CAR_Public/070110.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 7

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Jan. Hearing Set for $6.05M Stock Suit Deal
ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan.
AT&T INC: Faces New Ill. Lawsuit Over "Hidden Connection Fees"
BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif.
BOYKIN LODGING: Jan. 17 Hearing Set for Investor Suit Settlement

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Special Dividend Offer
CENTENNIAL COMMS: New Judge Assigned to Fraud Litigation in La.
CINTAS CORP: Arbitration Still Ongoing in "Houston" Litigation
CINTAS CORP: Court, Arbitrator Mull Class Status for ERISA Suit
CONAGRA FOODS: Neb. Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Foresees Labor Settlement Approval in 2007
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Portable Generators for Shock Hazard
ELI LILLY: Pharma Rep. Files N.Y. Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
EQUITY OFFICE: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Group Buyout Offer
FORTUNE BRANDS: N.Y. Suit Over Alcoholic Drinks Marketing Junked

GUAM: $90 Million Earned Income Tax Credit Settlement Approved
IMMUCOR INC: Discovery Continues in Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INDIAN TRUST: Tribes File Trust Funds Mismanagement Suit in D.C.
KRAFT FOODS: Faces Fraud Suit Over "All Natural" Capri Sun Drink
KSL RECREATION: Jan. 16 Hearing Set for Calif. Resort Fee Deal

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Yet to Rule on "Siracusano" Dismissal
MCLEODUSA INC: Ia. Judge Okays $30M Securities Suit Settlement
MERIX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Graniteville Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed
PENTAIR WATER: Recalls Gas Pool Heaters for Poisoning Hazard

PFIZER INC: N.Y. Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Revised
PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Affirmative Defenses Hearing
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Tex. Judge Refuses Transfer of "Antee" to Ark.
PRG-SCHULTZ: Settles Ga. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75M
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Drug-Testing Machines

RENT-A-CENTER INC: High Court Nixes Appeal on N.J. Consumer Suit
ROYAL CANADIAN: Sea Cadets to Receive Sexual Abuse Compensation
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Back Wages Claims in La. District Court
SANDISK CORP: Settles Calif. Suit Over Flash Memory Products
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Calif. Reps' Unpaid Overtime Wages

SAVE MART: Customers' Suit Over Info Solicitation Certified
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Awaits Approval of $15M Stock Suit Deal
TEXAS: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Kids' Healthcare Program
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles La. Litigation Over Sludge-Clogged Engines

TRUMP ORGANIZATION: "The Apprentice" Faces Mass. Age Bias Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Jan. Hearing Set for $6.05M Stock Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 30, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. for
the proposed $6,050,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
M-21-83 (TPG)."

The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007.

Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement were due
Jan. 2, 2007.  Claim forms must be submitted by Feb. 26, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased
shares of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. common stock between Oct. 8,
1999, at a price on that date at or below $39.50, and including
Oct. 13, 1999, at a price on that date at or above $32.50.

                        Case Background

The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that
defendants made material misrepresentations and omitted material
information concerning the truth of rumors circulating regarding
A&F's ability to meet Wall Street expectations for its same-
store sales growth for the third quarter of 1999.  

The complaint further alleges that, as a result all defendants
are liable under section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under; and Michael
Jeffries, Seth Johnson and Lawrence Fogel are also liable under
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, sometime during the afternoon of
Oct. 8, 1999, A&F's Director of Investor Relations called Todd
Slater, an analyst at Lazard Freres & Co., and left a voice mail
message explicitly warning him that A&F's same-store sales
growth would fall short of the 15%-17% number that Wall Street
was expecting the company to achieve for the third quarter of
1999.  

Plaintiffs further allege that during the afternoon of Oct. 8,
1999, trading volume in A&F shares on the New York Stock
Exchange vastly increased, the stock price dropped precipitously
and market rumors began circulating concerning a slowing of
A&F's same-store sales growth.  

In response, according to the complaint, investors and analysts
who regularly followed A&F called defendants to inquire about
the reasons for the unusual trading and steep decline in A&F's
stock price and the truth about the rumors.  

According to plaintiffs' allegations, beginning that afternoon
and continuing until Wednesday morning, A&F falsely assured the
market (through statements to analysts) that there was no truth
to the rumors.  

At the time A&F senior management made these statements,
however, the Complaint alleges that they were aware that same-
store sales growth was indeed coming in substantially below Wall
Street expectations.

Plaintiffs allege the company's false reassurances to the market
stabilized A&F's stock price during the class period.  According
to the complaint, on Oct. 13, 1999, at about 9:55 a.m., the
company issued a press release disclosing that A&F's same-store
sales growth for the third quarter-to-date was only 12%--
substantially below the market's alleged 15%-17% expectation for
the quarter.  Following this announcement, A&F's stock price
declined almost 20% on enormous trading volume.  

Plaintiffs allege that the decline in the price of A&F stock on
Oct. 13, 1999 was due to A&F's announcement that it would not
meet the market's expectations.   

Defendants deny that the company disclosed material non-public
information.  They dispute plaintiffs' characterization of the
voice mail left for Mr. Slater and the market rumors that
allegedly began circulating on Oct. 8, 1999.  

Also, defendants deny that the company's responses to analyst
and investor inquiries were false or misleading and that the
market expectation for same-store-sales was 15-17%.  They
further contend that any decline in the price of A&F's stock was
attributable to other market information and events.  

Moreover, defendants deny that the evidence supports the
allegations in plaintiffs' complaint.  In that regard,
defendants deny all allegations of misconduct contained in the
complaint and have asserted numerous defenses to plaintiffs'
allegations.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Abercrombie & Fitch Securities Litigation, c/o The
         Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
         9000 #6478, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1 (866) 487-
         1709, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;and

     (2) Robert J. Berg, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, Phone: 212-779-1414 and 877-779-1414, Fax: 212-
         779-3218, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com, Web site:
         http://www.bernlieb.com/.


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the
proposed $3,000,000 settlement in the matter, "PLA, LLC, et al.
v. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:05-CV-00078."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Plano Division, 660 North Central
Expressway, Suite 300, Plano, Texas 75074. (Please not that this
courthouse is located in the City of Plano, not the City of
Sherman, Texas.)

Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement were due
Jan. 2, 2007.  Claim forms must be submitted by March 19, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Advanced Neuromodulation
Systems, Inc. (ANSI) between April 24, 2003 and Feb. 16, 2005.

                        Case Background

The consolidated class action complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2005,
generally alleges, among other things that between April 24,
2003 and Feb. 16, 2005 defendants issued false and misleading
statements to the public by:

      -- not disclosing that ANSI had made payments to
         physicians that the complaint alleges were in violation
         of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law; and

      -- stating that ANSI complied with its Code of Conduct and
         the code of ethics adopted by the Advanced Medical
         Technology Association (AdvaMed), that ANSI had a good
         relationship with its customers, that ANSI's internal
         controls were sufficient to ensure disclosure to the
         public of all required information, and that ANSI's
         financial statements were prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The complaint alleges that, on Feb. 17, 2005, ANSI announced
that it had received a subpoena from federal authorities
investigating ANSI's practices relating to sales and marketing,
reimbursement, and Medicare and Medicaid billing, among other
things.

It also alleges that, following that announcement, that same
day, the ANSI stock price plummeted from $37.60 per share to
slightly over $29 per share, a drop of 22% on unusually heavy
trading volume of over 7.9 million shares, far greater than the
average trading volumes of approximately 400,000 shares.

The lawsuit seeks money damages against defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.  

Defendants deny all allegations of misconduct contained in the
complaint, and deny having engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Claims Administrator, ANSI Settlement, c/o RSM
         McGladrey, Inc., P.O. Box 1387, Blue Bell, PA 19422,
         Phone: 1-800-222-2760, Web site:
         http://www.claimsinformation.com/ANSI;and  

     (2) Maya Saxena, Esq. of Saxena White, P.A., 2424 North
         Federal Highway, Suite 257, Boca Raton, Florida 33431,
         Phone: (800) 361-5096, E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com,
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/;and

     (3) Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. of Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP,
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West, New York, New York
         10017, Phone: 212-894-7200, Fax: 212-894-7272, E-mail:
         rcappucci@entwistle-law.com, Web site:
         http://www.entwistle-law.com.


AT&T INC: Faces New Ill. Lawsuit Over "Hidden Connection Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belleville lawyer Christopher Cueto initiated a new class action
in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois
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 CourthouseNews Service
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.

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.

Plaintiff requests:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action,
     -- that the acts and practices of defendant be adjudged
        unfair and
     -- that the court award them damages, attorney's fees,    
        their cost of suit, and pre-judgment interest, in an
        amount less than $74,999.00 per plaintiff or class      
        member.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1844

The suit is "Cassin et at v. Illinois Bell Telephone d/b/a AT&T
Illinois, Case No. 06-L-743," filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit
Court in St. Clair County, Illinois.

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


BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. remains a defendant in a purported sex and
race discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the suit, "Jasmen Holloway, et al. v Best Buy  
Co., Inc.," was filed, alleging that the company discriminates  
against women and minority individuals on the basis of gender,  
race, color and/or national origin with respect to the company's  
employment policies and practices.  

The action seeks an end to discriminatory policies and  
practices, an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and  
injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class  
members.

The company reported no development in the case at its Jan. 4,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2006.

The suit is "Holloway et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No.  
3:05-cv-05056-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California under Judge Maria-Elena James.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joshua Konecky, Clint J. Brayton, Todd M. Schneider and  
         W.H. Hank Willson, IV of Schneider & Wallace, 180  
         Montgomery St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104,  
         Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax: (415) 421-7105, E-mail:  
         jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com,  
         cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com,  
         tschneider@schneiderwallace.com and  
         wwillson@schneiderwallace.com; and  

     (2) Eve H. Cervantez, James M. Finberg, Bill Lann Lee,  
         Daniel M. Hutchinson and Gena E. Wiltsek of Lieff,  
         Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Embarcadero Center
         West, 275 Battery St., 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA  
         94111, Phone: 415/956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-
         mail: ecervantez@lchb.com, JFinberg@lchb.com and  
         blee@lchb.com.


BOYKIN LODGING: Jan. 17 Hearing Set for Investor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio will hold a
fairness hearing on Jan. 17, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Delduco v. Adams, et al., Case No. CV
06 593403," which was filed against Boykin Lodging Co. n/k/n BH
Lodging Corp. and its directors as a purported shareholder class
action.

The hearing will be held before Judge Michael J. Russo in
Courtroom 17-C of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
1200 Ontario St., Cleveland, Ohio.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by Dec. 20, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons who owned any interest in the
capital stock of Boykin Lodging wither if record or
beneficially, between June 3, 2005 and Sept. 21, 2006.

The shareholder complaint was filed on June 6, 2006 against the
company and each of its directors in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger,
dated May 19, 2006, among:

      -- Braveheart Investors LP,
      -- Braveheart II Realty (Ohio) Corp.,
      -- Braveheart II Properties Holding LLC,
      -- Braveheart II Properties Co. LLC,
      -- the company, and
      -- Boykin Hotel Properties, L.P.

That deal include sales of the Pink Shell Beach Resort and
Banana Bay Resort to entities controlled by Robert W. Boykin,
the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer.

For more details, contact Richard S. Wayne of Strauss & Troy,
The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street,
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: (513) 621-2120, Fax: (513)
241-8259, Web site: http://www.strausstroy.com/.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Special Dividend Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court for Nassau County has yet to rule on
a proposed settlement of a suit filed against Cablevision
Systems Corp. relating to a special dividend proposed by the
Dolan Family Group.

In June and July 2005, a number of shareholder class actions
were filed against Cablevision Corp. and its individual
directors in:

     -- the Delaware Chancery Court,
     -- the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County, and
     -- the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
        York,

relating to the Dolan Family Group proposal to acquire the
outstanding, publicly held interests in Cablevision following a
pro rata distribution of Rainbow Media Holdings.  

On October 24, 2005, Cablevision received a letter from the
Dolan Family Group withdrawing its June 19, 2005 proposal and
recommending the consideration of a special dividend.  On
November 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the New York Supreme Court action to relate to the
special dividend proposed by the Dolan Family Group.  

On February 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding allegations related to the December 19, 2005
announcement that the Board had decided not to proceed with the
proposed special dividend, and the January 31, 2006 announcement
that the Board was expected to begin reconsideration of a
possible special dividend at its regularly scheduled meeting in
March 2006.

The amended complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
payment of the special dividend proposed by the Dolan Family
Group.

On December 28, 2005, a purported shareholder derivative
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleging that certain events during 2005,
including those relating to the proposed special dividend,
constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.  The action was brought
derivatively on behalf of Cablevision and names as defendants
each member of the Board of Directors.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and contribution and indemnification by the
defendants for any claims asserted against Cablevision as a
result of the alleged breaches.

On March 27, 2006, Cablevision entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to the settlement of the actions
pending in the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County relating
to a proposed special dividend.  On April 7, 2006, Cablevision's
Board of Directors declared a special cash dividend of $10.00
per share which was paid on April 24, 2006 to holders of record
at the close of business on April 18, 2006.  The proposed
settlement of these actions is subject to court approval.  

An objection to the proposed settlement has been filed by one
shareholder, the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana.  On
August 21, 2006, TRSL submitted a letter to the court stating
that, in light of the company's disclosure on August 8, 2006 of
its expectation of the need to restate previously issued
financial statements in connection with grants of stock options
and stock appreciation rights, it is unclear whether the company
had sufficient surplus or net profits to pay the special
dividend and that TRSL objected to the proposed settlement on
that ground.

A hearing on the proposed settlement was held on September 25,
2006.  The court has not yet issued its ruling on the
settlement, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.


CENTENNIAL COMMS: New Judge Assigned to Fraud Litigation in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new judge was assigned in a purported class action pending in
Louisiana state court against Centennial Communications Corp.

In one of several lawsuits against the company, plaintiffs have
alleged, depending on the case, breach of contract,
misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating to its
billing practices, including rounding up of partial minutes of
use to full-minute increments, billing send to end, and billing
for unanswered and dropped calls.  

The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific
monetary damages and are seeking certification as a class
action.

A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held
on Sept. 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana.  Subsequent to
such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the
plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class-action status in
December 2004.  

The decision of the court with respect to class certification is
still pending.  In 2006, a new judge was assigned to the case,
according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Nov. 30, 2006.


CINTAS CORP: Arbitration Still Ongoing in "Houston" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The racial discrimination class action, "Larry Houston, et al.,
v. Cintas Corp." remains in arbitration.

The suit was filed on Aug. 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of African-
American managers.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the court entered an order requiring the named
plaintiffs in the "Houston" lawsuit to arbitrate all of their
claims for monetary damages.

The suit is "Houston et al v. Cintas Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv-
03145-JSW,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiff is Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein,
Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite
1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, Fax: 510 835-
1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com.  

Representing the defendant is Nancy L. Abell of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 555 South Flower St., 25th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627-
0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com.


CINTAS CORP: Court, Arbitrator Mull Class Status for ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California nor an arbitrator has yet made a decision regarding
class certification for the case "Paul Veliz, et al., v. Cintas
Corp."

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees.  

It also asserts related Employee Retirement Income Security Act
claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief or both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional wage and hour claims under the state laws of
Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief or both.  The company denies these claims and
is defending the plaintiffs' allegations.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court ordered a majority of the opt-in
plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the
terms of their company employment agreement.  

Also on Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15
states only with respect to the putative class members that may
litigate their claims in court.  

The court or an arbitrator has made no determination regarding
class certification, according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Veliz et et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-
01180-SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with
referral to Judge Maria-Elena James.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott A. Kronland of Altshuler, Berzon et al., 177 Post
         Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-
         421-7151, Fax: 415-362-8064, E-mail:
         skronland@altshulerberzon.com; and

     (2) Helen I. Zeldes, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423.  

Representing the company is Cheryl A. Hipp of Squire Sanders &
Dempsey LLP, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH
44114, Phone: 516-479-8365.


CONAGRA FOODS: Neb. Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of Nebraska issued an order
of dismissal with prejudice for the consolidated securities
fraud lawsuits filed against ConAgra Foods, Inc., according to
company's Jan. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 26,
2006.

Three purported class actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska:

      -- "Berlien v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No.
         805CV292," filed on June 21, 2005,

      -- "Calvacca v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No.
         805CV00318," filed on June 30, 2005, and

      -- "Woods v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No.
         805CV493," filed on July 26, 2005.

Each lawsuit is against the company and its former chief
executive officer.  The suits allege violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the events resulting in the
company's April 2005 restatement of its financial statements and
related matters.

Each complaint seeks a declaration that the action is
maintainable as a class action and that the plaintiff is a
proper class representative, unspecified compensatory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief deemed proper by
the court.  

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss these lawsuits with leave for plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.  The plaintiffs did not amend and the court entered
an order of dismissal with prejudice on Nov. 7, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "David P. Berlien, et al. v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al." filed in the U.S. District Court
for District of Nebraska.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

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

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

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

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

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

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


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Foresees Labor Settlement Approval in 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants Inc. expects final court approval and payment
of the settlement in several class actions pending against it in
California State courts to occur before the end of fiscal 2007.

Beginning in 2002, a total of five purported class actions were
filed against the company in Superior Courts of California, two
each in Los Angeles County and Orange County, and one in
Sacramento County.

Plaintiffs allege that they and other current and former service
managers, beverage and hospitality managers and culinary
managers were improperly classified as exempt employees under
California labor laws.
  
The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties.  Two of
the cases were removed to arbitration under its mandatory
arbitration program, one was stayed to allow consideration of
judicial coordination with the other cases, one is proceeding as
an individual claim, and one remains a purported class action.

Although the company believes it correctly classified these
employees, to avoid potentially costly and protracted
litigation, the company agreed in fiscal 2006 to a settlement.

Without admitting any liability, the company agreed to pay up to
a maximum total of $11,000 to settle all five cases, which was
fully accrued as of May 28, 2006 and is included in other
current liabilities at Nov. 26, 2006.

The settlement agreement has received preliminary court approval
and the company expects final court approval and payment of the
settlement proceeds to occur before the end of fiscal 2007,
according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Nov. 26, 2006.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Portable Generators for Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEWALT Industrial Tool Co., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 13,000 units of DEWALT DG2900 portable generators.

The company said a ground fault circuit interrupter installed on
the generator could fail to operate properly, posing a risk of
electric shock to consumers.  No incidents or injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves DEWALT DG2900 2900 watt gasoline-powered
generators with date codes 200150 through 200635.  The
generators are black and yellow.  "DEWALT" and "DG2900" are
printed on the generator.  The date code is stamped on the right
side of the unit on the black plastic covering the rear of the
control panel.  Units with an "R" stamped on the name plate are
not affected by this recall.

These recalled portable generators were manufactured in Japan
and are being sold by major home center and hardware stores
nationwide from December 2001 through November 2006 for between
$900 and $1,000.

Picture of recalled portable generators:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07072.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the generators immediately
and contact DEWALT to arrange for a free inspection and, if
necessary, free repair.

For more information, contact DEWALT toll-free at (888) 742-9108
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.DEWALT.com.


ELI LILLY: Pharma Rep. Files N.Y. Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, filed by
one of its former employees seeking back pay as far back as six
years.

The suit, filed by Susan Schaefer LaRose, alleges violation of
federal and state wage and hour laws.

It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are,
or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in
any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the
following titles:

     -- sales representative,
     -- senior sales representative,
     -- executive sales representative, and
     -- senior executive sales representative

and employees who performed substantial the same work as
employees with those titles above and who were employed during
the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for
relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including
time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

The suit alleges that defendants' managers, with the knowledge
and consent of corporate management, systematically violated the
law throughout New York and the U.S., in the following respects:

     -- inaccurately classifying employees as exempt from
        overtime pay even though defendants were aware that the
        Covered Employees were non-exempt and were entitled to
        overtime pay;

     -- failing to pay employees overtime compensation for hours
        worked in excess of forty hours per week; and

     -- failing to maintain accurate records of employees' time.

According to Mrs. Schaefer LaRose, a 50-year-old mother of two
from Chittenango, N.Y., she was told when she started with Eli
Lilly that she was exempt from overtime and she never thought to
question it (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006).

Her lawsuit, part of a series of class action claims filed in
November against nine major drug companies, seeks tens of
millions of dollars in back pay for the thousands of drug
company salespeople across the country.

There are questions of law and fact common to class which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members, including:

     -- whether defendants employed or jointly employed the   
        plaintiff and the class within the meaning of the New
        York law;

     -- what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants
        failed in their duty to maintain overtime records;

     -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures,
        protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of
        overtime wages;

     -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures,
        protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of
        wages for all hours worked;

     -- whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay the
        plaintiff and the class premium pay for hours worked in
        excess of 40 hours per workweek within the meaning of
        New York law;

     -- what are and were the policies, practices, programs,
        procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding
        the types of work and labor for which defendants did not
        pay the class members at all;

     -- at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods
        of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay
        the class members for their work;

     -- what are the common conditions of employment and in the
        workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies
        and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect
        whether the class was paid at overtime rates for
        overtime work; and

     -- whether defendants compensated the class the premium
        required under New York law when class members "spread
        of hours" in a workday exceeded ten hours.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other covered employees,
pray for relief as follows:

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained are
        unlawful under FLSA;

     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 216(b);

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the FLSA
        Collective plaintiffs;

     -- certification of this action as a class action brought
        pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the New
        York class;

     -- an award of damages, according to proof, including
        liquidated damages, to be paid by defendant;

     -- penalties available under applicable law;

     -- costs of action incurred herein, including expert fees;

     -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216 and other applicable statutes;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by
        law; and

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the
        court deems necessary, just and proper.

Pharmaceutical Reps on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?183d

The suit is "Schaefer-Larose v. Eli Lilly and Co., Case No.
5:06-cv-01379-NAM-GHL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York under Judge Norman A. Mordue, with
referral to Judge George H. Lowe.

Representing plaintiffs is Charles Joseph of Joseph, Herzfeld
Law Firm, 757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 212-688-5640, Fax: 212-688-2548, E-mail:
charles@jhllp.com.

Representing defendant is Michael J. Sciotti of Hancock,
Estabrook Law Firm, 1500 MONY Tower I, Syracuse, NY 13221,
Phone: 315-425-3502, Fax: 315-233-4376, E-mail:
msciotti@hancocklaw.com.


EQUITY OFFICE: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Group Buyout Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Office Properties Trust is a defendant in several
purported class actions filed in various states from
shareholders accusing it of not getting the best deal possible
in regards to the buyout offer from Blackstone Group, LP,
GlobeSt.Com reports.

One of these suits is "Beck v. Dombrowski, Case No. 06-6411,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006).

That suit names as defendants Chairman Sam Zell, nine other
director-trustees, and New York-based Blackstone Group.  In the
29-page complaint, plaintiffs' attorney Norman Rifkind wrote
that Equity Office is being sold for "the grossly inadequate and
unfair price of $48.50 per share."

The suit accuses the director-trustees of receiving preferential
treatment in the sale at shareholders' expense.  Thus, it seeks
class-action status and a court order canceling the deal.

According to the complaint, defendants would be given the
opportunity to participate in the proposed acquisition, unlike
plaintiff and members of the class who will not only be
prohibited from participating in the company post-acquisition,
but will be stripped of their shares for only a fraction of
their shares' value.


FORTUNE BRANDS: N.Y. Suit Over Alcoholic Drinks Marketing Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in purported class actions filed against Fortune
Brands, Inc. in New York over the company's marketing of
alcoholic beverage to minors have voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice.

The company, its Spirits and Wine business and numerous other
manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine were named
as defendants in a purported class action in Michigan seeking
damages and injunctive relief regarding alleged deceptive and
negligent marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the
legal purchase age for alcohol.

The company was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from
this matter and the Court later dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the remaining defendants, including the Spirits
and Wine business.  Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  This action
has been consolidated on appeal with another case against the
company, its Spirits and Wine business and numerous other
manufacturers of beer, spirits and wine in Ohio seeking similar
damages, which was also dismissed by the District Court.

The Spirits and Wine business, and numerous other manufacturers
and importers of beer, spirits and wine, are named as defendants
in a purported class action in West Virginia seeking damages and
injunctive relief regarding alleged deceptive and negligent
marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase
age for alcohol.

The company was previously dismissed as a defendant from this
matter, and the court later dismissed with prejudice all claims
against the remaining defendants, including the Spirits and Wine
business.  Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  

The Spirits and Wine business and numerous other manufacturers
and importers of beer, spirits and wine were named as defendants
in purported class actions in New York seeking damages and
injunctive relief regarding alleged deceptive and negligent
marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase
age for alcohol.

The company was previously named as a defendant but was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice prior to being served
with the complaint.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
action without prejudice on October 24, 2006.

The suits are:

     -- "Alston v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.,"
        which was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court for
        the Third Judicial Circuit, Michigan;  

     -- "Sciocchetti v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et
        al.," which was filed Feb. 16, 2005 in the Supreme
        Court, Albany County, New York;

     -- "Bertovich v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.,"
         which was filed Feb. 17, 2005 in the Circuit Court
         of Hancock County, West Virginia, and was later removed
         to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         West Virginia on May 22, 2005; and

     -- "Eisenberg et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. et al., Case
         No. 1:04-cv-01081-DCN," filed in the U.S. District
         Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge
         Donald C. Nugent.


GUAM: $90 Million Earned Income Tax Credit Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood granted
preliminary approval on Jan. 9 to the $90 million Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC) settlement entered by the government with
taxpayers, KUAM News reports.

The initial payment of $10 million will be paid within 60 days
to 1997 and 1998 class members once the government provides the
proper notices, the report said.   The remainder of the $80
million will be paid out annually, as the settlement
specifically states that 15% of all funds used to pay tax
returns every year will be used to pay EITC arrears, according
to the report.

In June 2006, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement
to settle a suit against the government over tax refunds it owes
taxpayers under the EITC (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).

Settlement talks that ensued after class actions were filed
against the government by Julie Babauta Santos, Charmaine
Torres, and Mary Grace Simpao with Christina Naputi in 2004
originally contemplated a $60 million payment of the $120
million owed to taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to 1998.  
The Simpao class is currently opposing the payment.

The settlement was entered into by Attorney General Douglas
Moylan and then-acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan.  But Gov. Felix
Camacho did not approve of the settlement.  He increased the
settlement to $90 million, specifying this will come from 15% of
the money set aside for tax refunds each year.

Earlier that year, District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez granted  
Gov. Camacho's request for global mediation.  Negotiations
resulted to a deal with lawyers representing Ms. Santos and Ms.
Torres.  But lawyers representing Ms. Naputi and Ms. Simpao
disagreed, and have asked the court to move forward with the
lawsuit and select a lead counsel.

Attorney Rawlen Mantanona represented the Department of
Administration and the Rev and Tax director during the hearing.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike  
Philips, and James Canto.


IMMUCOR INC: Discovery Continues in Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still on going in a consolidated securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against Immucor, Inc.

Between Aug. 31 and Oct. 19, 2005, a series of 10 class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers alleging violations of the
securities laws.

The court has consolidated these cases for disposition as, "In
re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276-
WSD," designated lead plaintiffs, permitted the filing of an
amended consolidated complaint, and established a schedule for
briefing the company's motion to dismiss the claims.

The consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between
Aug. 16, 2004 and Aug. 29, 2005, alleges that company stock
prices during that period were inflated as a result of material
misrepresentations or omissions in the company's financial
statements and other public announcements regarding its
business.

On March 7, 2006, the company timely moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Oct. 4, 2006, the court denied the
company's motion to dismiss.  

The company has answered the consolidated complaint denying
liability and the case is proceeding through the discovery phase
under an order contemplating completion of all discovery by July
15, 2007.  

The court has made no determination whether any of the
plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as
a class action, according to company's Jan. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No.
1:05-CV-2276-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, e-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;

     (2) Michael Ira Fistel, Jr. of Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 1117
         Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338,
         Phone: 770-392-0090, e-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com;

     (3) Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco, 1360 West 9th
         Street, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: 216-522-
         9000, e-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Emmet J. Bondurant, II and
Jeffrey O. Bramlett of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West
Peachtree Street, N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA
30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4126 and 404-881-4100, E-mail:
bondurant@bmelaw.com and bramlett@bmelaw.com.


INDIAN TRUST: Tribes File Trust Funds Mismanagement Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) filed a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on behalf of more than 250 Indian Tribes for the alleged
mismanagement of tribal trust funds.  

The suit, "Nez Perce Tribe, et al., v. Dirk Kempthorne, et al.,
Case 1:06-cv-02239-CKK," was filed on Dec. 28, 2006.  It seeks
full and complete accountings from the federal government for
hundreds of tribal accounts worth an estimated $200 billion,
which are currently held in trust.

Eleven Tribes are the named as plaintiffs in the suit, which are
composed of:

      -- the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho,
      -- the Mescalero Apache Tribe,
      -- the Tule River Indian Tribe,
      -- the Hualapai Tribe,
      -- the Yakama Nation,
      -- the Klamath Tribes,
      -- the Yurok Tribe,
      -- the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe,
      -- the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma,
      -- the Sac and Fox Nation, and
      -- the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.

Named as defendants in the suit are Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary
of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior; and Henry M.
Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the
Treasury.

According to the complaint, "the action is seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief and for judicial review of final
administrative agency action regarding accountings of funds of
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes that were or are held
in trust by the federal government as trustee for the tribes as
beneficiaries."

It goes on to state, "the suit arises out of defendants
continuing breaches of inherent and statutory fiduciary
accounting and management duties owed to plaintiffs, including,
but not limited to the duty to provide full and complete
accountings of plaintiffs trust funds and the duty to correct
trust fund accounts improperly accounted for and/or improperly
managed and make those accounts whole."

The federal government long ago assumed the role of trustee for
tribal trust funds, and created the accounts at issue.  The
funds come from revenues from tribal natural resources such as
timber, minerals, oil and gas; court judgments entered against
the U.S. for the unlawful appropriation of Indian land and
property; and, income from the investments of money held in the
accounts.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?183b

For more details, contact Mark C. Tilden, DC Bar No. 459438,
Native American Rights Fund, 1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302,
Phone: (303) 447-8760, Fax: (303) 443-7776, E-mail:
mctilden@narf.org.


KRAFT FOODS: Faces Fraud Suit Over "All Natural" Capri Sun Drink
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the
Florida law firm of Varnell & Warwick initiated a class action
on behalf of a Florida woman against Kraft Foods, for
deceptively marketing the product as "All Natural," Food
Consumer reports.

The suit, filed in state court in Palm Beach County alleges that
the "All Natural" claims are in direct violation of that state's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and asks the court to
order Kraft to drop the false statements.

The suit contends that deceptive marketing used by
Kraft -- the maker of Capri Sun-foil pouches filled with a
solution of water, high-fructose corn syrup, and small amounts
of juice -- tricks consumers into thinking the product is
healthier than it actually is, perhaps encouraging some people
to confuse the almost juice-less drink with real fruit juice.

CSPI said that though high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is no more
harmful than other sugars, it is a plainly man-made ingredient.

Linda Rex -- a Boynton Beach, Florida, grandmother and the
plaintiff in the suit-- claimed she purchased Capri Sun for a
young relative visiting from Ireland because "All Natural" on
the label sounded healthier than soda.

"But when I got home and got out my glasses, I threw it in the
garbage when I realized it contained high-fructose corn syrup
and was nearly identical to soda," Ms. Rex said.

It may sound like it comes from corn in the same way sugar comes
from sugar cane or sugar beets, but HFCS is created by a complex
industrial process performed in refineries using centrifuges,
hydroclones, ion-exchange columns, backed-bed reactors and other
high-tech equipment, the report said.

Starch is extracted from corn and then converted by acids or
enzymes to glucose. Then some of the glucose is further
converted by enzymes into fructose. HFCS has only been widely
used in food since the 1980s.

CSPI says that while the glucose and fructose in HFCS are
identical to naturally occurring glucose and fructose, the fact
that chemical bonds are broken and rearranged in their
production disqualifies them from being called natural. For
instance, while a scientist might be able to produce sugar by
rearranging the molecules of any number of things that contain
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, it clearly wouldn't be "natural"
sugar.

CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, said that though
Capri Sun claims to be "All Natural," its main flavoring would
more accurately be called "Fresh from the Factory."

"Let's put it this way: Unless you and your chemist friends are
prepared to undertake a little Manhattan Project in your
kitchen, you won't be brewing any high-fructose corn syrup from
scratch anytime soon. How typical of a tobacco company, though,
to call something like HFCS 'All Natural,'" Mr. Jacobson said.

Capri Sun is typically sold in boxes of 10 foil pouches. Both
the boxes and the pouches use the words "All Natural," but only
the boxes disclose the presence of high-fructose corn syrup in
the fine print of the ingredients list.

Kraft also makes Capri Sun "All Natural Fruit Rolls," which
similarly contain HFCS.

Plaintiff's counsel is Varnell & Warwick, P.A., 20 LaGrande
Blvd., The Villages, FL 32159, Phone: (352) 753-8600.

KSL RECREATION: Jan. 16 Hearing Set for Calif. Resort Fee Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Riverside will hold
a fairness hearing on Jan. 16, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "Gray v. KSL Recreation
Group, Inc., KSL Desert Resorts, Inc., and KSL Recreation Corp.,
Case No. INC040908."

The hearing will take place in the courtroom of the Honorable H.
Morgan Dougherty, Judge of the Superior Court of California,
Dept. 2H, Riverside County, Indio Larson Justice, 46-200 Oasis
Street, Indio, California 92201.

The class action alleges that defendants failed to inform guests
sufficiently about the resort fee that certain Resorts imposed.  
The amount of the resort fee varied by hotel and over time, and
the services and facilities covered by the fee also varied by
hotel; and, for purposes of the proposed settlement, the amount
of the resort fee has ranged on average from $7.50 to $20.00.

It specifically alleges that defendants breached the contract
with guests and engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices by not providing adequate notice of and information
about the resort fee.  

Defendants deny each and every allegation and believe that they
have strong factual and legal defenses to the claims.  

Lead class counsel recently informed the court that, after a
thorough investigation and analysis of the facts and the law and
after consideration of the substantial and certain benefits
provided by the settlement and the risks and delays of class
action litigation, the class representative and lead class
counsel have reached a settlement with hotel companies that they
believe is fair, reasonable, and adequate, is in the best
interests of the Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged.  

Defined as a class members in the case are:

      -- those that stayed at one of the resorts listed below
         between class period for each hotel;
     
      -- those who paid to that hotel a resort fee in addition
         to the nightly room rate and any governmentally imposed
         fees or taxes; and

      -- believe in good faith that: he or she did not
         receive notice of the resort fee at the time the
         reservation was made, or, if no advance reservation was
         made, at the time of check-in at the hotel, and/or; he
         or she believes in good faith that they were
         misinformed or misled about the nature, purpose, scope,
         amount, or ultimate recipient of the resort fee due to
         information received at or about the time of
         reservation, check-in and/or check-out.  

The Resorts and the applicable class period for each is May 9,
1999, through Jan. 31, 2005, for La Quinta Resort & Club, Grand
Wailea Resort Hotel & Spa, Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa, La
Costa Resort & Spa, Hotel del Coronado, Claremont Resort & Spa
and Emerald Pointe Resort & Conference Center; May 9, 1999,
through Aug. 18, 2004, for the Doral Golf Resort & Spa; and May
9, 1999, through March 4, 2003, for the Grand Traverse Resort
and Spa.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Peter D. Morgenstern, Esq., of Morgenstern Jacobs &
         Blue, LLC, 885 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022,        
         Phone: (212) 750-6776; and

     (2) Rust Consulting, Inc., Phone: 866-722-3520, Web site:
         http://www.kslsettlement.com.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Yet to Rule on "Siracusano" Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet  
to rule on an appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court  
for the District of Arizona of the consolidated securities fraud  
class action, "Siracusano, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.  
et al."

In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the  
company, its president and chief executive officer, Carl J.  
Johnson, and its executive vice president and chief financial  
officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal  
securities laws.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court  
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The amended  
complaint also includes the company's vice president of research  
and development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed  
March 4, 2005.   

The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx  
Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was  
filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona.   

The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004,  
the company made materially false and misleading statements  
regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to  
adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations  
that the company's products caused damage to the sense of smell  
and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on March  
8, 2006, the company received an order dated Dec. 15, 2005  
granting the motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.   

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S.  
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is before Judge Mary H. Murguia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Lukas F. Ohltz and Scott M. Saham of  
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401  
         B St., Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-
         1058, E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com and  
         ScottS@Lerachlaw.com; and  

     (2) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. and Andrew S. Friedman of  
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central  
         Ave, Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-
         1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com and  
         afriedman@bffb.com.   

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Maureen Beyers and David Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon,  
         P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012-
         2794, Phone: 602-640-9305, Fax: 602-664-2053, E-mail:  
         mbeyers@omlaw.com and drosenbaum@omlaw.com; and  

    (ii) Amy J. Longo, Molly J. Magnuson, David B. Rosenbaum and  
         Michael Yoder of O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center  
         Dr., 17th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-
         823-7175, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail: alongo@omm.com,  
         mmagnuson@omm.com and myoder@omm.com.


MCLEODUSA INC: Ia. Judge Okays $30M Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Mark Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Iowa approved the $30 million offer to
settle a shareholder class action against four former McLeodUSA
Inc. officers, The Gazette reports.  

Judge Bennett granted the plaintiffs' attorneys, who handled the
case on contingency, 30 percent of the $30 million instead of
the 33.3 percent they had been seeking.  He also awarded them
$900,000 for actual expenses in handling the case.

A hearing on the settlement was held Nov. 29 (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 20, 2006).

The settlement covers:   

      -- all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired  
         McLeodUSA common stock during the period from and   
         including January 3, 2001 through and including Dec. 3,   
         2001, and were damaged thereby; and   

      -- all persons who acquired McLeodUSA common stock   
         pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus   
         issued in connection with McLeodUSA's June 1, 2001   
         stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc., and   
         were damaged thereby.  

                          Case Background  

The lawsuit asserted that defendants intentionally or recklessly
misled investors regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and
financial condition.

Specifically, the lawsuit asserted that the defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements and
omissions including, among other things:

      -- that McLeodUSA failed to timely and properly recognize   
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in   
         connection with certain acquisitions;   

      -- that McLeodUSA did not have the funds necessary to   
         complete its national network and would soon have to   
         abandon its plans;   

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to service its substantial   
         debt and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to   
         avoid bankruptcy; and   

      -- that McLeodUSA was unable to successfully integrate the   
         Splitrock and CapRock acquisitions.   

The lawsuit further alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
caused the price of McLeodUSA securities to be artificially
inflated, causing damage to the class members when McLeodUSA
began to disclose its true financial condition.

It seeks money damages against the defendants for violations of
the federal securities laws.  The defendants deny lead
Plaintiffs' allegations.  

On and after Jan. 11, 2002, 13 class action complaints were
filed against McLeodUSA and/or certain of McLeodUSA's present or
former officers and directors -- Clark E. McLeod, Stephen C.
Gray, J. Lyle Patrick and Chris A. Davis -- on behalf of a class
of public investors who either:

      -- purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock   
         (between Jan. 3, 2001 and Dec. 3, 2001 inclusive); or  
         
      -- acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the   
         Registration and Prospectus issued in connection with   
         McLeodUSA's stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan,   
         Inc. By order dated April 16, 2002, the court   
         consolidated all thirteen cases, selected lead   
         plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of   
         counsel.  

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on June 17, 2002.  McLeodUSA was not named as a
defendant in the Complaint due to its filing for bankruptcy in
January 2002.

As stated above, the complaint alleged that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial
condition including, among other things, McLeodUSA's plan to
build a national network, the purported successful integration
of Splitrock Services, Inc. and CapRock Communications Corp.,
McLeodUSA's financial forecasts and results, whether McLeodUSA's
financial statements had been prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and whether or not
McLeodUSA expected to file for bankruptcy.

The complaint also alleged that defendants' misrepresentations
artificially inflated the value of McLeodUSA securities,
injuring McLeodUSA shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock at inflated prices during the class
period when the true state of affairs became known.

On Aug. 30, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum on Nov. 4,
2002, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on Nov. 22,
2002.

The court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants'
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2003.  Both Parties submitted
responses to the report, and on March 31, 2004 the court
accepted the findings of the report and denied defendants'
motion in full.  On May 3, 2004, defendants filed their answers
to the complaint.

Thereafter, in the spring of 2004, lead plaintiffs initiated
merits discovery.  

The lead plaintiffs conducted extensive written discovery,
serving multiple sets of formal document requests and
interrogatories, and many subpoenas on third-parties.

As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, Lead
Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 2.4 million pages of
documents produced by McLeodUSA, the Defendants and third
parties.  The parties also deposed ten witnesses in locations
throughout the U.S.

As discovery was ongoing, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, and the Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to loss causation, based
on the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v.
Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005).  Each of these motions was fully
briefed by the parties.

In the interim, on Oct. 28, 2005, McLeodUSA filed its second
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, and the Action was stayed pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision.

The court lifted the stay on March 16, 2006 pursuant to a motion
filed with the court.  Lead plaintiffs filed a new motion for
class certification, and defendants filed a new motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  These motions were fully briefed and
pending at the time the parties reached the tentative agreement
to resolve the action.

The Parties first discussed the possibility of settling the
Action in June 2002.  However, it was obvious at that time that
they were too far apart to reach agreement, and it was not until
Nov. 17, 2003 that the Parties again met to discuss a
resolution.

Thereafter, the parties participated in three formal mediation
sessions -- on July 28, 2004 and Sept. 22, 2005 with the
assistance of the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.) and on
May 3, 2006 with the assistance of the Honorable Herbert
Stettin.  It was shortly after this third mediation session that
the parties reached the basic terms of the settlement.

In September, the judge set the fairness hearing in the matter,
"In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No.
C02-0001-MWB," on Nov. 29 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2006).

Deadline for objections and exclusions to and from the
settlement was on Nov. 15, 2006.  Deadline for submission of
claims is on Jan. 16, 2007.

For more details, contact:   

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &   
         Schulman, LLP, One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,   
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300, Web site:  
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;
  
     (2) David Kessler, Esq., and Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of  
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,   
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone (610) 667-7706, E-mail:  
         info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., and Joseph D. Cohen, Esq., Weiss   
         & Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY   
         10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Web site:   
         http://www.infony@weisslurie;and      

     (4) McLeodUSA Securities Litigation Exclusions c/o   
         Analytics, Inc., Claims AdministratorP.O. Box 2006   
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006, Phone: 1-888-212-3057, Web   
         site: http://www.mcleodusasecuritieslitigation.com/.


MERIX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit the dismissal with prejudice by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon of the amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action against Merix Corp.

On June 17, 2004, the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in the first of
four purported class actions alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  

These four cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, have now been consolidated in a
single action entitled "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. CV 04-826-MO."

A lead plaintiff was appointed, who filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint on Nov. 15, 2004.  On March 3,
2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and
consolidated complaint for failure to identify with sufficient
specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to have been
false and why the statements were either false when made or
material.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the complaint, without
prejudice, and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
On Nov. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the January 2004 public offering.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 28, 2006, the U.S. District Court
of Oregon dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to
company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25,
2006.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check,  
         Sean M. Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin &  
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)  
         667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
         dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com and  
         azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and  

     (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,  
         LLP, 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154,  
         Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax: (206) 839-0728, E-mail:  
         lfeldman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch  
         St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)  
         727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:  
         baumr@perkinscoie.com; and  

    (ii) Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L. Berenstain and Douglas W.  
         Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201 Third Ave.,  
         Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: (206) 359-
         8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax: (206)  
         359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail:  
         jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com  
         and DGreene@perkinscoie.com.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Graniteville Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Southern Carolina approved a class settlement for
personal injury claims resulting from the Jan. 6, 2005
derailment of Norfolk Southern Corp. train in Graniteville,
South Carolina, WDBJ7.com reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,
     -- Norfolk Southern Corp.,
     -- Olin Corp.,
     -- Union Tank Car Co.,
     -- Benjimin Aiken,
     -- Mike Ford,
     -- James Thornton, and
     -- Jimmy Ray Thornton.

The settlement would provide varying levels of compensation for
people who were injured and who received medical treatment or
were hospitalized as a result of the derailment and subsequent
release of chlorine.

Earlier, Norfolk Southern asked the court to approve an
agreement reached by railroad owner Norfolk Southern and
plaintiffs' attorneys (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006).

The settlement agreement is for claims that were not part of a
previous class settlement approved last year covering property
damage, evacuation expenses and losses, and minor personal
injuries.

Robin Chapman, a spokesman for the Norfolk, Virginia-based
company, says Norfolk Southern has paid claims to roughly 37-
hundred people and expects about 760 more to qualify for this
class action.  There are still more than 100 lawsuits pending.

He added the railroad has paid roughly $41 million dollars in
claims and other expenses.

Norfolk, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern s Norfolk Southern
Railway subsidiary operates around 21,200 route miles in 22
states, the District of Columbia and Ontario, Canada.

The company operates the most extensive intermodal network in
the East and is North America's largest rail carrier of metals
and automotive products.

The suit is "In Re Graniteville Cases, Case No. 1:06-mn-06000-
MBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina under Judge Margaret B. Seymour.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) Mark G. Arnold of Husch and Eppenberger, 190 Carondelet
         Plaza, Suite 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441, Phone: 314-
         480-1500, E-mail: mark.arnold@husch.com;

     (2) W. Howard Boyd, Jr. of Gallivan White and Boyd, PO Box
         10589, Greenville, SC 29603, Phone: 864-271-9580, Fax:
         864-271-7502, E-mail: hboyd@gwblawfirm.com;

     (3) Karen Aldridge Crawford of Nelson Mullins Riley and
         Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone:
         803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail:
         karen.crawford@nelsonmullins.com;

     (4) Gray Thomas Culbreath of Collins and Lacy, PO Box 12487
         Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-256-2660, Fax: 803-771-
         4484, E-mail: gculbreath@collinsandlacy.com;

     (5) John Arthur Davison of Fulcher Hagler Reed Hanks and
         Harper, PO Box 1477, Augusta, GA 30903-1477, Phone:
         706-724-0171, Fax: 706-724-4573, E-mail:
         adavison@fulcherlaw.com;

     (6) Paul A. Dominick of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard and
         Robinson, PO Box 486, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-
         577-9440, Fax: 843-720-1777, E-mail:
         pdominick@nexsenpruet.com;

     (7) John Carson Duffey of Stuart and Branigin, PO Box 1010,
         Lafayette, IN 47902, Phone: 765-423-1561, E-mail:
         jcd@stuartlaw.com; and

     (8) Alan B. Hoffman of Husch and Eppenberger, 190
         Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441,
         Phone: 314-480-1500, E-mail: alan.hoffman@husch.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles H. Baumberger of Rossman Baumberger Reboso and
         Spier, Courthouse Tower, 44 W Flager Street, Suite
         2300, Miami, FL 33130-1808, Phone: 1-800-775-6511;

     (2) DeAndrea Gist Benjamin and Donald Gist both of The Gist
         Law Firm, 4400 N Main Street, Columbia, SC 29201,
         Phone: 803-771-8007, Fax: 803-771-0063, E-mail:
         federalfiling@gistlawfirm.com;

     (3) Ziva P. Bruckner of Capers Dunbar Sanders and Bruckner,
         1500 Wachovia Bank Building, 669 Broad St., Augusta, GA
         30901-1454, Phone: 706-722-7542, Fax: 706-724-7776, E-
         mail: bziva@hotmail.com;

     (4) James David Butler of Richardson Patrick Westbrook and
         Brickman, PO Box 1368, Barnwell, SC 29812, Phone: 803-
         259-9900, Fax: 803-541-9625, E-mail: dbutler@rpwb.com;

     (5) Mary Theresa Campbell, 149 Chesterfield Street, South
         Aiken, SC 29801, Phone: 803-642-4450, Fax: 803-642-
         4459, E-mail: mcampbellpa@bellsouth.net;

     (6) Mark Dale Chappell of Chappell and Smith, PO Box 12330,
         Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-929-3600, Fax: 803-929-
         3604, E-mail: mchappell@chappellsmitharden.com;

     (7) Ben F. Easterlin, IV of King and Spalding, 1180
         Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-572-
         2430, E-mail: beasterlin@kslaw.com;

     (8) Daniel S. Haltiwanger of Richardson Patrick Westbrook
         and Brickman, PO Box 1368, Barnwell, SC 29812, Phone:
         803-259-9900, Fax: 678-731-1532, E-mail:
         dhaltiwanger@rpwb.com; and

     (9) John W. Harte, Jr., of The John W Harte Law Offices, PO
         Drawer 586, Aiken, SC 29802, Phone: 803-648-3900, Fax:
         803-642-2778, E-mail: harteaiken@aol.com.


PENTAIR WATER: Recalls Gas Pool Heaters for Poisoning Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Water Pool and Spa Inc., of Moorpark, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 105,000 units of MiniMax NT STD gas pool
heaters.

The company said these pool heaters can emit excessive carbon
monoxide, posing a risk of poisoning in the event of a vent leak
in an indoor installation.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Pentair MiniMax NT STD Gas Pool Heaters
installed indoors.  They have BTU ratings between 200,000 and
400,000, and use either natural gas or propane.  The model
number is located on the rating plate on the inner front panel
of the heater.  The following model numbers are included:

     -- 460427 through 460430
     -- 460439 through 460450
     -- 460531 through 460538
     -- 460543 through 460566

The heater identification number is located on the rating plate
on the inner panel of the heater, which will show "NT" and "STD"
in the third and fourth blocks of the number.  The recall
includes units with serial numbers 0606002 and lower.  The
recall also includes units without serial numbers.  If the unit
has a serial number, it is written on the data plate on the
heater, which is located on the inner front door of the heater.  
Units with serial number 0606003 and higher are not included in
this recall.  MiniMax NT Low NOx and MiniMax NT TSI model pool
heaters are not included in this recall.

These recalled gas pool heaters were manufactured in the U.S.
and are being sold through pool heater distributors and pool
service equipment dealers nationwide from April 2002 through May
2006 for between $2,000 and $3,850 depending on the model
number.

Picture of the recalled gas pool heaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07073.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these gas pool heaters
installed indoors immediately, and contact the firm to determine
if their heater is included in the recall.  If it is, Pentair
will provide a free inspection, and repair of the heater if
necessary.

For more information, contact Pentair toll-free at (866)-761-
5272 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, or go to
their Web site: http://www.pentairpool.com.


PFIZER INC: N.Y. Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Revised
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action "Coultrip et al. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-09952-AKH," filed an amended complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Under the amended complaint, the term "Covered Employees" means
all persons who have been, are, or in the future will be
employed by any of the defendants in any job whose title is or
was referred to by any of these titles:

     -- sales representative,
     -- senior sales representative,
     -- executive sales representative, and
     -- senior executive sales representative

and employees who performed substantial the same work as
employees with those titles above and who were employed during
the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for
relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including
time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been
tolled or suspended.

Filed in October 2006, former and current employees of Pfizer,
Inc. allege violations of federal and state wage and hour laws.

Pursuant to a decision, policy and plan, the Covered Employees
were and continue to be unlawfully classified by the company as
exempt from laws requiring overtime pay, but in actuality, the
employees were/are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that defendants' managers, with
the knowledge and consent of corporate management,
systematically violated the law throughout Illinois,
Pennsylvania, California, Wisconsin and the U.S., in the
following respects:

      -- failing to pay employees overtime compensation for
         hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

      -- failing to maintain accurate records of employees'
         time; and

      -- failing to pay class members overtime compensation for
         hours worked in excess of eight hours per day.

There are questions of law and fact common to the class which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members, including;

      -- whether defendants employed jointly the plaintiffs and
         the class within the meaning of state laws;

     -- what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants
        failed in their duty to maintain records;

     -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures,
        protocols, and plans of defendants regarding payment of
        overtime wages;

     -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures,
        protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of
        wages for all hours worked;

     -- whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay the
        plaintiffs and the class premium pay for hours worked in
        excess of 40 per workweek or eight hours per workday
        within the meaning of state laws;

     -- what are and were the policies, practices, programs,
        procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding
        the types of work and labor for which defendants did not
        pay the class members at all;

     -- at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods
        of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay
        the class members for their work;

     -- what are the common conditions of employment and in the
        workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies
        and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect
        whether the class was paid at overtime rates for
        overtime work;

     -- whether defendants compensated class members that
        terminated their employment all wages owed them
        immediately upon the termination of their employment as
        required by state laws; and

     -- whether defendants provided plaintiffs with rest period
        and meal breaks as required by state laws.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Covered Employees,
pray for relief as follows:

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        are unlawful under FLSA and/or state laws;

     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA and/or state laws;

     -- designation of plaintiffs as representatives of the FLSA
        Collective Action;

     -- certification of the California State law claims as a
        class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of the California plaintiff as a
        representative of the California class;

     -- certification of the Illinois State law claims as a
        class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of plaintiff Coultrip as representative of
        the Illinois class;

     -- certification of the Pennsylvania State law claims as a
        class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of plaintiffs Higgs an Hadley as
        representatives of the Pennsylvania class;

     -- certification of the Wisconsin State law claims as a
        class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

     -- designation of plaintiff Chenault as representative of
        the Wisconsin class;

     -- award of damages and/or restitution, according to proof,
        including liquidated damages, to be paid by defendants;

     -- penalties available under applicable law;

     -- costs of action incurred herein, including expert fees;

     -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
        Section 216 and other applicable state statutes;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by
        law; and

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the
        court deems necessary, just and proper.

Pharmaceutical Reps on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com

A copy of the amended complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1840

The suit is "Coultrip et al v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
09952-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

Representing plaintiffs is Charles Edward Joseph of Joseph and
Herzfeld, L.L.P., 757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, NY, NY 10017,
Phone: (212) 688-5640, Fax: (212) 688-2548, E-mail:
maimon@jhllp.com.

Representing defendant is A. Michael Weber of Littler Mendelson,
P.C., 885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
(212)-583-2660, Fax: (212)-832-2719, E-mail: mweber@littler.com.


PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Affirmative Defenses Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippines' First Gentleman, Jose Miguel Arroyo, filed a
counterclaim against dozens of Filipino journalists who filed a
class suit against him last month, ABS-CBN News reports.

Mr. Arroyo's lawyer, Ruy Rondain, said the class suit, was
defective, claiming that other plaintiffs did not sign the class
suit while those who joined had nothing to do with the case as
they are not facing libel charges filed by Mr. Arroyo.

However, Harry Roque, an international law professor at the
University of the Philippines in Diliman and the journalists'
legal counsel, argued that those who are not facing libel
charges are also entitled to join the class suit.

Mr. Rondain, said the President's husband has cited 20 points to
have the class suit dismissed by the court.  Mr. Arroyo's
counterclaim involved a motion to set a hearing for affirmative
defenses.  He also wants the Makati Regional Trial to dismiss
the class suit.

Mr. Rondain said the complainants failed to pay the right amount
of docket fees that is estimated to be over PHP9 million.  He
said the plaintiffs were asking a collective of amount of PHP500
million in damages.

The court is scheduled to conduct a hearing regarding Mr.
Arroyo's motion on Thursday.

On Dec. 28, 2006, dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing
libel suits filed by Mr. Arroyo, filed a civil class action
against the presidential spouse at the Makati Regional Trial
Court (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006).

Plaintiffs most of whom are charged by Mr. Arroyo with libel are
backed by other journalists, media, and journalists'
organizations.  Such groups include the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism and Center for Media Freedom and
Responsibility.

They are contesting the First Gentleman's claim that he has been
maligned as a private citizen, for which he is seeking at least
$2,872,275.41 (P141 million) in damages.

The libel cases were in connection with reports of alleged
election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo.  The
journalists are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom
of the press (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006).

Retaliating against the charges filed against them, the
journalists are in turn suing Mr. Arroyo for abuse of power and
for seeking to undermine civil liberties.

The suit is asking for about $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in
damages for the anxiety, loss of income and other inconveniences
Mr. Arroyo's libel suits have allegedly caused.

However, it also argues that the suits have not only caused the
respondents sleepless nights.  The suits also have a chilling
effect on press freedom, according to plaintiffs.  Should the
case prosper, the sought amount will go into a press freedom
fund.

Arguing that the reports are fair commentaries on matters of
public interest, the journalists assert that the "sheer number
of libel suits Mr. Arroyo has filed suggests that these are
primarily intended to intimidate the press and silence
criticism."


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Tex. Judge Refuses Transfer of "Antee" to Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Magistrate Caroline Craven denied a request by attorneys
for the plaintiffs in the class action "Antee, et al. v.
Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," to grant a transfer of venue for the
case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas to one in El Dorado, Arkansas, the Texarkana Gazette
reports.

In Judge Craven's ruling, she notes a transfer might "... create
an undesirable precedent where a plaintiff might be tempted to
'shop among forums.'"

In Nov. 2006, Kelly Tidwell, an attorney for the plaintiffs in
the "Antee" suit asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas to grant a transfer of venue from that court
to one in Arkansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2006).

When a transfer of venue is requested in a civil case, it is
almost always done by the defense, explains local attorney Jim
Cook of the law firm Dunn, Nutter & Morgan.  A request of this
type from a plaintiff is rare, according to him.

The case, which involves a growing number of Pilgrim's Pride
employees in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and eight other states,
alleges that the employees were intentionally not paid for time
spent "donning and doffing" gear worn while performing factory
work.   

It also alleges that employees were not paid time and a half for
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week, were not paid
their correct hourly rate, and that wages were improperly
calculated.

In requesting for the transfer, Mr. Tidwell told Judge Craven
that the simple argument is for judicial economy, as they will
be seeking a national collective action.

A second suit was filed in El Dorado, Arkansas, after the one in
Judge Craven's court.  Mr. Tidwell is asking for both cases to
be heard there.

The 1,300 plaintiffs in the El Dorado case outnumber the 85 in
the Texas case, according to Mr. Tidwell.  A suit also exists in
Louisiana and Mr. Tidwell says those plaintiffs are willing to
join the El Dorado case, but not the one in Texas.

However, defendants want Judge Craven to deny the motion to
transfer the Texas case.  Attorney John Brown, representing
Pilgrim's Pride, pointed out that such a move would create bad
precedent if months into the case the plaintiff gets a change of
venue because they've decided there's a better place.

The suit is "Antee et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., Case No.
5:06-cv-00089-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with referral
to Judge Caroline Craven.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kelly B. Tidwell of Patton &
Tidwell, 4605 Texas Blvd., P.O. Box 5398, Texarkana, TX 75505-
5398, Phone: 903/792-5859, Fax: 19037928233, E-mail:
kbt@texarkanalaw.com.
  
Representing the defendants is John Bridges Brown of Gardere
Wynne Sewell, 1601 Elm St., 3000 Thanksgiving Tower, Dallas, TX
75201, Phone: 214/999-3000, Fax: 12149993969, E-mail:
jbrown@gardere.com.


PRG-SCHULTZ: Settles Ga. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75M
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division approved a $6.75 million settlement of a
securities fraud suit filed against PRG-Schultz International,
Inc.

Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class actions were
filed against the company and certain of its present and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division.

These cases were subsequently consolidated into one proceeding
as "In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Sec.
Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC.  

On February 8, 2005, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the Securities Class Action Litigation.  On
February 10, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division preliminarily approved the
terms of the Settlement.

On May 26, 2005, the Court approved the Stipulation of
Settlement entered into by the company with the Plaintiff's
counsel, on behalf of all putative class members, pursuant to
which it agreed to settle the consolidated class action for
$6.75 million, which payment was made by the insurance carrier
for the company, according to the company's form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Drug-Testing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen medical professionals, including two physicians, three
doctors of pharmacy and nine nurses, have filed a lawsuit
against several companies in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey for:  

     -- negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation,
     -- products liability,
     -- ordinary and professional negligence,
     -- breach of fiduciary duty, and
     -- violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

related to the promotion, marketing and sale of EtG drug testing
systems, alcohol testing and screening services, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Quest Diagnostics, Inc.;
     -- National Medical Services Inc.;
     -- LabCorp, a subsidiary of Laboratory Corp. of
        America Holdings;
     -- DTS a/k/a Drug Test Systems;
     -- FirstLab, a subsidiary of FHC Health Systems, Inc.
     -- Compass Vision, Inc.;
     -- First Advantage, a division of The First American
        Corp.; and
     -- "John Doe" Corporations.

Class Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action in their
own behalf and on behalf of a Class to include all licensed
individuals, engaged in the health care professions, throughout
the U.S., who have been required to submit to EtG testing that
were performed, interpreted and/or reported by Defendants to
their respective licensing boards.

All such class members have been disciplined, had their licenses
suspended or under threat of suspension, on probation and/or
subjected to ongoing EtG screening as a result of their
"positive"test results.

This Class only includes those Class Members who have denied any
consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with such
"positive"results.

This Class does not include any individual who has or will
institute an individual action against these Defendants, unless
he or she opts into the Class in the future.

EtG "stands for ethylglucuronide, a metabolite of alcohol, and
was reported by Gregory Skipper, M.D. and Friedrich Wurst, M.D.,
in November 2002 at an international meeting of the American
Medical Society, to provide proof of alcohol consumption as much
as five days after drinking an alcoholic beverage, well after
the alcohol itself had been eliminated from the body.

Plaintiffs claim they have suffered disciplinary actions because
defendants' testing machines falsely reported that the
plaintiffs were under the influence of alcohol.

Plaintiffs further allege the "EtG drug testing systems, alcohol
testing and screening services" produce false positives.

There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the
Class, which are substantially similar and predominate over the
questions affecting the individual Class members.  Among these
common questions of law and fact are:

     (a) Whether the EtG test would unequivocally establish that
         a positive result indicated that the subject individual
         had consumed alcoholic beverages;

     (b) Whether the cutoff or reporting limit, above which a
         "positive" result would occur was scientifically
         established by Defendants after valid and reliable
         research;

     (c) Whether the EtG test was the "gold standard" in
         ferreting out former users of alcoholic beverages
         and/or controlled substances, who were found to have
         repeated prohibited use in occupations requiring "zero
         tolerance;"

     (d) Whether employees who voluntarily agreed to random
         testing could rely on the accuracy of the EtG test in
         protecting them against false positives;

     (e) Whether Defendants breached their duty to Class
         Plaintiffs and the other class members to provide
         reliable screening and reporting services;

     (f) Whether Defendants breached their duty to Class
         Plaintiffs and the other class members to provide
         accurate information about their testing services;

     (g) Whether ordinary products that contain ethanol, such as
         Purell sanitizer, can cause Defendants' testing to
         result in positive results;

     (h) Whether other factors such as age, sex or medical
         conditions (e.g., urinary tract infections or bypass
         gastric surgery), were known to the Defendants as  
         triggers for alleged "positive" results;

     (i) Whether other causes for "positive" results were not
         explored, reported, ignored or dismissed because of
         profit motives in the continued use of the EtG test by
         the applicable licensing boards; and

     (j) Whether Defendants misrepresented material facts about
         their testing and/or TPA services.

Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their favor
and against Defendants as follows:

     1. Determining that this action is a proper class action
        maintainable under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure; certifying the Class; certifying Plaintiffs
        as Class representatives; and appointing Plaintiff's
        counsel as counsel for the Class;

     2. That Defendants be required to make restitution to each
        Class Plaintiff and Class member similarly situated of
        any and all money or property paid or owing by that
        Plaintiff and Class member related to undergoing and
        opposing the consequences of EtG testing;

     3. Awarding compensatory damages for economic losses in the
        form of lost earnings and diminution of earning capacity
        for each Class Plaintiff and Class member;

     4. Awarding compensatory damages for any non-economic
        damages suffered by each Class Plaintiff and Class
        member;

     5. Awarding compensatory damages, trebled, for violations
        of the NJCFA;

     6. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class punitive damages in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     7. For a determination by the Court of the most suitable
        mode by which Class members are to come forward,
        identify themselves, and prove their entitlement to
        share in the total sum awarded by the Court for
        compensatory and punitive damages;

     8. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable
        attorney's fees;

     9. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the class members
        similarly situated pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest as provided by law;

    10. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the class members  
        similarly situated their costs of suit herein incurred;
        and

    11. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the class members
        similarly situated such other and further relief as may
        be just and proper.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1836

The suit is "Garlick et al. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark
Falk.

Representing plaintiffs is Norman Perlberger of Pomerantz,
Perlberger & Lewis LLP, 7th Floor, Stephen Gerard Bldg., 21
South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3603, Phone: (215)
569-8866, E-mail: np@pomerantzperlberger.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: High Court Nixes Appeal on N.J. Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge in relation
to the Supreme Court of New Jersey's reinstatement of certain
claims made by a plaintiff against Rent-A-Center, Inc. in the
putative class action, "Hilda Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc," the
Daily Record reports.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, Law Division, Camden
County, New Jersey on March 21, 2003.  It arose out of several
rent-to-own contracts Ms. Perez entered into with the company.
The requested class period is April 23, 1999 to the present.  

In her amended complaint, Ms. Perez alleges on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated individuals that the rent-to-
own contracts she entered into with the company violated New
Jersey's Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA) and, as a result,
New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act because such contracts imposed a
time price differential in excess of the 30% per annum interest
rate permitted under New Jersey's criminal usury statute.

Ms. Perez alleges that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate
limit, limiting time price differentials to 30% per annum.  Ms.
Perez seeks reimbursement of the excess fees and/or interest
contracted for, charged and collected, together with treble
damages, and an injunction compelling the company to cease the
alleged violations.  She seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, together with attorneys' fees and costs and
disbursements.  

Following the filing of her amended complaint, the company filed
a counterclaim to recover the merchandise retained by Ms. Perez
after she ceased making rental payments.  Ms. Perez answered the
counterclaim, denying liability and claiming entitlement to the
items she rented from the company.

In August 2003, Ms. Perez moved for partial summary judgment and
the company cross-moved for summary judgment.  In January 2004,
the trial court held that rent-to-own transactions are not
covered by RISA nor subject to the interest rate limit in New
Jersey's criminal usury statute.

The court granted the company's cross-motion, dismissing Ms.
Perez's claims under RISA and the CFA.  Ms. Perez then appealed
to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Oral argument before the Appellate Division occurred in December
2004, and in February 2005 the Appellate Division rejected Ms.
Perez's arguments and ruled in the company's favor on all of her
claims.  Ms. Perez subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of
New Jersey, who heard oral arguments in November 2005.

On March 15, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the
judgment of the trial court and the Appellate Division and
remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of Ms.
Perez's complaint and for further proceedings.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that rent-to-own
contracts in New Jersey are "retail installment contracts" under
RISA, and that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate cap in
New Jersey's criminal usury statute.

The court rejected the company's legal arguments and reinstated
Ms. Perez's claims under RISA and the CFA.  The company then
filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of New  
Jersey, and in response, the court issued an order on July 10,
2006 stating that the March 15, 2006 decision is prospective,
except that it applies to plaintiff and, if the trial court
certifies a class, to the members of the class.

Rent-A-Center says that it has done business in New Jersey for
20 years on the basis that the state's retail installment sales
act does not apply to rent-to-own transactions.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., (NASDAQ/NNM: RCII), headquartered in Plano,  
Texas, operates 2,762 company-owned stores nationwide and in  
Canada and Puerto Rico.   

The company rents household goods to consumers typically without
a down payment or credit check and with an option to purchase
the goods.

The case is "Rent-A-Center v. Perez, 06-657."

For more information, contact David E. Carpenter, Phone: 972-
801-1214, E-mail: dcarpenter@racenter.com.


ROYAL CANADIAN: Sea Cadets to Receive Sexual Abuse Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former sea cadets who suffered sexual abuse while serving in
HMCS Discovery's youth program will soon receive their portion
of a CAD$10 million compensation package, The Globe and Mail
reports.

In 2004, 35 victims who were all former members of the Royal
Canadian Sea Cadet Corp., which operated out of HMCS Discovery
in Stanley Park, were approved to be part of a class action.  
The victims were generally between 13 and 17 years old when they
were abused.

Defendants of the class action included the Attorney-General of
Canada and the Navy League of Canada, as well as three officers.

The suit alleged that as many as 63 boys may have been abused by
reserve officers who preyed on cadets from HMCS Discovery
between 1967 and 1977.  One investigator estimates that four
former officers might have abused as many as 200 cadets between
1964 and 1980 (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006).

Several former officers of HMCS Discovery, which was stationed
in Vancouver's Stanley Park, were named as third-party
defendants to the suit.  This included Conrad Sundman and Ralph
Bremner, both of whom were convicted of sexually assaulting
several sea cadets, who were between the ages of 13 and 17 when
they were abused.

The suit alleges that the federal government might have been
liable for what was alleged to have occurred on HMCS Discovery,
based on the fact that the sea cadets program was set up under
the National Defense Act.

It was alleged that the attorney general failed to take
reasonable measures in the operation or management of the
program to protect the cadets from conduct of a sexual nature by
employees, agents, and other cadets at HMCS Discovery.

Lorne Lachance, counsel for the Attorney-General of Canada, said
80 victims from throughout Canada and one from Germany have been
approved to have claims for a portion of the CAD$10 million
settlement.

Under the settlement, which was reached more than two years
after the attorney general was named as a defendant and was
approved by the B.C. Supreme Court last spring, each of the 35
victims is eligible for an average payout of CAD$227,867.

However, the actual amount each victim will receive depends on
the outcome of psychological tests to determine the severity of
abuse.  "Some will get more and some will get less," Robert
Gibbens, the lawyer retained by the former cadets told The Globe
and Mail.  

The maximum payout has been set as high as $500,000.  Some
victims though could still receive as little as $30,000 if they
elect to take the money without undergoing a psychological test.

The settlement stipulates that anonymity is afforded the members
of the class action and they are no longer obliged to give
evidence in court or be cross-examined on the issue of liability
or on the issue of damages.

The $10-million deal will compensate as many as 200 cadets who
were victimized in the 1960s and 70s.  So far, there are 35
known victims, about a third of them from Surrey and Delta,
according to Mr. Gibbens (Class Action Reporter, April 21,
2006).  

For more details, contact Robert Gibbens, Phone: 604-682-3871,
E-mail rgibbens@laxtonco.com; or The Department of National
Defense Media Liaison Office, Phone: (613) 996-2353/2354.


SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Back Wages Claims in La. District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A processing division subsidiary of Sanderson Farms, Inc. is
facing a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana by a former hourly
employee claiming back wages for time spent on donning
protective and sanitary uniform.

On June 6, 2006, Annie Collins, a former employee of the
processing division subsidiary, on behalf of herself and as
representative of "a class of individuals who are similarly
situated and who have suffered the same or similar damages"
filed a complaint against the company's processing and
production subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

Since the filing of the complaint, at least 2,930 individuals
purportedly have given their consent to be a party plaintiff to
this action.

Plaintiffs allege that the company's subsidiaries violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs and other
hourly employees for the time spent donning and doffing
protective and sanitary clothing and performing other alleged
compensable activities, and that "Sanderson automatically
deducted thirty minutes from each worker's workday for a meal
break regardless of the actual time spent on break."

Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid overtime wages at
the legal rate.  Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, liquidated
damages and injunctive relief.

On July 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective
Order, Sanctions and a Corrective Notice related to a letter the
company sent to all employees concerning the donning and doffing
issue.  The letter informed employees that, among other things,
the company was in negotiations with the Department of Labor
about any adjustment to its pay practices and its calculations
of any back pay obligations.

The company responded to the plaintiffs' motion and filed a
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Conciliation Efforts with the
Department of Labor. On July 25, 2006, plaintiffs responded to
the company's motion, which is still pending.  On July 31, 2006,
the company filed its Answer to the plaintiffs' Complaint.


SANDISK CORP: Settles Calif. Suit Over Flash Memory Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. has agreed to settle a suit filed against it in
California alleging the company misrepresented the memory
storage of its flash memory products.

On February 20, 2004, the company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the City and County of San
Francisco in a purported consumer class action:

     * "Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al.,
        Civil Case No. GCG 04 428953,"

alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of
contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.

The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an
unspecified amount.  The parties have reached a settlement of
the case, which is pending final court approval.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Calif. Reps' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California brought
by employees alleging violation of state and federal overtime
laws.

The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry
-- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as
"exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state
labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

The complaint against Sanofi-Aventis along with earlier cases
filed in recent weeks against:

     -- AstraZeneca,
     -- Pfizer,
     -- Johnson & Johnson,
     -- Amgen,
     -- Eli Lilly,
     -- Hoffman LaRoche,
     -- GlaxoSmithKline,
     -- Bayer, and
     -- Boehringer-Ingelheim

are being litigated by the Los Angeles based-firm of Kingsley &
Kingsley, APC and the New York firm of Joseph and Herzfeld LLP.  
The plaintiffs' lawyers have now been joined by the law firm of
Spiro, Moss in Los Angeles.

"We will seek to prove that thousands of employees from the
major drug companies are being denied their overtime pay,"
charged Eric Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley.  "They work very
long hours, 55-60 hours a week and often well more than that."

"Many employees in all industries are under the mistaken
impression that being salaried means that they are not protected
under the overtime laws. This is not correct," explained Charles
Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld. "Our lawsuits allege that, although
the drug companies deprived representatives of overtime by
classifying them as exempt, they are in fact not exempt under
federal and state laws. The companies have claimed that the
representatives are 'salespersons' and therefore not protected
by the overtime laws, but drug reps' work is promotional - they
actually don't sell anything. "

"Since the first lawsuits were filed, hundreds of pharmaceutical
reps from all over the country have contacted us," said Mr.
Kingsley. "Over and over we hear similar stories about the reps
being forced to work nights and weekends on a regular basis, and
the companies' failure to pay overtime."

Plaintiffs who call the hotline (888-500-8469) describe how
their jobs have changed dramatically over the years. In the
past, the representatives had the freedom to use their own
educated judgment and creativity in marketing the drugs. In the
last several years, perhaps because of lawsuits over drug
marketing and increasing FDA scrutiny, companies have insisted
that the representatives use carefully memorized scripts or
stick to regimented guidelines as to what they may and may not
say.

"The complete loss of autonomy in making decisions and
scheduling their working and family life is a great source of
frustration" said Mr. Kingsley. "Many reps feel that what was
once a desirable job has turned into rote performance under
intense scrutiny at the virtually total beck and call of their
management, a requirement sometimes exercised capriciously
without time even to reschedule child care."

The multibillion dollar drug companies operate in all fifty
states and employ more than half a million workers; the proposed
classes in the combined lawsuits include tens of thousands of
pharmaceutical representatives throughout the United States.

The plaintiffs are asking federal and state courts in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut and California to order the drug
companies to provide overtime pay to eligible employees as well
as compensation and damages to current and former employees who
were denied overtime.  

Pharmaceutical Reps on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com

For more information, contact Eric Kingsley of Kingsley &
Kingsley, APC, Phone: 818-990-8300; or Charles Joseph and Elaine
Elinson, both of Joseph & Herzfeld LLP, Phone: 866-348-7394 or
415-203-4378.


SAVE MART: Customers' Suit Over Info Solicitation Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lauren Thomasson of the San Joaquin Superior Court ordered
class-action certification for the lawsuit accusing Save Mart
Supermarkets of violating state law and potentially putting
customers at risk of identity theft, the Fresno Bee reports.

According to the law firm Lindsay & Stonebarger the suit accuses
Modesto-based Save Mart of providing customers with sales slips
that they sign when making credit card transactions at the
company's supermarkets, which included spaces for customers to
fill in their phone numbers.

Providing a space for customers to fill in personal information
on credit card forms is illegal under California law, according
to Lindsay & Stonebarger lawyer, James Lindsay.

A state law passed in 1990 makes it illegal for retailers that
accept credit cards to ask for or provide forms with spaces
designated for customers to fill in personal information, even
if the information is not obtained, Mr. Lindsay said.

He also claimed the practice could expose customers to identity
theft, but said there's no evidence that happened.  The suit was
first filed on behalf of a handful of clients in July 2004.

Save Mart attorney Steve Boutin said the lawsuit had failed to
show that any customers had ever been harmed by the company's
practices.

Mr. Lindsay asserted that based on his law firm's estimates,
that class-action certification could allow the suit to include
up to 300,000 people who may have given their phone numbers on
the credit card transaction forms, as well as up to 6 million
customers who were illegally asked to fill out the forms but
didn't.

Representing plaintiffs is James M. Lindsay of Lindsay &
Stonebarger, Forum Building, 1107 9th Street, Suite 1020,
Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: (916) 446-0032, Fax: (916)
446-0034, E-mail: jlindsay@lindstonelaw.com.

Representing Save Mart is Stephen F. Boutin of Boutin Dentino
Gibson Di Giusto Hodell Inc., 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500,
Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: 916-321-4444, Telecopier:
916-441-7597.


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. is facing a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
between October 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006.

Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are
named as individual defendants.  The lawsuit focuses on the
company's March 1, 2006 announcement of the restatement of the
company's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2004, and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two
quarters of 2005.  

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any
other relief deemed proper by the court.  

The suit is "I.B.I. Investments LTD v. Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com.


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Awaits Approval of $15M Stock Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a $15 million settlement of a securities
fraud suit filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.

Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class actions
in federal court against the company and certain of the
company's officers and directors.  Later that year, the cases
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California as "In re Terayon Communication Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation."  The Court then appointed lead
plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint.

In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new
complaint.  In 2002, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints,
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material information regarding the company's
technology.

On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11,
2000.  On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants' motion
to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class.

On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the
hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions, and, on
September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all
discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date,
which had been scheduled for November 4, 2003.  On February 23,
2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying two of the lead
plaintiffs and ordered discovery, which was conducted.

In February 2006, the company mediated the case with plaintiffs'
counsel.  As part of the mediation, the company reached a
settlement of $15.0 million.  After this mediation, the
company's insurance carriers agreed to tender their remaining
limits of coverage, and the company contributed approximately
$2.2 million to the settlement.  

On March 17, 2006, the company, along with plaintiffs' counsel,
submitted the settlement to the Court and the shareholder class
for approval.  The Court held a hearing to review the settlement
of the shareholder litigation on September 25, 2006.  The court
has not approved the settlement, according to the company's
recent form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


TEXAS: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Kids' Healthcare Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a case in which Texas
officials want to regain control of a healthcare program that's
been the focus of a protracted class action, KXAN 36 Austin
reports.

Court documents revealed that the suit, which was first filed 12
years ago by San Antonio attorney Susan F. Zinn, alleges that
Texas violates federal law by failing to provide adequate health
care access to its 2.7 million children on Medicaid (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2005).

It is seeking to force the state to abide by a nearly decade-old
agreement or consent decree, in which it promised to carry out
specific measures to improve access.

The state had sought to dissolve the consent decree governing
its Medicaid program of preventative health care for children,
contending that it's fully complying with federal requirements.

The state promised in the 1996 decree to improve the program,
but in 2005, Judge William Wayne Justice of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected the state's
argument that the courts were using a legal standard for
dissolving consent decrees that was too strict.  The U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the
ruling.

After those rulings, Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the appeal with
regards to an 11-year-old agreement that could expand health are
under Medicaid to thousands of low-income children.

In defending the state's appeal, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman
for the attorney general commented that plaintiffs have
maintained the litigation against the Texas Health and Human
Services Commission for more than a decade, with no end in
sight.  

He pointed out that despite the fact that Texas spends more
money than any other state in the union on Medicaid screening
outreach and despite the fact that the evidence in this case has
clearly demonstrated every eligible child in the state of Texas
who requested treatment has received medical treatment, the
litigation still continues.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys countered that the number of
children represented by the lawsuit who received no medical
checkups actually increased from 941,000 in 1993, when the suit
was filed, to almost 1.5 million in 2005.

The number of children who received no preventive dental
services increased from 1 million to more than 1.7 million
during the same period, the attorneys said.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles La. Litigation Over Sludge-Clogged Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. settled a purported class
action over oil sludge-clogged engines in certain of its
vehicles, ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

The suit, "Meckstroth v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et
al.," was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.  

It is about whether certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles are
predisposed to develop oil sludge.  An engine gummed up with oil
sludge otherwise known as oil gel can cost thousands of dollars
to repair and in many cases must be replaced.

The settlement, which could receive final approval by the mid-
February, covers roughly 3.5 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles
damaged by engine oil sludge.

It will allow consumers whose claims have been denied by the
company to submit those claims to a third-party mediator at no
cost for binding arbitration.

Currently, details of the settlement are being mailed to 7.5
million current and previous Toyota and Lexus owners.  The
agreement provides owners of sludge-damaged Toyotas eight years
plus 120 days from the original purchase date to file a
complaint.

Toyota consumers who have repaired their sludge-damaged engines
may be able to recover their costs.  The car only needs to show
evidence of oil sludge damage.  The terms of the settlement are
transferable to future vehicle owners.

Vehicles covered by the Louisiana settlement include the:

      -- Camry 4 cylinder from 1997-2001,
      -- Camry 6 cylinder from 1997-2002,
      -- Camry Solara 4 cylinder from 1999-2001,
      -- Camry Solara 6 cylinder 1999-2002,
      -- Sienna 6 cylinder from 1998-2002,
      -- Avalon 6 cylinder from 1997-2002,
      -- Celica 4 cylinder from 1997-1999,
      -- Highlander 6 cylinder from 2001-2002,
      -- Lexus ES 300 from 1997-2002, and
      -- Lexus RX 300 from 1999-2002.

In 2002 Toyota admitted receiving 3,400 complaints about sludged
engines and the automaker extended its vehicle warranty to eight
years along with unlimited mileage to owners of 1997-2002 Toyota
and Lexus vehicles equipped with 3.0-liter V-6 or 2.2-liter
four-cylinder engines.

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-279-4405,
         Web site: http://www.oilgelsettlement.com/;

     (2) Gary J. Gambel of Murphy, Rogers, Sloss, & Gambel,
         Suite 400, One Shell Square, 701 Poydras Street, New
         Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: (504) 274-3874, Fax: (504)
         274-3875;

     (3) S. Ault Hootsell of Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Canal Place
         365, Canal Street, Suite 2000, New Orleans, LA 70130,
         Phone: (504) 566-1311; and

     (4) Joseph M. Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, LLP, 855 Baronne St.,
         New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 525-1335.


TRUMP ORGANIZATION: "The Apprentice" Faces Mass. Age Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump is facing yet another discrimination suit over The
Apprentice reality show for not considering candidates over the
age of 40, E! Online reports.

The suit names these Trump companies as defendants:

     -- Trump Organization, Inc.;
     -- Trump Productions LLC;  
     -- Donald Trump;  
     -- Mark Burnett, Apprentice creator and executive;  
     -- Jean Worldwide Inc.;  
     -- Archie Worldwide Inc.;  
     -- CJ Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Does 1-10.

Joseph Hewett, a 49-year-old technology manager from New
Hampshire, filed the age discrimination suit in U.S. District
Court in Massachusetts claiming to be denied to participate in a
reality show for his age.

Mr. Hewett claims he was given the casting brush-off after a
preliminary interview in 2005 simply because he was out of the
show's demographic range.

He is also seeking to get his complaint class-action status,
allowing thousands of fellow forty-something applicants who have
been passed over for the reality show.

In February 2005, aspiring Apprentice contestant James Schottel,
a quadriplegic lawyer, filed a federal lawsuit claiming Trump &
Co. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by
discriminating against him and other disabled individuals who
wanted to try out for the show.

He alleged that wording in the show's application, cautioning
would-be contestants to be "in excellent physical and mental
health," effectively ruled out disabled applicants.  The suit
was settled the following month with no payout and no admission
of wrongdoing, simply with a reworded application.

According to Zap2it.com, the show has become a target for
litigation since it classifies its audition process as a job
interview.

The age discrimination suit is "Hewett v. Trump Organization et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10007-RCL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C.
Lindsay.


                  Meetings, Con ferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


January 13, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 13, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 13, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 13, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 16, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
PLI California Center, San Francisco CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 16, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
PLI California Center, San Francisco CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 18-19, 2007
Opinion and Expert Testimony in Federal and State Courts CM060
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Florida Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

January 20, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Pasadena Hilton,  Pasadena CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Pasadena Hilton,  Pasadena CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 20, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 22-23, 2007
MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP
10 ISSUES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 22-23, 2007
LEXISNEXIS ATTORNEY MARKETING & CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 24-25, 2007
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 25-26, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 27, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown  Santa Monica Room  711 South
Hope Street
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 27, 2007
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 27, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown  Santa Monica Room  711 South
Hope Street
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 27, 2007
TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Continuing Education of the Bar - California
Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA
Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu

January 29-30, 2007
MEALEY'S THE ART OF NEGOTIATION CONFERENCE: SUCCESSFULLY
NEGOTIATING MASS TORT & CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES FOR MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENTS
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Century Plaza, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 6-7, 2007
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 7, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY?
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 8-9, 2007
MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 8-9, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS CONFERENCE: THE NEW FACE OF ASBESTOS
LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Hotel, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 15-16, 2007
LEXISNEXIS SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION
BACKDATING AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Palo Alto, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27-28, 2007
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 27-28, 2007
E-DISCOVERY & LITIGATION READINESS FOR LIFE SCIENCES
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 27-28, 2007
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING BARIATRIC SURGERY
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 27-28, 2007
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF BREAST CANCER
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

March 7-9, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State
Courts CM090
ALI-ABA
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 14-15, 2007
LIFE SCIENCES MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 15-16, 2007
MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S MASS TORT INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 20-21, 2007
MANAGING & SETTLING CORPORATE PATENT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 21-22, 2007
ANTI-COUNTERFEITING & BRAND INTEGRITY PROTECTION
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 22-23, 2007
Trial Evidence in the Federal Courts: Problems and Solutions
CM078
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 28-29, 2007
GENERAL COUNSEL FORUM
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 28-29, 2007
RESOLVING MASS TORT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 12-13, 2007
MEALEY'S WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 19-20, 2007
MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 25-28, 2007
MEALEY'S 14TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
ROUNDTABLE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success

CM098
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 11-13, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State
Courts CN009
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 18-19, 2007
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
  

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

January 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 25, 2007
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31, 2007
WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WINNING NEGOTIATING
TECHNIQUES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31, 2007
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 1, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR
PARALEGALS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: TRAYSYLOL LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CULTIVATING AND MAINTAINING DIVERSITY
IN YOUR FIRM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 6, 2007
MEDICINE FOR LAWYERS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CARDIOLOGY FOR
PHARMA LAWYERS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Whitney Information
Network, Inc. between Nov. 18, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against defendant Whitney and one or more of
its officers.  

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 27,
2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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