in unfair acts or
        practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
        Act.

Plaintiffs' lawyer is Christopher F. Cueto, 7110 W. Main Street
Belleville, IL 62223-3022, Phone: (618) 277-1554, Fax: (618)
277-0962.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit for Refusing to Pay Baby's "Treatment"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida faces a purported class
action filed by a plantation couple over the insurer's refusal
to pay for specific treatment for their 17-month-old son,
according to Click10.com.

Logan Wealcatch, suffered from severe plagiocephaly, a deformity
or flattening of the head.  A skullcap or helmet-like device is
considered the most effective way to treat this condition, yet
the insurance company said it would not pay for the device.

According to Alison Wealcatch, Logan's mother, Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Florida denied the claim because it feels the
device is for cosmetic reasons.

Helping the family in filing the suit is Coral Gables attorney
David Durkee, who stated that they believe there is research
that shows this is an effective treatment for the condition the
young Wealcatch is suffering.

For more details, contact C. David Durkee of Roberts, Terry &
Durkee, Public Attorney, Suite 700, Grove Plaza, 2900 Middle
Street (Coconut Grove) Miami, FL 33133, Phone: 305-442-1700, Web
site: http://www.sunshinestatetriallawyers.com.


CANADA: Woman Files Lawsuit Over Cold War "Brainwashing"
--------------------------------------------------------
A Wednesday hearing in Quebec is set for approving a purported
class action against the Canadian government over Cold War-era
brainwashing experiments carried out on a woman and hundreds of
other patients, The Canadian Press reports.

According to Janine Huard, more than five decades ago, she
checked in for psychiatric treatment at McGill University's
Allan Memorial Institute for a mild post-partum depression that
she suffered.  

Ms. Huard claims that she was used as a "guinea pig" at the
hospital, receiving for a period of more than a decade a series
of massive electroshocks and fed a large amount of experimental
pills.

Mrs. Huard, 78, says she was drugged and subjected to so-called
"depatterning," a technique in which repetitive recordings were
played in her ear for weeks on end, one of them telling her she
was of no use to her family.  Mrs. Huard said the ordeal left
her very sick.

Dr. Ewen Cameron, a doctor who pioneered "psychic driving," a
technique by which he believed he could erase the memories of
patients and rebuild their psyches without psychiatric defect,
allegedly carried out the experiments.

Dr. Cameron was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency to
experiment with mind control techniques beginning in 1950.  Both
the CIA and the Canadian government jointly funded the McGill
experiments.  He was director of the institute until 1964.  Dr.
Cameron is accused of conducting a range of experiments, often
without the knowledge or permission of patients.

The suit is "Janine Huard v. Attorney General of Canada."


CANADA: Lake Cowichan Man Plans to Sue Over Seal Coating of Road
----------------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Lake Cowichan, Vancouver is building up a class
action against the provincial government for damages from the
seal coating of Highway 18, according to the Lake Cowichan
Gazette.

Girard Burg filed his first claim in September, but it was
rejected.  He is pursuing the case, claiming the government did
not do the seal coating at Highway 18 and a portion of the
Youbou Highway properly, resulting to damages to vehicles.  Mr.
Burg said he has lost headlights to flying rocks and also had
damage to his windshield.

Mr. Burg is asking people to sign up a petition, and urges
anyone who wants to join him to call 749-6737.


CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge, Jeeps for Faulty ABS, Traction Control
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler is recalling about 62,400 2007 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep
vehicles with braking systems that may fail to work to re-
program the system Electronic Control Unit.

The recall includes 62,369 model-year 2007:

     -- Chrysler Sebring,
     -- Chrysler 300,
     -- Jeep Commander,
     -- Jeep Compass,
     -- Jeep Grand Cherokee,
     -- Jeep Liberty,
     -- Jeep Wrangler,
     -- Dodge Nitro,
     -- Dodge Magnum,
     -- Dodge Charger and
     -- Dodge Caliber

In recalled vehicles, instrument panel warning lamps may
illuminate and be followed by loss of the anti-lock brake
system, traction control and speedometer functions.

While the problem could result in a loss of control, no
accidents or injuries have been reported.

Owners will be notified in February 2007.  Consumers who
experience the faulty warning lamp illumination are advised to
take their vehicle to a certified dealer for inspection.


CONMED CORP: Former Sales Reps Ask to Certify N.Y. ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of former sales representatives of CONMED Corp.'s
operating unit, CONMED Linvatec, is seeking to certify a class
of all former sales representatives terminated in March 2003 who
did not receive severance from the company.

On April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint filed in
the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York on
behalf of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

The complaint alleges that the former sales representatives were
entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when CONMED
Linvatec restructured its distribution channels.  

The company believes that the maximum exposure related to this
complaint is $2.5 to $3.0 million, not including any interest,
fees or costs that might be awarded if the five named plaintiffs
were to prevail on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all
members of the purported class.

The company said CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance
during the 2003 restructuring because the former sales
representatives were offered sales positions with CONMED
Linvatec's new manufacturer's representatives.  Other than three
of the five named plaintiffs in the class action, nearly all of
CONMED Linvatec's former sales representatives accepted such
positions.

Four of the named plaintiffs submitted formal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance, and said
claims were forwarded to the Plan Administrator for review and
action.  By letters dated June 9, 2006, the Plan Administrator
denied the claims.  Although the four named plaintiffs were able
to appeal the initial decision of the Plan Administrator, none
of the plaintiffs submitted appeals.

On June 5, 2006, CONMED filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion, which was
submitted for decision on July 11, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a class of all former sales representatives terminated
in March 2003 who did not receive severance.

The suit is "Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case
No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD,"filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York under Judge Neal P. McCurn
with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian
O'Neil Smith of Moukawsher, Walsh Law Firm, 21 Oak Street, Suite
209, Hartford, CT 06106, US, Phone: 860-278-7003 and 860-278-
7005, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com and
ismith@mwlawgroup.com.


CONNECTICUT: Greenwich Police's Discrimination Lawsuit Revised
--------------------------------------------------------------
Changes have been made to the lawsuit filed by seven Greenwich
police who accused their department of racial discrimination,
the Greenwich Post reports.

In the revised suit, which was filed on Dec. 7, Officer Anthony
Cameron was added as a plaintiff.  The amended complaint alleges
that Officer Cameron like other officers was the subject of
discrimination by superior officers and was treated differently
than his white colleagues.

"Early in his career, Officer Cameron was not given comparable
opportunities to attend training and courses as similarly
situated white police officers," the suit alleges. "This has
resulted in his having less opportunities for advancement and
appointment to specialized units."

The suit also charges Officer Cameron was given worse
assignments than white officers and transferred out of both the
Marine Division and a backcountry patrol sector without
explanation and replaced both times with a white officer with
less training.

Claims of retaliation for filing the suit are made in the
revised lawsuit.  It alleges the town punished the officers by
passing them over for assignment to specialized police units as
well as subjecting them "to intense scrutiny and unfair and
selective discipline in retaliation for the filing of this
complaint."

Changes were also made to the original suit's claims of racial
profiling in the town.  Originally it was alleged in the suit
that the officers had all "observed continuous and systematic
racial profiling that was either overtly perpetrated or tacitly
condoned" by the town.  That, plus claims that people of color
were pulled over and arrested with greater frequency than
whites, was deleted from the revised suit.

A specific allegation against Chief Walters remains in the suit.
That allegation says that before he became chief, Chief Walters
pulled over a Mercedes driven by a black man wearing a backwards
baseball cap even though no moving violations had been
committed.

In May 2006, seven members of the Greenwich Police Department
filed the purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut in June (Class Action Reporter, June
14, 2006).

The main allegation in the suit is that the department has
"systematically and continuously discriminated" against members
of racial and ethnic minorities in its hiring and promotional
practices.   

Plaintiffs in the suit include five African-American and two
Hispanics, who all make up roughly half the African-Americans
and Hispanics in the department and nearly 5 percent of its work
force.  Plaintiffs in the suit, who are represented by attorney
Lewis Chimes, includes Terral Hardy, John Rodriguez, Scott  
Johnson, Carlos Franco, John Woodward, Robert Brown, and,  
Vincent O'Banner.

In August 2006, Mr. Chimes offered to seek arbitration before a
federal judge (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2006).  The
mediation is non-binding and if an agreement is not reached
through it, the two sides will then go to court.  The suit is
set to go to mediation at the end of the month.

The suit is "Hardy et al. v. Greenwich, Case No. 3:06-cv-00833-
WWE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Warren W. Eginton.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Lewis H. Chimes of Garrison
Levin-Epstein Chimes & Richardson, 405 Orange St., New Haven, CT
06511, Phone: 203-777-4425, E-mail: lchimes@garrisonlaw.com.


DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls Washers, Compressors for Injury Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
DeVilbiss Air Power Co., of Jackson, Tennessee, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 620,000 pressure washers and 72,000 air compressors.

The pressure washers and air compressors have pneumatic tires
with plastic hubs that can burst, posing a laceration or
fracture hazard to consumers.

DeVilbiss has received 26 reports of injuries including
fractures, lacerations and bruises.

The recalled pressure washers and air compressors were sold
under the following brands and model numbers:


                   Brand         Model #              Mfg Dates

Pressure washers   Delta         DTH2450,             1/27/04
                                 DTH2450-1,           through  
                                 D2750H,              8/3/05     
                                 D2400H-2,
                                 D2400H-3,
                                 D2700K-1,
                                 DTT2450

                   Excell        XR2750-1,             1/26/04
                                 XR2600,               through
                                 XR2600-1,             11/2/05
                                 XR2600-2,
                                 XR2500-1
  
                   Porter-Cable  PCV2250-2,             6/4/04
                                 PC2525SP-1,            through
                                 PCE1700-3,             10/24/05   
                                 PCH2401-1,
                                 PCK3030SP-1,
                                 PCV2500,
                                 PCH2800C,
                                 PCE1700-2,
                                 PCH2425-2
  
                   Pressure-Wave PWH2500,               1/6/05
                                 PWH2500K               through
                                                        10/31/05

                   Water Driver  WHAB2627-1             6/11/04-
                                                        7/19/05

Air Compressors    Porter-Cable  CFFR350B-1,            12/16/04
                                 C3151-1,               to
                                 C3551-1,               05/05/06
                                 PTA51
                                 Service Kit

On the pressure washers, the brand, model number and
manufacturing date are located on the name plate on the rear of
the engine base and on the air compressors they are located on
the front of the motor housing.  Only pressure washers and
compressors with pneumatic tires with plastic tire hubs are
affected; pressure washers and compressors with solid tires or
metal tire hubs are not affected.

These recalled pressure washers and air compressors were
manufactured in the U.S.  The pressure washers were sold at home
centers and hardware stores nationwide from January 2004 through
November 2005 for between $300 and $1,400.  The air compressors
were sold at home center and hardware stores nationwide between
December 2004 and October 2006 for between $300 and $500.

Pictures of the recalled pressure washers and air compressors:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07060a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07060b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these products immediately
and contact DeVilbiss to obtain the location of the nearest
service center to receive a free replacement of the tires.

For additional information, contact DeVilbiss toll-free at (866)
323-9867 between 8 a.m. and 5p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's website: http://www.devap.com.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces Health Insurers' Litigation Over Zyprexa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in New York on behalf of private health insurers over the
drug Zyprexa, according to a report by Bloomberg.

These insurers accuse the company of violating racketeering laws
by bankrolling nonprofit groups and paying doctors, consultants
and medical marketing companies to help promote Zyprexa as a
treatment for a variety of unapproved illnesses and downplay the
medicine's side effects.

The suit seeks to force the company to pay triple damages for
all costs related to Zyprexa, for bipolar and schizophrenic
patients as well as for those prescribed the drug for unapproved
uses.

The suit is one of many remaining that are mostly consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
under the caption, "In Re: Zyprexa Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 04-1596."

The suit is "In re: Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-md-01596-JBW-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein,
with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss, LLP, One William
         Street, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-584-0700, Fax:
         212-584-0799, E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com;

     (2) David H. Abney, II of The Morgan Law Firm, 175 East
         Main Street, Suite 300, Lexington, KY 40507, Phone:
         859-255-1866, Fax: 859-255-4530;

     (3) Rachel Beth Abram of Hersh and Hersh, 601 Van Ness,
         Avenue, Suite 2080, San Francisco, CA 94102-6396,
         Phone: (415) 441-5544, Fax: (415) 441-7586, E-mail:
         RABRAMS@HERSHLAW.COM; and

     (4) John G. Allelo of McGlynn, Glisson & Koch, 340 Florida
         Street, P.O. Box 1909, Baton Rouge, 70821, Phone: 225-
         344-3555, Fax: 225-344-3666.

Representing the defendants are Samuel J. Abate, Jr. of McCarter
& English, LLP, 245 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10167, Phone: 212-
609-6800, Fax: 212-609-6921, E-mail: sabate@mccarter.com; and
Jon Berkelhammer of Smith Moore LLP, 300 North Greene Street,
Suite 1400, Post Office Box 21927 (27420), Greensboro, NC 27401,
Phone: (336) 378-5200.


FARMERS INSURANCE: FLSA Suit Remanded to Minn. County Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part as modified,
reversed in part and remanded the suit "Gary J. Milner, et al.
v. Farmers Insurance Exchange."

The suit was filed in Hennepin County District Court (File No.
EM 01-15004).  Plaintiffs in the suit brought a multi-count
class action against the defendant alleging that defendant
failed to pay them and a class of similarly situated employees
overtime compensation pursuant to the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act (MFLSA).  

At the same time, a group of similarly situated employees was
engaged in federal multi-district litigation in Oregon against
defendant based on alleged violations of both the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and the MFLSA.  

The plaintiffs are Minnesota claims representatives employed by
defendants who allege that they were incorrectly labeled as
exempt from the MFLSA and therefore were entitled to back pay
for overtime hours worked.  Plaintiffs in the federal case are
claims representatives from several states, including Minnesota,
who were employed by the defendant, who also claim they were
incorrectly labeled as exempt from both the FLSA and state laws
and therefore are due back pay for overtime hours worked.  

The two cases, which proceeded more or less concurrently and
independently to judgment, had membership that largely
overlapped.  The federal plaintiff group has approximately 229
members and the state court class has 194 members.  Of the 194,
only 25 members were not members of both the federal plaintiff
group and the state plaintiff group.  The Minnesota district
court specifically determined that the decision on appeal
applies only to these 25 Minnesota plaintiffs.

At trial the jury found that plaintiffs, the 25 people to whom
the district court's order applies, did not prove the dollar
value of unpaid hours worked.  But the jury also found that
defendant had violated the MFLSA by misclassifying plaintiffs.  

Following the jury verdict, the district court issued an order
permanently enjoining defendant from misclassifying its claims
representatives and imposing a civil penalty to be paid to the
25 class members.  The district court further decided that
plaintiffs had prevailed at trial and therefore awarded them
attorney fees.

Farmers Insurance Exchange challenged the district court's
denial of its posttrial motions claiming the district court:

     -- erred by not dismissing this case on the ground of res
        judicata;

     -- exceeded its statutory authority by granting injunctive
        relief and awarding civil penalties to plaintiffs; and

     -- abused its discretion in its award of attorney fees to
        plaintiffs.

The appeals court rejected the defendant's argument that the
district court erred by failing to apply res judicata and not
dismissing this case.

Regarding attorney fees, the court wrote:

"Because the case is complex, the issues are interconnected, and
plaintiffs successfully gained some, if not all, requested
relief, the district court's award of 90% of the requested
lodestar value is appropriate.  But because an attorney fees
award that is greater than the lodestar value is appropriate
only in cases of extraordinary success, we conclude that on this
record an enhanced award is inappropriate."

The suit was argued for the plaintiff by Barry G. Reed, Timothy
J. Becker, Anne Regan, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall,
Suite 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402.  

It was argued for the defendant by Lewis A. Remele, Jr., Charles
E. Lundberg, Frederick E. Finch, Bassford Remele, 33 South Sixth
Street, Suite 3800, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707.


FORD MOTOR: Keller Named Interim Co-Lead Counsel in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan has appointed Keller Rohrback
L.L.P. interim co-lead counsel for the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act class action brought on behalf of the
participants and beneficiaries in the Ford Salaried Plan and the
Ford Hourly Plan who held and/or purchased Ford Motor Co. stock
in their Plan accounts between April 15, 2000 to the present.

Magistrate Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P., together
with the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, as Interim Co-
Lead Counsel.  The firm of Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC was
appointed as Interim Liaison Counsel.

Ford Motor Co. and several of its current or former employees
and officers are defendants in two purported class actions filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Keller Rohrback on the Net: http://www.kellerrohrback.com/.

Representing the defendant is Kathleen A. Lang of Dickinson
Wright (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI
48226-3425, Phone: 313-223-3500, Fax: 313-223-3771, E-mail:
klang@dickinsonwright.com.


GREYSTONE & CO: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for TCPA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2007
at 10:30 a.m. for the proposed $35,000 settlement in the matter,
"Clearbrook v. Greystone & Co., Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 06 CH 5307."

The hearing will take place in Room 2308 of the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago,
Illinois 60602.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim form and the
filing of objections towards the settlement is on Jan. 12, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons who on or after March 16,
2001, were sent unsolicited advertising faxes by Greystone or
its employees or agents.

                        Case Background

Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois on behalf of a putative class, plaintiff alleged that
the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA), and state law by sending unsolicited
facsimile advertisements.

For more details, contact Daniel A. Edelman and James O.
Latturner of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South  
LaSalle Street, Phone: 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com and
jlatturner@edcombs.com.


HERCULES INC: April 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Pa. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania will
hold a fairness hearing on April 16, 2007 at 2 p.m. for the
settlement of class actions challenging an amendment to the
Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.

An amendment to the Pension Plan of Hercules Inc. effective Jan.
1, 2002 changed the interest rate used to compute lump sum
pension payments.

The formal class definition is:

"All participants in the Pension Plan of Hercules who:

     -- have accrued credited service under Schedule A or
        Schedule B of the Plan as of Dec. 31, 2004;

     -- were covered by the 51% Partial Cash Payment provision
        of the Plan as of Dec. 31, 2001;

     -- have retired or will retire on or after Jan. 1, 2002;
        and

     -- have received or will elect to receive a 51% Partial
        Cash Payment under the Plan.

Participants who accrued credited service under Schedule C of
the Plan (i.e., employees at locations previously covered by the
BetzDearborn Inc. Employees' Retirement Plan) as of Dec. 31,
2004 are not included in the class to the extent of their
Schedule C credited service.

The hearing will be in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601
Market St., Philadelphia, PA.

                        Case Background

In June 2004 Charles Stepnowski filed a purported class action
(Civil Action No. 04-cv-2296) in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against:

     -- Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Hercules Inc. Finance Committee, and
     -- Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' vice president human
        resources

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of benefits under the
Pension Plan of Hercules Inc., and alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Rule 29 of the U.S.
Civil Code Section 1001 et seq.  Under the Plan, eligible
retirees of the company may opt to receive a single cash payment
of 51% of the present value of their accrued benefit, with the
remaining 49% payable as a monthly annuity.  

In the Stepnowski lawsuit, it is alleged that the company's
adoption in 2002 of a new interest rate assumption used to
determine the 51% cash payment constitutes a breach of fiduciary
duty and a violation of the anti-cutback requirements of ERISA,
the Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the Plan, and that
its communications to employees concerning the new interest rate
assumption constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of additional benefits
under ERISA (as well as costs and attorneys fees), seeks to
compel the company to use an interest rate assumption that is
more favorable to eligible retirees, and seeks to establish a
class comprised of all plan participants who retired (or who
will retire) on or after Dec. 1, 2001.  

By Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 2005, the court denied
without prejudice plaintiff's motion for class certification and
dismissed plaintiff's anti-cutback claim, but allowed
plaintiff's claim for benefits and breach of fiduciary duty to
proceed.  

In December 2005, a virtually identical purported class action
(Civil Action No. 05-6404) was filed in the same court by Samuel
J. Webster, and others, against:

     -- Hercules, Inc.,
     -- The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.,
     -- The Hercules Inc. finance committee, and
     -- Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' vice president human
        resources

In January 2006, the court consolidated the Stepnowski and
Webster lawsuits.  In March 2006, the court certified the
Webster action as a class action.  On Nov. 30, 2006, the parties
signed a settlement agreement, which affects all class members.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval to this settlement.

Counsel will file additional briefs by March 16, 2007 supporting
final approval of the settlement agreement, and the request for
fees, costs and incentive awards.

In "Stepnowski," the plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Alice W. Ballard of Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, PC,
         1616 Walnut St., Suite 2205, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-893-9708, Fax: 215-893-9997, E-mail:
         awballard@awballard.com; and

     (2) Mervin M. Wilf of Mervin M. Wilf, Ltd., One South Broad
         Street, Suite 1630, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-
         568-4842.

In "Webster," the plaintiff is represented by Robert J. Larocca
of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, E-mail:
rlarocca@kohnswift.com.  

Representing the company in both cases are David S. Fryman and
Allison V. Kinsey of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPP,
1735 Market St., 51ST FL., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599, Phone:
215-864-8105 and 215-864-8782, Fax: 215-864-9743, E-mail:
fryman@ballardspahr.com and kinseya@ballardspahr.com.  


IDAHO: Local Group Considers Filing Lawsuit Over Property Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensible Taxation of Property or STOP is planning to file a
purported class action against the State of Idaho in relation to
property taxes, The Bonner County Daily Bee reports.

The Bonner County organization is seeking to overhaul the
state's tax law plans.  Bob Chenault, one of the chief
organizers of STOP said he expects the suit to be filed sometime
in the first quarter of 2007.

Mr. Chenault explains that their ultimate goal is to change the
Idaho Constitution and how property tax is determined and
collected.  Previously, he had unsuccessfully attempted to place
a 1% property tax initiative on the November ballot last year.

Mr. Chenault said their planned suit seeks to get rid of the
"onerous" interpretation of Idaho's statutes by tax commissions
and assessors so there's finally fair and equal treatment, which
as of the moment they are not getting.

Mr. Chenault adds that STOP has already discussed filing the
class action at length with an attorney, and has received a lot
of legal advice from several others.

Furthering their cause, Mr. Chenault also plans to run several
half-page ads in Idaho newspapers announcing STOP's intentions
to file a lawsuit.


IMERGENT INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class action against iMergent,
Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, according to the company's form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On March 8, 2005, Elliott Firestone filed a lawsuit, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, against the
company, certain current and former officers, and current and
former directors.

This suit was followed by several other similar complaints.  The
court ordered that the cases be consolidated, and on Nov. 23,
2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws" against the company, certain
current and former officers, and current and former directors,
together with the former independent registered public
accounting firm for the company, Grant Thornton LLP, as
defendants.  

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of
securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were
responsible for the making of material misleading statements and
omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and
failing to make proper disclosures, which required the company
to restate its financial results.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Although this action was determined by the court to be the
"consolidated action," Hillel Hyman filed a complaint in October
2005 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the company, certain current and former officers,
current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP.  

The group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the
"accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should be
determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as it
properly alleges a class period consistent with timing necessary
to raise a claim based upon the restatement of financial results
announced by the company.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws by the company and Grant Thornton LLP.

On Feb. 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference" the court determined
that the complaint filed by the accounting restatement group
should be substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint.  

On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting
Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff.  The discovery stay imposed
under applicable federal law, which controls the administration
of class actions, remains in place.  There has been no amended
complaint filed to date, according to the company's Nov. 8
regulatory filing.

The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861-
DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) C. Richard Henriksen, Jr. of Henriksen & Henriksen, 320
         S. 500 E., Salt Lake City, UT 84102, Phone: (801) 521-
         4145, E-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com; and

     (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, 830 Third
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: (212) 317-6600, E-
         mail: ipress@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Jacqueline Benson and Gary F.
Bendinger of Howrey, LLP, Phone: (713) 654-7693 and (801) 533-
8383, E-mail: bendingerg@howrey.com.


IOWA: High Court Rules Out Bail for Convicted Sex Offenders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iowa's Supreme Court has ruled that convicted sex offenders
can't post bail as they await proceedings to determine whether
they should be civilly committed as a sexually violent predator,
WHO-TV reports.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in 2002 by the Iowa Civil
Liberties Union.  The eight plaintiffs in the suit include five
convicted sex offenders being held in the state's sexual
predator unit at Cherokee.

In a ruling issued late in December, the court said that Iowa
common law providing the plaintiffs right to bail was abolished
by the Legislature in this case.


IOWA: Court Finds Red Light Cameras in Violation of State Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Scott County District Court refused to dismiss a suit
claiming that the city of Davenport's automated camera-ticketing
system violates state law, the Quad City Times reports.  

In December, Judge Gary McKenrick heard arguments from two
attorneys claiming that the system contradicts state traffic
laws.  Mr. Davidson and Cathy Cartee are representing Monique
Rhoden of Rock Island, Illinois, who received a ticket from a
camera while driving through Davenport, specifically at the
intersection of Kimberly Road and Harrison Ford.

Mr. Davidson contended that the system contradicts state law in
that state law requires criminal citations be issued to people
who speed or run a red light.  In contrast, the city issues the
tickets to the vehicles' owners instead of the drivers.  

Unlike a speeding or red light ticket issued by a law
enforcement officer, the camera-generated citations are
considered a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.  

The suit seeks the return of speeding fines previously
collected.  The city reportedly collected about $250,000 in
speeding fines last fiscal year.

In the recent ruling, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
amend the petition to name an additional plaintiff who is
alleged to have received a similar civil violation notice and
who has not paid any such fine.

Mr. Davidson plans to file a motion in coming weeks to make the
case a class action.

A copy of the court decision is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?182e

The suit is Monique D. Rhoden v. City of Davenport, Iowa, Case
No. 106960.

For more details, contact Dick Davidson, 224 18th Street, Suite
500, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (Rock Island Co.), Phone: 309-
786-1600, Fax: 309-786-1794.


JACUZZI INC: Faces Suit Over Designer Series Whirlpool Baths
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for San Diego County certified
as a national class action a lawsuit filed against Jacuzzi Inc.
and its subsidiaries.

The suit alleges that Jacuzzi falsely represented that its
Whirlpool Baths were equipped with 2 or 3 horsepower electric
motors when the true horsepower output was approximately half
this amount.

Jacuzzi is accused in the complaint of various
misrepresentations and violations of warranty with regard to its
Designer Series product line.

Class Counsel requests that members of the Class review their
purchase records and related materials and preserve all
documents that evidence the purchase of a Jacuzzi Designer
Series Whirlpool Bath from Feb. 1, 1997 to March 1, 2003.

For more information, contact Mark A. Golovach, Esq. and Sharon
Jones, both of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, 501 West Broadway,
Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3579, Phone: (877)493-5366 (Toll
Free) or 619-238-1333 Ext. 12, E-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com.


MURPHY OIL: $330M Oil Spill Deal Gets Favorable Court Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana reviewed on Jan. 4 a $330 million
settlement between the Murphy Oil Corp. and thousands of St.
Bernard Parish homeowners for damages caused by an oil spill
during Hurricane Katrina, KATC reports.

Judge Fallon said that the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.  He noted that only two residents in the class action
had objected.  He said he would rule on the matter shortly.  The
settlement covers about 6,500 homes and businesses.

                        Settlement Terms

The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the
Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish.  Objections to the
settlement must be made to the court by Dec. 15, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006).

The suit, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.," stems from the spill
of about 1 million gallons of oil from a storage tank that was
moved off its base by massive flooding during Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Judge Fallon gave preliminary approval to the
proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
12, 2006).

Under the settlement, 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 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.  

About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and
business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed
liaison for the committee that would help disburse the
settlement.   

Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying
property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million
would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said.

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 settlement spells out four levels of compensation, depending
on how bad the pollution was.  Compensation ranges from $15,000
in damages to homes farthest from the spill's epicenter to
buyouts of homes at a rate of $40 a square foot of living space,
plus $19 a square foot in damages.

If the deal were approved, the company would seek to buy about
570 homes on the four streets next to the refinery and tank
farm.  Company lawyer Kerry Miller explained that the area would
be turned into a "green zone" to buffer the refinery from
neighborhoods.

                        Case Background

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 (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2006).  

Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at
approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed
the suit.

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 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.


NITROUS OXIDE: Recalls Bursting NOS Kits for Snowmobiles, ATVs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrous Oxide Systems, of Bowling Green, Kentucky, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 16 NOS Kits for snowmobiles and ATVs.

The company said an incorrect burst disc, a component of the NOS
bottle valve, may have been installed in the recalled NOS Kits.
If the bottle is overfilled and overheated, it could forcefully
burst, posing an impact injury hazard to consumers.  No
incidents or injuries reported.

NOS kits for these vehicles provide extra power for the engine.  
The recall involves certain NOS nitrous oxide systems designed
for snowmobiles and ATVs.  The valves were manufactured between
Feb. 1, 2006 and Sept. 26, 2006.  The date code is located on
the NOS packaging.

These recalled NOS kits were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at Nitrous Oxide Systems dealers nationwide from
February 2006 through November 2006 for about $750.

Picture of the recalled NOS kit:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07515.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled NOS system for
snowmobiles and ATVs immediately and contact NOS to have the
burst disc replaced.  Registered owners have been notified about
this recall by mail.

For more information, call Nitrous Oxide Systems toll-free at
(800) 638-0032 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


NS GROUP: Faces Lawsuit in Ky. Over PI Acquisition Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
NS Group Inc., its directors, IPSCO Inc. and PI Acquisition Co.
were named as defendants in a class action filed in the Campbell
Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in October 2006.

The deal provides for the merger of PI Acquisition, a wholly
owned subsidiary of IPSCO, with and into NS Group, with NS Group
continuing as the surviving corporation, and the conversion of
each outstanding share of common stock of NS Group (other than
shares held by NS Group, IPSCO, PI Acquisition or any of their
direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries and shares held by
shareholders who validly perfect their dissenters' rights under
Kentucky law) into the right to receive $66 in cash.

The plaintiff, Advantage Partners, a purported shareholder of
the company, has alleged, among other things, that the merger
consideration to be paid to the shareholders of NS Group in the
merger is unfair and inadequate, as a result of alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty by NS Group and its directors.

According to the complaint, NS Group's directors agreed to an
allegedly unfair and inadequate price and agreed to a
termination fee, which is alleged to serve as a substantial
deterrent to other prospective buyers, because of the directors'
interest in "quickly" signing the merger agreement in order to
obtain allegedly "improper" personal benefits from the
acceleration of various stock options and incentive plans and
the indemnification provision of the merger agreement and, in
the case of certain directors, salary continuation agreements.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached an
alleged duty of "full and fair disclosure" by failing to
disclose certain allegedly material information regarding the
negotiation of the merger agreement, including information
relating to NS Group and its directors' consideration of
alternative transactions, additional information regarding the
criteria that Raymond James utilized in certain aspects of its
financial analysis, as well as the percentage of its fee that is
contingent on consummation of the merger.

The complaint alleges that IPSCO aided and abetted NS Group and
its directors in the breaches of their duties to NS Group's
shareholders.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, compensatory and/or rescissory
damages to the class, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to the plaintiff.  


OAK HOLLOW: President, Board Members Still Face Homeowners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The president and board members of the Oak Hollow Condominium
Association in Kings Grants, New Jersey remain as defendants in
a purported class action filed by members of the association,
who are claiming that defendants used fees collected from condo
owners over the past five years for personal gain, The Central
Record reports.

On Dec. 22, 2006, a judge ordered that some proceeds of a house
sale of the former president, Michael Meglino, be put in an
escrow account that will be subject to court control.

Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder has by written order established that
$125,000 of the sale of Mr. Meglino's home on Bridgewater Drive
be put into a legal trust account.  The sale was to be finalized
on Dec. 27, according to court documents.  The money put in the
escrow account cannot be released without court order.

Nicholas Harbist of Blank Rome, LLP, who is representing Mr.
Meglino in the case, said last week that he has filed a motion
with Judge Bookbinder to dismiss the case because it is
procedurally "improper."

                        Case Background

Filed in the Superior Court in Mount Holly, the suit accuses
defendants of theft, racketeering, extortion, fraud and
conspiracy.  It also alleges that Mr. Meglino has repeatedly
harassed and intimidated residents (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
5, 2006).

Previously, Judge Bookbinder issued an order freezing all assets
of the Oak Hollow Condominium Association and a company owned by
Mr. Meglino.

Also accused in the suit are:

      -- Attorney Paul H. Scull of Pennsville and his P.H.S.       
         Property Management;

      -- Mr. Meglino's wife, Susan Hernandez Meglino;

      -- the Meglinos' SGM Construction and Landscaping LLC of
         Evesham; and

      -- board members: Gary Bernstein, Tom Copestick and
         Matthew Kadlubowski.

Essentially, the suit contends that Mr. Meglino and other board
members have no legal authority to govern the association since
there has not been an election for the offices since 2001, the
year the association was founded.  According to the suit, the
association's by-laws require elections annually.

Residents also contend in the suit that their association fees
have not gone to maintaining the property.  They are claiming
that they have been charged special assessments of $500 on three
separate occasions since 2004 for improvements that have not
been completed.  In addition, they pay monthly maintenance fees.

According to the suit, SGM Construction and Landscaping, which
is wholly owned and controlled by the Meglinos, was paid for
work in the neighborhood that was never done.

The suit alleges that SGM then issued checks in excess of
$30,000 to "Mr. Meglino and family members in the form of cash,
goods such as television equipment, services such as limousines,
vehicles and school-related expenses."  It also alleges that the
defendants took trips to Mexico and Canada with association
money.

In addition, the suit claims that Mr. Meglino demanded
"kickbacks" from service contractors for work done in the
complex.

John Orr, the president of KSC Construction of Maple Shade, is
quoted in the suit as saying that Mr. Meglino required a "10-
percent commission of more than $2,000" for work on the
condominiums last year.

The suit also outlines a dozen or so incidents involving Mr.
Meglino that resulted in police involvement.  According to the
lawsuit, he allegedly said that he was involved with the
"Mexican Mafia" and that anyone who attempted to challenge his
authority "would end up in the Delaware River, which implied he
would murder people."

Attorney Paul Leodori of Medford filed the lawsuit on behalf of
37 named residents, who are asking for class-action status on
behalf of all condo owners in the 276-unit subdivision.

For more details, contact Paul A. Leodori, Suite 304, 220 Lake
Dr. E, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165, Phone: (609) 667-2080, Fax:
(609) 667-2210.


OKLAHOMA: District Court Ruling in Kids' Medicaid Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal court
ruling that the state violated the federal Medicaid law by
allowing delays in treatment of the children or by
insufficiently paying doctors and other health-care providers,
Tulsa World reports.

The suit was filed in 2001 by the children, their parents, the
Community Action Project of Tulsa County and the Oklahoma
Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  It names as
defendant the Health Care Authority, which runs the Medicaid
program.

The lawsuit became a class action on behalf of the 355,000
children in the program and thousands more who were eligible but
not enrolled.

U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan previously ordered the state to
pay for 100% of the poor Oklahoma children's health care.  Court
documents show that the reimbursement rate was raised to 100
percent in mid-2005.  


PRESCOLITE INC: Recalls Light Fixtures to Replace Trim Ring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prescolite Inc., of Spartanburg, South Carolina, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 700 trim assembly kits for recessed light fixtures.

The company said heat from the light bulb can cause the
fixture's plastic trim to soften and melt, causing the trim and
lens to fall.  This can result in laceration injuries to nearby
consumers.

Prescolite Inc. has received three reports of the trims melting.
No injuries have been reported.

Trim assembly kits involved in this recall attach to recessed
light fixtures installed primarily in bathroom ceilings.  The
trim assemblies include a 7 3/4-inch white plastic ring, a glass
lens and a metal reflector.  Affected models were made in China
and have model numbers: TL60 and TL62.  The model number and
country of manufacture are located on a sticker attached to the
inside and outside of the reflector.  Models made in Mexico are
not included this recall.

The recalled trim assembly kits were manufactured in China and
are being sold by electrical and lighting distributors
nationwide from May 2006 through December 2006 for between $9
and $17.

Pictures of the recalled trim assembly kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07514.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the light
fixtures containing the recalled trim rings and contact
Prescolite to arrange for installation of a replacement trim
ring.

For more information, contact Prescolite toll-free at (866) 269-
6318 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or log
on to http://www.prescolite.com.


ROBERT G. MICHAELS: April 23 Hearing Set for TCPA Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing on April 23, 2007
at 11:00 a.m. for the proposed $275,000 settlement in the
matter, "Stephen L. Kerschner and Burton T. Witt v. Douglas
Liphardt, d/b/a Robert G. Michaels & Associates, Case No. 03 CH
15384."

The hearing will be held in Room 1703 of the Richard J. Daley
Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, IL 60602.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim and the filing
of objections or exclusions to or from the settlement is on Feb.
12, 2007.

                        Case Background

Stephen L. Kerschner and Burton T. Witt filed this lawsuit
against Douglas Liphardt d/b/a Robert G. Michaels & Associates
(RGMA) alleging that RGMA sent them an unsolicited fax
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

In filing this lawsuit, plaintiffs filed it as a class action,
on behalf of themselves and all others who received the same
faxes as well.

For more details, contact Daniel A. Edelman and James O.
Latturner of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South  
LaSalle Street, Phone: 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com and
jlatturner@edcombs.com.


TELE-COMMUNICATIONS INC: Feb. 1 Hearing Set for $52M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State Of Delaware in and for New
Castle County will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 1, 2007 at
2:00 p.m. for the proposed $52 million settlement in the matter,
"In Re Tele-Communications, Inc. Consolidated Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 16470-NC."

The hearing will be held on, in the Court of Chancery
Courthouse, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947.  

The settlement covers all Record and Beneficial Holders of
Series A TCI Group Common Stock of Tele-Communications, Inc.,
during the period beginning on and including June 24, 1998,
through and including March 9, 1999, including any and all of
their respective successors in interest, successors,
predecessors in interest, predecessors, representatives,
trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or
transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity
acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and
each of them, but excluding the defendants, Liberty Media Corp.,
AT&T Corp., TCI, Comcast Corp., Comcast Cable Holdings LLC, and
their respective subsidiaries, and any person, firm, trust,
corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any
of the defendants.

                        Case Background

The action is a consolidation of purported class actions brought
by certain plaintiffs on behalf of former holders of shares of
Series A TCI Group Common Stock (TCOMA) issued by Tele-
Communications, Inc. (TCI).

On Feb. 10, 1999, plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf
of the class filed an amended complaint alleging that John C.
Malone, Leo J. Hindery, Jr., Donne F. Fisher, J.C. Sparkman,
John W. Gallivan, Paul A. Gould, Jerome H. Kern, Robert A. Naify
(Settling Defendants) and Kim Magness breached their fiduciary
duties to the class in connection with their approval of the
merger of TCI with a subsidiary of AT&T Corp., which was
announced on June 24, 1998, and which closed on March 9, 1999
(Merger).  

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Merger improperly
provided for an exchange ratio of 0.7757 shares of AT&T common
stock for each share of TCOMA stock and 0.8533 shares of AT&T
common stock for each share of Series B TCI Group Common Stock
(TCOMB), representing a 10% premium per share for the TCOMB
shares over the TCOMA exchange ratio.  

Plaintiffs also alleged that the proxy statement/prospectus
filed by TCI on Jan. 11, 1999, pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and mailed to
shareholders on Jan. 11, 1999, contained material misstatements
and/or omissions, allegedly in violation of the settling
defendants' duty of disclosure.  

Plaintiffs sought an award of damages resulting from Defendants'
alleged wrongdoing, plus interest, and an award of counsel fees
and costs.

On Jan. 18, 2000, the settling defendants answered the
complaint, denying all of Plaintiffs' claims, asserting various
affirmative defenses, and seeking an award of costs.  

Following the service of the answer to the complaint, discovery
commenced.  Class counsel conducted extensive discovery
including, among other things, inspection, review, and analysis
of documents produced by the Settling Defendants and non-parties
to the action, and the depositions of certain of the Settling
Defendants and non-parties.

On Feb. 14, 2005, after the close of merits discovery, the
Settling Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment that was
fully briefed and argued.  

On Dec. 21, 2005, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion that
denied in part and granted in part the Settling Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

On May 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  After conducting class discovery, the Settling
Defendants determined not to oppose this motion.  

In connection with seeking the court's approval of the
settlement of the action between and among plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and the class, and the Settling Defendants, as set
forth in the Stipulation (Settlement), the Plaintiffs, the
members of the class, and the Settling Defendants (Parties) will
seek certification by the court of the class, for settlement
purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) of
the Court of Chancery.   

On Oct. 10, 2006, the Parties filed a Pre-Trial Stipulation and
Order.  Thereafter, the Parties filed their pre-trial briefs.
The trial was scheduled to commence on Oct. 16, 2006.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the Parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the action based principally upon the undertaking by
the Settling Defendants to cause $52 million in cash to be
deposited in an escrow account for distribution for the benefit
of former owners of shares of TCOMA stock in connection with the
Settlement.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) TCI Shareholders Litigation c/o Complete Claim
         Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 24664, West Palm Beach,
         Florida 33416, Phone: 561-253-7785; and

     (2) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700
         or (800) 889-3701, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
         info@abbeyspanier.com, Web site:
         http://www.abbeyspanier.com/.


TERMINIX INTL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Undelivered Termite Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwardsville resident Milton Gerstenecker filed a class action
in Madison County Circuit Court against Terminix International
and The ServiceMaster Co. over alleged failure by the companies
to provide termite services as required by law, the Madison
County Record reports.

Plaintiff claims the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by concealing that they failed
to provide proper termite services

The complaint states that Terminix was uniformly obligated to
provide services to protect homes from termite infestation
through assuring the effective application and maintenance of
chemical barriers in the soil under and around the foundation of
his property.

Mr. Gerstenecker also claims Terminix failed to properly treat
or repair his property after termite damage was discovered and
claims the company created a scheme and system which has
promoted and led to widespread negligence and recklessness and
wantonness.

According to the suit, Terminix is the leading pest control
company in the country and has more than 250 office locations
with more than 8600 employees generating sales in excess of $990
million.

The suit claims ServiceMaster is an Illinois company based in
Downers Grove and represents itself as a Fortune 500 company
that is $3.5 billion strong.

Mr. Gerstenecker claims Madison County is the proper
jurisdiction for his class action because the defendants are
doing business in Illinois by contracting with Illinois
residents and committing torts in Illinois, including Madison
County.

According to the complaint, Terminix is for all legal and
practicable purposes a mere department of ServiceMaster.

Mr. Gerstenecker further claims Terminix routinely performed
improper and inadequate treatments and inspections of his home.

He claims Terminix contracts provide a guarantee of inspections
and reinspections, treatment or retreatment, and repair of any
termite-related damage provided that the customers pay the
annual renewal fee.

He asserts he was placed under contract after Terminix stopped
using Chlordane-based products in the 1980's and claims they
continued to renew assurances of termite protection and
collected money for termite protection without reapplying
termite chemicals after they knew the chemicals had become
ineffective.

He claims Terminix suppressed the fact his entire house did not
receive the termite treatment that was contracted for at the
beginning of their relationship.

He further alleges he does not know the exact number of people
eligible to be in the class but believes thousands of people
would be eligible to join.

He claims his interests are similar to the class members and
claims he envisions no unusual difficulty in the management of
the class.

Mr. Gerstenecker also claims he will not accept or demand on
behalf of any class member recovery in excess of $75,000.

Mr. Gerstenecker is seeking:

     -- Compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive
        damages according to proof at trial;

     -- Equitable relief in accordance with proof at trial;

     -- Taxing against all fees and costs of any expert, and all
        discovery and deposition costs and expenses; and

     -- Reasonable attorneys fees and expenses.

The case has yet to be assigned.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth V. Heller and W. Stan Faulkner, both of
         Goldenberg, Heller & Antognoli, P.C., 2227 S. State,
         Route 157, P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, IL 62025, Phone:
         (618) 656-5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230;

     (2) Christian H. Hartley, Charleston, South Carolina,
         Phone: 843-727-6564 or 888-293-6883 (Toll Free), Fax:
         843-727-3103, E-mail: chartley@rpwb.com; and

     (3) Thomas F. Campbell of Campbell Law A Professional
         Corporation, Concopurse at Riverchase, 100 Concourse
         Parkway, Suite 115, Birmingham, AL 35244, Phone:  205-
         278-6650 or 205-567-6490 (Cell), Fax:  205-278-6654.


TRAFIGURA: Faces U.K. Lawsuit Over Toxic Waste Dumped in Africa
---------------------------------------------------------------
The legal team behind a class action over alleged dumping of 400
tons of highly toxic waste in the Ivory Coast from a cargo ship
chartered by the London-based arm of the shipping giant
Trafigura is taking statements from thousands of local witnesses
to support the suit, The Guardian reports.

The case is considered to be one of the largest class actions
heard in the United Kingdom.  

At least 10 people died and more than 40,000 sought medical
advice after suffering from sickness and nausea, diarrhoea,
vomiting, breathlessness, headaches, skin damage, and swollen
stomachs, after noxious fumes drifted over the city.  

Hospitals, health centers, and the Red Cross were overwhelmed by
the influx of victims.  Amid angry protests and panic, the
government temporarily collapsed.

According to Leigh Day, the British law firm, which arrived in
Abidjan, Ivory Coast's economic capital, up to 5,000 people may
sue those to blame.

Waste from the oil tanker Probo Koala was dumped on rubbish
tips, poured down drains, and left at roadsides, in abattoirs
and in lagoons, claimed Ivory Coast and the U.N. Environment
Program.  

The Probo Koala, chartered by Trafigura, docked at Amsterdam on
July 2 on its way to Estonia having crossed the Atlantic via
Gibraltar.

Trafigura agreed with Amsterdam Port Services (APS), a
specialist firm, that APS would remove the contents of its
ship's slop tank.  APS claims it was told that the waste was
conventional and began to unload.

According to APS, the smells were so pungent and unusual that
the Dutch stopped the operation and asked for more money to
treat the waste.  

After a dispute, it is alleged Trafigura ordered the material to
be pumped back onto the vessel which then set off for Abidjan,
via the Canaries, Togo, and Nigeria, arriving on Aug. 19.

A local company, Tommy, was employed to remove the waste.  But
sources in Abidjan claim they had no experience in toxic waste
disposal.  

The waste was put into at least 12 tanker trucks.  It is thought
the drivers then took it to rubbish tips, only to be stopped by
residents concerned about the smell.  The drivers allegedly then
dumped the waste around the city.

Allegations that the waste had high levels of caustic soda, as
well as a sulphur compound and hydrogen sulphide, have been
strongly denied by Trafigura.

In a press statement, the company said that the Probo Koala
offloaded 528 cubic metres of "chemical slops" -- spent caustic
soda, gasoline residues and water, which were the result of
normal maritime gasoline trade operations and did not contain
active hydrogen sulphide.

The company goes on to state that hydrogen sulphide would have
caused immediate serious illness to the ship's crew and the
workers at the petroleum berth where the slops were offloaded,
but there were no such illnesses.  

It contends that what happened to the slops after they were
offloaded from the ship and the circumstances of the deaths and
injuries, which have been linked with them, are matters for the
Ivorian investigations.

According to Martyn Day of Leigh Day, though the events took
place thousands of miles away it is right that the British
company is made accountable for its actions by the U.K. courts.

For more details, contact Leigh Day & Co., Priory House, 25 St.
John's Lane, London, EC1M 4LB, Phone: (020) 7650 1200, Fax:
(020) 7253 4433, DX 53326 Clerkenwell, E-mail:
postbox@leighday.co.uk.


UNI-MARTS: Local Operators Allege Fraud, Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------
Local people who bought operation rights to Uni-Marts
convenience store chain filed a lawsuit in Luzerne County Court
in Pennsylvania over alleged deception of buyers of its
convenience stores about certain items, including the profit
history of the stores, The Times Tribune reports.

More than 40 storeowners filed the suit, which included some
local operators:

     -- Alliance Trading Inc., of Pittston,
     -- Eagle International Services Inc., of Nanticoke, and
     -- Uni-Group Inc., of Mountaintop.

The suit alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.

According to the suit, Uni-Mart and its financial and real
estate advisers misled potential buyers.  It says Uni-Mart's
financial information left out important costs such as portions
of labor costs, insurance and taxes.

Several operators also say Uni-Mart charged them more for items,
such as gasoline, than it should have.

In addition, they say, Uni-Marts violated its obligations by
charging in excess of contract prices for various items
including gasoline.

Wilkes-Barre attorney Joseph Lach, a co-counsel for the class,
said that unlike conventional franchisees who own businesses
affiliated with a nameplate company such as Burger King or
Subway, Uni-Mart operators in most cases do not own the building
or the land.  The operators bought the right to run the stores
and the inventory at the time of the sale.

"Our clients were led to believe that operating the stores had a
return, so that ownership wasn't critical," Mr. Lach said. "Uni-
Mart marketed the rights to them on the basis that it would have
been lucrative, but the information was incomplete or
inaccurate."

The group is asking the court to grant their lawsuit class
status so that all other Uni-Mart operators in the state,
estimated at about 80, can join the suit.

John Stoviak, an attorney for Uni-Marts, says he doesn't think
the claims have any merit, but the company had not yet filed a
formal response to them.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 1-800-424-6690, Fax: 215-
875-4604.

Representing Uni-Marts is John F. Stoviak of Saul Ewing LLP,
Centre Square West, 1500 Market Street, 38th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186, Phone: (215) 972-1095, Fax: (215)
972-1921.


UNITED STATES: Guatemalan Refugees May Sue to Avoid Deportation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles-based advocacy group Casa de la Cultura de Guatemala
is preparing a class action to compel the U.S. government to
grant legal residency for Guatemalans who applied for asylum
between 1990 and 1998, it emerged in a report by the English
Politics News.

U.S. authorities finally responded to request for asylum by
Guatemalans who fled their country to the U.S. to escape war in
their homeland, but the answer is no.  They issued deportation
orders after determining that asylum applicants no longer faced
a threat because the 36-year war already ended in 1996.

Guatemalan civil rights groups are challenging the order saying
it is not the fault of applicants that their applications were
not processed by officials immediately.  According to the report
Marie Sebrechts, spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, acknowledged it had taken years to process
many of the Guatemalans' applications, but declined to speculate
about the cause of the delays.

Guatemalans who arrived after 1990 were not included in The
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which
among others, allow Guatemalans protected under a 1991
settlement of a class action to apply for U.S. residency if
their asylum requests had been denied.  

Advocacy groups estimate that more than 200,000 Guatemalans in
the U.S. have asylum claims pending from the 1990s, according to
the report.


UNITED STATES: Veterans' Home Loans Guarantee Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a
suit filed against the Department of Veterans Affairs by
veterans refused home loans guarantee because their previous
loans have been discharged in bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of veterans.  The complaint alleged that the
Veterans Affairs violated, the anti-discrimination provision of
the Bankruptcy Code, by refusing to fully restore veteran home-
loan guaranty entitlements to plaintiffs solely because of their
previous discharges in bankruptcy.

The district court granted the Veteran Affairs' motion to
dismiss, concluding that the anti-discrimination provision does
not apply to the veteran guaranty entitlement.

The provision prohibits a governmental unit from denying a
"license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant"
solely because an individual has filed for or received a
discharge in bankruptcy.  Because Appellants concede that the
veteran guaranty entitlement is not a "license," "permit,"
"charter," or "franchise" and we hold that it is not an "other
similar grant," we conclude that the provision does not apply to
the veteran guaranty entitlement.

The suit was filed by Taylor Ayes, William P. Cutshall, Frank A.
Ribar, Edward C. Smith, James F. Martin, and William C. Terrio,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, at Raleigh (CA-04-904-5).

It was argued Oct. 26, 2006 and decided Dec. 27, 2006.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?182a


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Consumer Suits in Mo., Ill. State Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported national class actions have been filed against
Whirlpool Corp., one in a Missouri state court and one in an
Illinois state court, each alleging breach of warranty, fraud,
and violation of state consumer protection acts in selling tall
tub dishwashers.

There are no allegations of any personal injury or property
damage and the complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

Benton, Michigan-based Whirlpool Corp. (NYSE: WHR) --
http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global manufacturer and  
marketer of home appliances.  It manufactures and markets a full
line of major appliances and related products, primarily for
home use.  Its principal products are laundry appliances,
refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances, dishwashers,
room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers and other small
household appliances.  Whirlpool also produces hermetic
compressors for refrigeration systems.  The company manufactures
in 12 countries under nine brand names and markets products to
distributors and retailers in more than 170 countries.


* ACE USA Counsel Talks on Securities Class Suit Risk Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE USA, the U.S.-based retail operating division of the ACE
Group of Companies, launched the second in an occasional series
of audio "podcasts," or Internet-distributed audio programs,
discussing selected risk management topics.

Carol Zacharias, Senior Vice President and Counsel, ACE
Professional Risk, discusses her white paper, recently published
in The John Liner Review: "Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation and Directors and Officers Liability Insurance," and
provides corporate risk managers with an informative overview of
the trend toward unprecedented securities litigation
settlements, the factors driving it, and the potential
consequences to companies thus affected.

"Securities class actions are the most common type of class
actions; since 2002, they are also the most costly and time-
consuming to resolve; cases proceeding with a concurrent
Securities and Exchange Commission investigation tend to settle
for double the price of those without the SEC proceeding," said
Ms. Zacharias.

The white paper examines:

     -- the number of class actions pending in federal courts
        from 2002-2005;
     -- the allegations involved, including specific accounting
        allegations;
     -- securities judgments, types of plaintiffs; and,
     -- the industries targeted.

In 2005, it reports, a record-setting $17.9 billion was paid to
resolve class action litigation, up threefold from $5.5 billion
in 2004. In addition, the paper explores new approaches to
minimizing and mitigating directors and officers liability.

Ms. Zacharias added, "Securities class actions and securities
regulatory prosecutions represent a significant and costly drain
on corporate America and a burden to the judicial system.  At
the same time, the current environment for corporate
indemnification of directors and officers is, to some degree,
uncertain, spotlighting the criticality of traditional officers
and directors liability insurance and creating demand for new
forms of coverage."

To access the ACE Professional Risk podcast audio program
featuring Ms. Zacharias' discussion of securities class action
litigation and directors and officers risk management issues,
please visit http://www.ace-ina.com/podcasts.Please note, the  
program is approximately 24 minutes in length.

Staffed by a team of innovative underwriters, ACE Professional
Risk is the operating unit within ACE USA, which distributes
management liability, professional liability and surety products
through retail brokers throughout the U.S. and Canada. For more
information about ACE Professional Risk and its range of
products and services, please visit:
http://www.aceprofessionalrisk.com. The above is only a  
summary; please see actual policies for terms and conditions.

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), and is rated A+ (Superior) by A.M. Best Co. and
A+ (Strong) by Standard & Poor's. 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 information, contact Carla Ferrara, ACE INA
Communications, Phone: 215-640-4744, E-mail:
carla.ferrara@ace-ina.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces N.Y. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP,
announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Technical Olympic USA, Inc. (TOUSA)
from Aug. 1, 2005 through Nov. 6, 2006.

The complaint charges the company 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.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants failed to disclose:

      -- that the company's debt related to its joint venture
         involving Transeastern Properties, Inc. (Transeastern
         Joint Venture) was not "non-recourse" debt;

      -- as such, the company would be liable for full repayment
         of its Transeastern Joint Venture debt upon the
         occurrence of certain triggering events, including a
         declaration of bankruptcy by the joint venture;

      -- that, due to a severe slowdown in the housing market,
         the Transeastern Joint Venture was experiencing
         significant losses and would be unable to meet its
         projections; and

      -- that, as a consequence of the foregoing, the company
         would likely lose its investment in the Transeastern
         Joint Venture, including any loans or receivables owed
         to it.

On June 5, 2006, before the market opened, TOUSA announced that
the company's second quarter net sales had been negatively
impacted due to decreased demand.  

On this news, shares of TOUSA stock fell $1.61 per share, or 8.9
percent, to close, on June 5, 2006, at $16.48 per share. TOUSA
shares continued to fall the next day, shedding an additional
$1.30 per share, or 7.9 percent, to close, on June 6, 2006, at
$15.18 per share.

On Sept. 27, 2006, while the market was open, TOUSA announced
that the company had met with the lenders to the Transeastern
Joint Venture to update them on the financial position of the
joint venture and the Florida housing market conditions.  

TOUSA also reported that the Florida housing market had severely
slowed, which "negatively impacted the joint venture's ability
to meet its projections."

On this news, shares of TOUSA's stock sank $1.47, or 12.1
percent, to close, on Sept. 27, 2006, at $10.71, on heavy
trading volume.

On Nov. 6, 2006, after the market closed, the company shocked
investors when it revealed in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC that
a declaration of bankruptcy by the Transeastern Joint Venture
would trigger the company's obligation to repay its debts
related to the joint venture in full.  

On this news, shares of the company's stock plunged an
additional $3.79, or 35.1 percent, to close, on Nov. 7, 2006, at
$7.00, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court not later than Feb. 12,
2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq., and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 280
King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbtklaw.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 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *