CAR_Public/070125.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 18

                            Headlines


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
ARTCRAFT AND FOREMOST: Recalls Plastic Cups After Injury Reports
ASARCO LLC: Branin Classes Want Stay Lifted to Foreclose Stake
CANADIAN COMMERCIAL: Workers File Suit Over Pension Investments
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Calif. Hospital Participates in $423M Deal

DS WATERS: Recalls Hot and Cold Water Coolers Posing Fire Risk
ELECTRONIC DATA: No Resolution Yet for Tex. ERISA Litigation
EMACHINES INC: Empire Merger Suit Trial Expected Early this Year
ILLINOIS: CBEC Sued Over Voters' Personal Information Disclosure
INDIANA: ACLU Files Federal Suit Over County Jail Overcrowding

INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
NEBRASKA: Court Nixes Suit Over Inadequate Foster Care System
NEW JERSEY: NDSS Joins Lawsuit Over Education for Special Kids
OVERTURE SERVICES: Awaits Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement
PT PLN: Indonesian Power Firm Could Face Suit Over Shortages

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirement Funds Opt Out of Col. Suit Deal
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit in Colo. Over U.S. WEST Merger
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Calif. Pharma Reps Sue for Unpaid Overtime Wages
TJX COS: Faces Lawsuit in Quebec Over Client Information Leak
USG CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Sets Jurisdiction Over Claims

VITAMIN SHOPPE: Accused of Misrepresenting Multivitamin Content

* Poland Moves Toward Introducing Class Action in Legal System


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CELESTICA INC: Brower Piven Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
CELESTICA INC: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in La.

HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing
SUNRISE SENIOR: Brower Piven Files DC Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," have
dismissed the previously disclosed class action claims following
a ruling in Arbinet's favor.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey against Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., and certain of
its officers, current and former directors, and the underwriters
for Arbinet's initial public offering.


Curt Hockemeier, president and chief executive officer of
Arbinet, said, "We are pleased to have this matter behind us and
look forward to continuing our efforts to grow Arbinet's
business to the benefit of our shareholders, customers, and
employees alike."

Between Aug. 11, 2005 and Sept. 26, 2005, the company was named
defendant in four purported securities class actions that were
filed in state and federal courts in New Jersey against the
company and certain of its officers, current and former
directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering.

The suits were:

     (1) "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         MID-L-5874-05 (N.J. Sup. Ct.);

     (2) "Harish Grover v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04404 (D. N.J.);

     (3) "Sandra Schwartz v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04444 (D. N.J.);" and

     (4) "James Bendrick v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04664 (D. N.J.)."

On Sept. 27, 2005 defendants removed the Crowell action to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it has
been docketed as "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 05-CV-4697."

These lawsuits alleged violations of the registration and anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged
statements in and omissions from the company 's initial public
offering registration statement, as well as statements made by
the company following the IPO.  The complaints sought, among
other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation.

On Dec. 6, 2005, Sandra Schwartz was appointed lead plaintiff in
the class action securities litigation.  The separate securities
class actions that were filed in the federal courts in New
Jersey were consolidated into the action entitled, "In re
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-
04444-JLL_RJH (D. N.J.)"

On Feb. 17, 2006, the consolidated and amended complaint was
filed with the court (Class Action Reporter, April 10, 2006).  
The amended complaint continued to allege violations of the
registration and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
laws due to alleged statements in and omissions from the
company's initial public offering registration statement.  The
amended complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
damages and costs associated with the litigation.

The suit is "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jose
L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  

Representing plaintiffs are Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone
& Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ
07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;
and J. Erik Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail: erik@blbglaw.com.


ARTCRAFT AND FOREMOST: Recalls Plastic Cups After Injury Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Artcraft and Foremost Inc., of Moorestown, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is
recalling about 43,500 units of Sippy/Tumbler cups.

The company said the impact of being dropped or banged can cause
the cup to break into pieces, resulting in sharp or jagged edges
that pose a laceration hazard to children.

Artcraft and Foremost Inc. has received 90 reports of the cups
breaking into pieces and/or the handles breaking off, resulting
in six reports of minor injuries such as cuts to the fingers and
thumbs.

This recall involves plastic sippy/tumbler cups bearing the
"Next Step" logo.  The 7-ounce cup has an aqua blue cap and a
yellow, rubber-like material covering the handles and bottom of
the cup.

These recalled Sippy/Tumbler cups were manufactured in China and
are being distributed by Mead Johnson Nutritionals as a
promotional giveaway to physicians and consumers nationwide via
direct mail from September 2006 to October 2006.

Picture of recalled Sippy/Tumbler cups:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07520.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the cups away from children and
discard them immediately.  Consumers can contact Mead Johnson
Nutritionals for information on how to receive a $10 coupon
toward the purchase of Next Step LIPIL baby formula.

For additional information, contact Mead Johnson Nutritionals at
(800) 222-9123 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, and between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Saturday; or via e-
mail: EnfamilResourceCenter@Enfamil.com.


ASARCO LLC: Branin Classes Want Stay Lifted to Foreclose Stake
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Branin Classes ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas to lift the automatic stay to permit
them to foreclose their security interests in the escrow
accounts in ASARCO LLC's bankruptcy case.

In March 1993, numerous entities commenced a class action
environmental lawsuit entitled Donald Branin, et al., v. ASARCO,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The Branin Class members sought claims for injuries caused by
pollutants discharged from ASARCO's smelter located in Ruston,
Washington.  The Branin Action was settled in 1995.

As of Aug. 9, 2005, ASARCO owes $1,174,481 to the Branin
Classes.  Bruce J. Borrus, Esq., at Riddell Williams, P.S., in
Seattle, Washington, asserts that the Branin Claim is secured by
perfected security interests in two escrow accounts established
in 1995 and held by Key Bank as escrow agent:

   1. ASARCO Medical Reimbursement Account, having a balance of
      $280,257, as of December 2006; and

   2. ASARCO Property Value Account, having a balance of
      $761,190, as of December 2006.

Also, Mr. Borrus adds, the Branin Classes hold a judgment lien
on ASARCO' real property located at 3422-40th South, 700 West,
in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Mr. Borrus asserts that ASARCO lacks equity in the Escrow
Accounts and the Accounts are not necessary for the company's
effective reorganization.  "Thus, ASARCO cannot use the funds
for any purpose other than to pay the Branin Class Claim."

Mr. Borrus notes that the total amount in both Accounts is
$1,041,000.  The Branin Classes, however, have a perfected
secured claim against those Accounts for $1,175,000, plus
postpetition interest to the extent that the Branin Classes are
oversecured.

Thus, the Branin Class Claim will exhaust the funds in the
Escrow Accounts, Mr. Borrus contends.

                         About ASARCO LLC

Tucson, Ariz.-based ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is  
an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company.  
Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. is ASARCO's ultimate parent.  The Co.
filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.
Tex. Case No. 05-21207).  James R. Prince, Esq., Jack L. Kinzie,
Esq., and Eric A. Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., and
Nathaniel Peter Holzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq., and Harlin
C. Womble, Esq., at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C.,
represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts.  Lehman
Brothers Inc. provides the ASARCO with financial advisory
services and investment banking services.  Paul M. Singer, Esq.,
James C. McCarroll, Esq., and Derek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed
Smith LLP give legal advice to the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors and David J. Beckman at FTI Consulting,
Inc., gives financial advisory services to the Committee.  When
the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed
$600 million in total assets and $1 billion in total debts.

The Debtor has five affiliates that filed for chapter 11
protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 05-
20521 through 05-20525).  They are Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec Ltee,
CAPCO Pipe Co., Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Co., Lake
Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd.  Details about
their asbestos-driven chapter 11 filings have appeared in the
Troubled Company Reporter since Apr. 18, 2005.

Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304),
Encycle, Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
Case No. 05-21346) also filed for chapter 11 protection, and
ASARCO has asked that the three subsidiary cases be jointly
administered with its chapter 11 case.  On Oct. 24, 2005,
Encycle/Texas' case was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation
proceeding. The Court appointed Michael Boudloche as
Encycle/Texas, Inc.'s Chapter 7 Trustee.  Michael B. Schmidt,
Esq., and John Vardeman, Esq., at Law Offices of Michael B.
Schmidt represent the Chapter 7 Trustee.

ASARCO's affiliates, AR Sacaton LLC, Southern Peru Holdings LLC,
and ASARCO Exploration Co. Inc., filed for chapter 11 protection
on Dec. 12, 2006 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 06-20774 to 06-
20776).

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 35; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL: Workers File Suit Over Pension Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two retirees and a store employee have filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for
about 300,000 beneficiaries of the Canadian Commercial Workers
Industry Pension Plan, the Toronto Star reports.

Named defendants are:

     -- Loblaw Cos. Ltd.,
     -- George Weston Ltd.,
     -- the Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada,
     -- Sobeys Inc.,
     -- Metro Richelieu and
     -- Kraft Canada Inc. as defendants.

The companies make annual contributions to the plan and their
representatives hold half of the trustee positions.

The suit also names 10 trustees as defendants including:

     -- Bernard Christophe, a former United Food union local
        president;
     -- Wayne Hanley, the union's national director; and
     -- former plan directors Michael Fraser and Cliff Evans.

A&P worker, William Adair of Dundas, and retirees -- David Smith
of Burlington and Malcolm Fullwood of Gibson, B.C -- filed the
suit.

They allege that the trustees and companies are liable for
restitution to the plan for "direct" investments that they
decided and managed without professional advisers and managers.

They further contended that defendants are also liable to
compensate the plan for losses the plan has suffered from
breaches of their fiduciary obligations to members, the claim
added.

The suit charges the major pension plan for grocery workers has
allegedly lost more than $1 billion because of negligence by
trustees and some of the country's biggest supermarket chains.

The claim does not specify how the plaintiffs reached that
amount.  However, it noted trustees had made direct investment
decisions and managed more than $446 million of plan assets by
2002.


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Calif. Hospital Participates in $423M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta in California is named as one of
the 40 Catholic Healthcare West hospitals involved in the class
action settlement resolving claims regarding pricing and
collection practices for over 780,000 uninsured patients at all
of Catholic Healthcare's affiliate hospitals, the Mount Shasta
Herald reports.

Mercy Medical calls for those affected uninsured patients who
were treated at Mercy between July 2001 and September 2006 who
had $250,000 or less in gross annual household income in the
calendar year in which they received hospital services, to make
a claim.

Earlier, the Honorable Richard A. Kramer of the San Francisco
Superior Court granted final approval to the class action
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jan 12, 2007).
  
As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to
make a claim for refunds or bill reductions of 35% from their
prior hospital bills.  For the next four years, Catholic
Healthcare West hospitals have also agreed to maintain
discounted pricing policies for uninsured patients that will
make Catholic Healthcare's pricing for uninsured patients
comparable to the pricing for patients with private insurance.  

In addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain more
compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds
who fall behind in their payments.  The settlement benefits have
been valued at approximately $423 million.  

The initial agreement reached in May 2006 was changed to make
available a 35 percent discount or refund on bills of uninsured
patients who received treatment at a Catholic Healthcare West
hospital from July 1, 2001 through Sept. 25, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

The agreement essentially applies a charity-care policy adopted
by Catholic Healthcare in May 2004 to benefit about 700,000
uninsured patients who received care at Catholic Healthcare
hospitals after July 1, 2001.

The initial settlement amount was estimated at about $228
million, according to court documents.   

Catholic Healthcare, which admitted no wrongdoing, also agreed
to maintain the charity-care policy unchanged for four more
years.   
                      
The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T.
Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of
uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare hospitals in
California, Nevada and Arizona, alleging that Defendant Catholic
Healthcare charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair
prices for medical treatment and services given at Catholic
Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and
unfair collections practices.  Defendant denies wrongdoing and
liability in the case.

                         Proposed Class    

The proposed class includes all persons who:     

     -- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare     
        West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of     
        preliminary settlement approval;     

     -- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and     

     -- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household     
        income in the calendar year in which they received     
        hospital services.    

Catholic Healthcare West Class Action Settlement on the net:
                 http://www.chwsettlement.com/
  
The suit is "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare West."  Counsel for
named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid Backstrom of the
Scruggs Law Firm.  More information about the settlement can be
found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm.


DS WATERS: Recalls Hot and Cold Water Coolers Posing Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
DS Waters of America Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 8,700 units of Contact Hot and Cold Water Coolers.

The company said a water leak inside the water cooler can create
an electrical arc, posing a fire hazard.

DS Waters has received 20 reports of the water cooler making
either a crackling noise or catching on fire, including five
reports of property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Contact Hot and Cold Water Coolers with
serial numbers beginning with the letter "J" and followed by
nine digits.  The serial number is located on the lower right-
hand side of the serial plate.  The model name - "Contact" - is
written on the right-hand side of the serial plate.

These hot and cold water coolers were manufactured in Canada and
are being distributed by through direct sales nationwide from
April 2004 to August 2006 for about $220.

Pictures of recalled hot and cold water coolers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07522a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07522b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled water coolers,
unplug them and call DS Waters for a replacement water cooler at
no additional cost.

For more information, call DS Waters at (800) 480-1434 anytime,
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.water.com/ContactRecall

Media Contact: Shayron Barnes-Selby, (770) 933-1400.


ELECTRONIC DATA: No Resolution Yet for Tex. ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Data Systems Corp. faces a pending Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violations lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  An agreement
was reached in the case in 2005, but the court denied motions to
approve the settlement.

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.

Initially, five class actions were filed on behalf of
participants in the Electronic Data Systems 401(k) Plan against
the company, certain of its current and former officers and, in
some cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and made misrepresentations to the class regarding
the value of EDS shares.  All of the foregoing cases have been
centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas.   

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA
action each filed a consolidated class action complaint.  The
consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation of
fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act by
selling unregistered Electronic Data Systems shares to plan
participants.  

The defendants in the ERISA claims are Electronic Data Systems,
certain current and former officers of Electronic Data Systems,
members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board
of Directors, and certain current and former members of the two
committees responsible for administering the plan.  

On Nov. 8, 2004, the District Court certified a class in the
ERISA action on certain of the allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty, of all participants in the Electronic Data
Systems 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
defendants, for whose accounts the plan made or maintained
investments in Electronic Data Systems stock through the
Electronic Data Systems Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999 and
Oct. 9, 2002.  

Also on that date the court certified a class in the ERISA
action on the allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of
the U.S. Securities Act of all participants in the Plan and
their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose
accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock through the Electronic
Data Systems Stock Fund between Oct. 20, 2001 and Nov. 18, 2002.  

On Dec. 29, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the
company's petition to appeal the class certification order from
the District Court, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal
on April 5, 2005.  

On May 5, 2005, the company reached an agreement with the class
representatives in the ERISA action to settle that action,
subject to final approval of the settlement by an independent
fiduciary and the District Court and receipt of certain
assurances from the Department of Labor.  

Under the terms of the settlement, $16.5 million would have been
paid entirely by one of the company's insurers.  In addition,
the company would have agreed to continue to make a matching
contribution under the 401(k) Plan through 2006 and to make
certain changes to the Plan.  

However, on June 30, 2005, the District Court denied the motions
of the company and the class representatives to approve the
settlement.  

The suit is "In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA  
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Leonard  
Davis.   

Represented the are plaintiffs is Barry C. Barnett of Susman  
Godfrey LLP, 901 Main Street, Suite 4100, Dalass Texas 75202-
3775, Phone: 214-754-1900, Fax: 214-754-1933.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David J. Bailey and Michael McConnell of Jones Day -  
         Atlanta, 1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800 Atlanta, GA  
         30309-3053 Phone: 214/969-3700, Fax: 12149695100, E-
         mail: djbailey@jonesday.com or mmcconnell@jonesday.com;  
  
     (2) Richard P. Keeton, Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell &  
         Flack, 600 Travis Suite 7500, Houston, Tx 77002, Phone:  
         713/571-9191, Fax: 713/571-9652, E-mail:  
         rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com; and

     (3) Robert H Klonoff, Jones Day-Kansas City MO, 500 East  
         52nd St, Kansas City, MO 64110, E-mail:  
         rhklonoff@jonesday.com.


EMACHINES INC: Empire Merger Suit Trial Expected Early this Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative 2007 trial is expected for the shareholder class
action, "Dvorchak v. eMachines, Inc., et al.," which was filed
in California State Superior Court, County of Orange.

The suit, filed against eMachines and others in November 2001,
relates to a plan to privatize the company through a merger with
Empire Acquisition Corp.  The merger was consummated after a
court denied a requested injunction on Dec. 27, 2001.

After the merger, plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or rescission relating to the
negotiations for and terms of the merger through allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duties by eMachines, its board members
prior to the merger, and certain of its officers.  The court
certified the suit Aug. 25, 2003.

Dispositive motions filed by the defendants were heard and
denied by the court in August 2004 and August 2005.  No trial
date has been set, but it is currently expected to occur in
early 2007.

California-based eMachines, Inc., -- http://www.emachines.com/-
- sells personal computers and peripheral displays.  Marketed
toward budget-conscious consumers, its desktop and notebook PCs
are sold by retailers such as Best Buy, Circuit City, and Office
Depot.  

Former rival Gateway, Inc. acquired eMachines for approximately
$235 million in cash and stock in 2004.  After the acquisition
Gateway closed its retail stores and installed a number of
eMachines executives in top management posts.  


ILLINOIS: CBEC Sued Over Voters' Personal Information Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (CBEC) faces two
purported class actions in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois
that accuses it of leaking personal information of more than 1
million voters to aldermen, committeemen and at least one
aldermanic candidate, The CBS2 Chicago reports.

Meliza Aldea, Romeo Aldea, and Robert Green filed one of the
suits.  They allege that sensitive information of approximately
1.3 million voters were downloaded and copied onto numerous
compact discs, which were later distributed to different
aldermen and ward committeemen throughout the city of Chicago.

They claim that about 106 CDs containing this information was
distributed to the aldermen and committeemen.  In addition, they
claim that a significant number of the CDs are unaccounted for.

Peter Zelchenko, who wound up receiving one of those CDs, filed
the other lawsuit.  Mr. Zelchenko, a candidate for 43rd ward
alderman, claims in his suit that in December 2006, he received
a CD related to voter registration.

Both suits claim that in addition to the names and addresses of
voters, the CDs contained dates of birth and Social Security
numbers for approximately 1.3 million voters.  

The suits, which are both seeking seek class-action status, also
claim that voters never gave the CBEC permission to copy or make
public their sensitive personal information, especially their
social security numbers.  

In general, both are accusing the CBEC of violating the state's
Personal Information Protection Act.

The case filed by Mr. Green and the Aldeas wants the CBEC to
recover and erase all the CDs that have been sent to the
aldermen and committeemen.  

Plaintiffs in that case also want the court to have the CBEC set
up an endowment fund, in an amount and term to be determined to
fund anticipated financial losses as a result of the privacy
breach.

On the other hand, Mr. Zelchenko's suit seeks a court order that
would require the CBEC to remove all class members' protected
information from the public domain.  

In addition, his suit also seeks a court order that would
require CBEC to take steps to remove personal information from
the current voter registration roll that is made available to
the public.


INDIANA: ACLU Files Federal Suit Over County Jail Overcrowding
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed
a purported federal class action against certain officials of
Grant County over jail overcrowding, The Marion Chronicle
Tribune reports.

According to Kenneth Falk, the chapter's legal director, they
decided to sue because the county failed to take significant
steps to bring down the population of the Grant County Jail
despite being given time to do so.

The suit was filed on Jan. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana on behalf of Richarh Tyson.  It
sought class-action certification on behalf of other inmates at
the Grant County Jail.

Mr. Tyson, 30, last known address 3718 S. Granton Place, has
been in jail since Aug. 8, 2005, on charges of dealing in more
than three grams of cocaine.

Defendants in the suit are the Grant County Sheriff and the
Grant County Commissioners.  However, no one is listed by name.

Specifically, the suit claims the jail is understaffed and the
large population has led to physical fights.  Two grievance
forms by Mr. Tyson attached to the lawsuit repeat those claims
and more.

In one of those forms Mr. Tyson wrote that the situation is
affection inmates' food rations.  On another grievance form, he
writes that the overcrowding is causing tension between the
inmates.

Mr. Falk maintains that the point of the lawsuit was not to tell
the county how to end overcrowding, but to force the county to
take action.

Possible solutions would be building a new jail, which the
county has previously said was too expensive, or looking at more
programs to get people out of jail faster.  Not taking action is
unconstitutional, according to Mr. Falk.

The suit is "Tyson v. Grant County Sheriff et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00010-RL-RBC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Rudy Lozano with
referral to Judge Roger B. Cosbey.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth J. Falk of ACLU of
Indiana, 1031 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952,
Phone: 317-635-4059 Ext. 229, Fax: 317-635-4105, E-mail:
kfalk@aclu-in.org.


INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended
consolidated securities class action filed against Intelligroup
Inc.

On or about Oct. 12, 2004, the first of six class actions was
filed on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased
the company's common stock, against the company and former
officers Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco, Edward Carr and
David Distel in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Mr.
Distel and Mr. Carr from the shareholder class action, failing
to name either of them as a defendant in the amended
consolidated complaint filed on or about Oct. 10, 2005.   

The shareholder class action generally alleges violations of
federal securities laws, including allegations that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial condition and that the
Defendants materially overstated financial results by engaging
in improper accounting practices.   

The class period proposed was May 1, 2001 through Sept. 24,
2004.  The shareholder class action generally seeks relief in
the form of unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable
costs, expenses and legal fees.   

On Dec. 5, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Feb. 10, 2006, prior to the hearing
on defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint.   

On Feb. 10, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On March 27, 2006,
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the complaint.  

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions on
May 11, 2006, and beginning June 9, 2006 defendants filed
further briefing in support of their motions.  Defendants'
motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint are
currently pending before the District of New Jersey.  No trial
date has been scheduled and no discovery has taken place,
according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.       

The suit is "Lydia Garcia, et al. v. Intelligroup Inc., et al.,  
Case No. 04-CV-4980," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of New Jersey under Judge John C. Lifland with referral  
to Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,  
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com;  

     (2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,  
         Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com; and


     (3) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,  
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,  
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.   

Representing the defendants are Dennis J. Drasco and Kevin J.  
O'Connor of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC, 103 Eisenhower  
Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:
ddrasco@lumlaw.com and koconnor@lumlaw.com.


NEBRASKA: Court Nixes Suit Over Inadequate Foster Care System
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the District of Nebraska dismissed a
purported class action alleging that the state is endangering
some 6,000 Nebraska children with an "understaffed, under funded
and unresponsive" foster care system, The Associated Press
reports.

Judge Richard Kopf based his decision on a court precedent that
says relief provided by federal courts should not interfere with
the action of state courts, according to the report.  It was
noted that children in foster care are currently involved in
ongoing state court cases.

The ruling specifically states that federal court injunctive
orders against the state's Health and Human Services would
undermine and interfere with the Nebraska juvenile court's
ability to exercise the full extent of its authority over
juvenile court proceedings.

New York-based Children's Rights, the Nebraska Appleseed Center
for Law in the Public Interest, and several private law firms
filed the suit on behalf of the 6,000 children in the state's
foster-care system (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 21, 2005).  

The suit contends, "Defendants' failure to protect Nebraska's
foster children and provide them with legally required services
subjects these children to significant and ongoing harm,
deprives them of a chance for a safe and stable childhood, and
violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution and various
federal statutes."

It alleged that the state failed to address long-standing
systemic problems such as:

      -- a drastic shortage of foster homes,
     
      -- dangerously high caseloads for caseworkers assigned to
         monitor child safety,

      -- a lack of critical mental health services, the lowest
         "per diem" payments to care for foster children of any
         state in the nation, and

      -- a lack of services and resources to get children
         adopted.

Reacting to the court's decision, Jennifer Carter, staff
attorney for the Appleseed Center said that the court's ruling
consigns Nebraska's most vulnerable children to an empty promise
that the courts will protect them.  She adds that this is just
closing the best avenue for legal relief for these children.

Despite not going in their favor, plaintiffs could still appeal
the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.
Ms. Carter though pointed out that a decision has not yet been
made on whether to appeal or not.

The case helped prompt state action to improve the system,
including a series of directives issued last year by Gov. Dave
Heineman.  Judge Kopf's ruling pointed out that the state is
making efforts to improve the system.

The suit is "Foreman et al v. Heineman et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-
03241-RGK-DLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska under Judge Richard G. Kopf with referral
to Judge David L. Piester.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jennifer Alice Carter of The Nebraska Appleseed Center,
         941 O Street, Suite 105, Lincoln, NE 68508-3626, Phone:
         (402) 438-8853, Fax: (402) 438-0263, E-mail:
         jcarter@NeAppleseed.org; and

     (2) Elissa Hendler of Children's Rights, 330 7th Avenue,
         4th Floor, New York, NY 10001, US, Phone: (212) 683-
         2210, Fax: (212) 683-4015, E-mail:
         ehendler@childrensrights.org.

Representing the defendants is Timothy R. Engler of Harding,
Shultz Law Firm, P.O. Box 82028, Lincoln, NE 68501-2028, Phone:
(402) 434-3000, Fax: (402) 434-3030, E-mail:
tengler@hslegalfirm.com.


NEW JERSEY: NDSS Joins Lawsuit Over Education for Special Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS) has been named an
organizational plaintiff in the class action "Greico et al. v.
New Jersey Department of Education et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
04077-PGS-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In addition to NDSS, the plaintiffs in the case include three
children with Down syndrome:

     -- Vincenzo Grieco, 9, of Jefferson;
     -- Simone Boucher, 6, of Metuchen; and
     -- Christopher Briscese, 13, of Hamilton Township;
     -- their families;
     -- TASH, an international association of people with
        disabilities, their family members, other advocates, and
        professionals;
     -- New Jersey TASH;
     -- The Family Alliance to Stop Abuse and Neglect; and
     -- the National Down Syndrome Congress.

The suit, filed on Aug. 28, 2006, states that Mr. Grieco, the
lead plaintiff, and other children with disabilities have been
deprived by New Jersey Education officials of their rights to be
educated in regular classrooms with typically developing
classmates, and to be provided with supplementary aids, support
services and accommodations required to achieve integrated
education.

The lawsuit alleges that New Jersey is in violation of IDEA
requirements that a student be placed in the least restrictive
environment appropriate for individual students.  The complaint
also alleges discrimination in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The lawsuit alleges that students with Down syndrome have been
denied an inclusive education, denied additional hours of
inclusion and not received appropriate supplementary aids and
services to support inclusive education.

It further alleges that the state has systematically failed to
carry out its duty to educate these children with their non-
disabled peers, with a high percentage of students placed in
segregated classrooms.

NDSS joined the lawsuit to provide support to the families
involved with the hope of promoting systems change in New Jersey
and opening more doors to students that want to be educated with
their non-disabled peers across the country.  NDSS Affiliates
have traditionally been, and remain, uniquely positioned to
provide a voice for students with Down syndrome in the
governmental and judicial arenas regarding education policy.

The suit is "Greico, et al. v. New Jersey Department Of
Education, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Peter G. Sheridan with
referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are Andrew I. Hamelsky of White &
Williams, LLP, The Atrium, East 80, Route 4, Paramus, NJ 07652,
Phone: (201) 368-7206, E-mail: hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com.
  

OVERTURE SERVICES: Awaits Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has not ruled yet on the proposed settlement of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Overture Services, Inc., a
provider of commercial search services on the Internet,
including sponsored search services.

On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities
class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain underwriters
involved in Overture's initial public offering, Overture, and
certain of Overture's current and former officers and directors.

The Court consolidated the cases against Overture.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving
undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and improper
practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified damages.
Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted initial public offerings of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits
were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira
Scheindlin.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging Rule 10b-5 claims of fraud.  On July 15, 2002, the
issuers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with
applicable pleading standards.  On Oct. 8, 2002, the Court
entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the individual
defendants in the Overture IPO litigation, without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against certain defendants, including
Overture.  On Aug. 31, 2005, the Court entered an order
confirming its preliminary approval of a settlement proposal
made by plaintiffs, which includes settlement of, and release of
claims against, the issuer defendants, including Overture.  On
Oct. 7, 2003, the Yahoo! Inc. completed the acquisition of
Overture.  A settlement fairness hearing for the shareholder
class was set for April 24, 2006.  

At its form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, the company
said parties are awaiting final approval of the settlement.  

The suit is "Overture IPO Litigation," filed in relation to "In
Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

     (5) 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; and

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


PT PLN: Indonesian Power Firm Could Face Suit Over Shortages
------------------------------------------------------------
The director of Indonesia's Consumer Protection and Advocacy
Institute Foundation, Farid Wajdi, said the public could file a
class action against state electricity company PT PLN if it did
not respond satisfactorily to the foundation's urgings to solve
supply problems, the Jakarta Post reports.

The foundation and a number of lawyers have filed a legal
standing against the North Sumatra provincial administration
urging PLN to sped up electricity development projects to solve
electricity shortages.

Mr. Wajdi, said the legal standing demanded that the electricity
development projects be sped up and urged the administration to
settle electricity shortages.

Earlier, the Medan District Court heard the legal standing for
the second time but had to be adjourned for a week due to the
absence of the lawyers of the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal team is headed by Mahmud Irsyad Lubis.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirement Funds Opt Out of Col. Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several retirement funds have opted out of a $400 million
settlement of a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Qwest Communications International Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.

Twelve putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of Qwest Communications' publicly traded securities
between May 24, 1999 and Feb. 14, 2002 were consolidated into a
consolidated securities action pending in federal district court
in Colorado.

The first of these actions was filed on July 27, 2001.  
Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants issued
false and misleading financial results and made false statements
about Qwest Communications' business and investments, including
making materially false statements in certain of Qwest
Communications' registration statements.  The most recent
complaint in this matter sought unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.  However, counsel for plaintiffs indicated
that the putative class would seek damages in the tens of
billions of dollars.

On Nov. 23, 2005, Qwest Communications, certain other
defendants, and the putative class representatives entered into
and filed with the federal district court in Colorado a
Stipulation of Partial Settlement that, if implemented, will
settle the consolidated securities action against Qwest
Communications and certain other defendants.  In September 2006,
the federal district court in Colorado issued an order approving
the proposed settlement on behalf of purchasers of Qwest
Communications's publicly traded securities between May 24, 1999
and July 28, 2002.  The order is subject to appeal.

Under the settlement, Qwest Communications will pay a total of
$400 million in cash.  The settlement resolves and releases the
individual claims of the class representatives and the claims of
the class they represent against Qwest Communications and all
defendants except Joseph Nacchio, Qwest Communications' former
chief executive officer, and Robert Woodruff, Qwest
Communications' former chief financial officer.

As part of the settlement, Qwest Communications received $10
million from Arthur Andersen LLP, which is also being released
by the class representatives and the class they represent.  If
the settlement is not ultimately effected, Qwest Communications
will repay the $10 million to Arthur Andersen.  No parties admit
any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

At their request, plaintiffs in these actions were excluded from
the settlement class of the consolidated securities action:

Plaintiff                 Date Filed                     Court
---------                 ----------                     -----
State of New Jersey
(Treasury Department,
Division of Investment)  November 27, 2002   New Jersey
                                                 Superior Court,
                                                 Mercer County
  

California
State Teachers'
Retirement System    December 10, 2002  Superior Court,
                                            State of California,
                                         County of San Francisco
  
State Universities
Retirement System
of Illinois            January 10, 2003   Circuit Court of Cook
                                           County, Illinois
  

Stichting
Pensioenfonds ABP (SPA) February 9, 2004   Colorado Federal
                                           District Court
  

Shriners Hospital
for Children            March 22, 2004   Federal District
                                           Court in Colorado
  

Teachers' Retirement
System of Louisiana     March 30, 2004   Federal District
                                           Court in Colorado
  
New York City pension
and retirement funds    September 22, 2004 Federal District
                                           Court in Colorado
  
New York State
Common Retirement Fund  April 18, 2006   Federal District
                                            Court in Colorado
  
San Francisco
Employees Retirement
  System                April 18, 2006   Federal District
                                           Court in Colorado
  
Fire and Police
Pension Association
of Colorado            April 18, 2006   Federal District
                                           Court in Colorado

Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Public
School Employees'
Retirement System     May 1, 2006     Federal District Court
                                          in Colorado
  
Merrill Lynch
Investment Master
  Basic Value Trust Fund,
  et al.                 June 21, 2006  Federal District Court
                                          in Colorado
  

Denver Employees
Retirement Plan          August 7, 2006  Federal District Court
                                          in Colorado
  
FTWF Franklin
Mutual Beacon Fund,
et al.                 October 17, 2006  Superior Court, State
                                          of California, County
                                          of San Francisco

Together, the parties to these lawsuits contend that they have
incurred losses resulting from their investments in Qwest
Communications' securities in excess of $1.51 billion; they have
also asserted claims for punitive damages and interest, in
addition to claims to recover their alleged losses.

In the aggregate, the persons who have requested exclusion from
the settlement class, excluding those listed in the table above,
contend that they have incurred losses resulting from their
investments in Qwest Communications' securities of approximately
$1.19 billion, which does not include any claims for punitive
damages or interest.  

The suit is "In re Qwest Communications International, Inc.  
Securities Litigation, Civil Case No. 01cv01451REBCBS," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  

The lead counsel for the plaintiff is Lerach Coughlin Stoia  
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Keith F. Park, 655 West Broadway,  
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-3301.  Qwest Claims  
Administrator: c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur,  
California 94977-5100.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit in Colo. Over U.S. WEST Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. faces a class action
filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between
Jun. 28, 2000 and June 27, 2002 and owners of U.S. WEST stock on
Jun. 28, 2000.  The suit is pending in the District Court for
the County of Boulder, Colorado.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
issued false and misleading statements and engaged in improper
accounting practices in order to accomplish the U.S. WEST/Qwest
merger, to make the company appear successful and to inflate the
value of its stock.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, disgorgement of illegal gains and other relief.

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.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Calif. Pharma Reps Sue for Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. faces a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by
one of its former employees seeking back pay.

The suit -- filed by Lisa Evancho, Michael Keeler and J. Alethe
Guiriba -- 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 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.

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

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

     (b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees' time
         and;

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

Questions of law and fact common to the class, which predominate
over any questions affecting only individual class members,
include:

     (1) whether defendants employed or jointly employed
         plaintiffs and class members within the meaning of law;

     (2) what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants
         failed in their duty to maintain time records;

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

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

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

     (6) 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;

     (7) 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;

     (8) 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;

     (9) 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 least the minimum wage
         for all work;

    (10) whether defendants compensated class members that
         terminated their employment all wages owed them
         immediately upon the termination of their employment as
         required by law; and

    (11) whether defendants provided plaintiffs with rest  
         periods and meal breaks as required by law.

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

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

     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 2165(b);

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

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

     -- designation of Pennsylvania plaintiff as representative
        of the Pennsylvania class;

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

     -- designation of California plaintiff as representative of
        the California 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, 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?18ea

The suit is "Evancho et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., Case
No. 3:07-cv-00098-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Maria-Elena James.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) George R. Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, 16133
         Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200, Encino, CA 91436, Phone:
         818-990-8300, Fax: 818-990-2903;

     (2) Charles Joseph Attorney at Law, 757 3rd Avenue, 25th
         Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-5640;

     (3) Ira Spiro of Spiro Moss Barness LLP, 11377 W. Olympic
         Blvd., Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, Ca 90064, Phone: 310-
         235-2468, Fax: 310-235-2456, E-mail:
         ispiro@smbhblaw.com.


TJX COS: Faces Lawsuit in Quebec Over Client Information Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Winners fashion and HomeSense home accessories chains in
Canada, and its U.S. parent company, TJX Cos. Ltd., face a
purported class action seeking compensation on behalf of all
Canadians who may be affected by credit card and other personal
information being stolen from Winners and HomeSense Stores.

Tony Merchant, a lawyer with Merchant Law Group, filed the
"class proceedings litigation" on Jan. 19 in the Quebec Superior
Court.

He said that they are filing the case because many people worry
that their privacy will be affected, that their credit will be
affected, and money will be taken from their account.

The suit seeks financial recovery on behalf of all individuals
in all Canadian provinces and territories for whom personal
information has been revealed.  

Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com/.


USG CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Sets Jurisdiction Over Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judith K. Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware granted:

     -- the Reorganized USG Corporation and its debtor
        affiliates request, to modify their joint plan of
        reorganization and the confirmation order, in its
        entirety; and

     -- rules that the Bankruptcy Court will have exclusive
        jurisdiction to resolve any controversy relating to the
        Claims and the Class Action, subject to the right of any
        party to request the modification of the Discharge
        Injunction to liquidate the Claims in a different forum.

The Reorganized Debtors ask the Court to modify their Joint Plan
of Reorganization and the Confirmation Order with regard to
injunction against pursuing liquidation of claims in a forum
other than the Bankruptcy Court.

The Reorganized Debtors seek to modify the Discharge Injunction
solely to permit the South Carolina Circuit Court of Hampton
County, South Carolina, to approve the settlement agreement
between U.S. Gypsum Co. and Anderson Memorial
Hospital.

U.S. Gypsum Co. and Anderson, on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated members, entered into a settlement agreement
with respect to various asbestos property damage claims subject
to a prepetition class action in the Circuit Court.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and if approved by the
Circuit Court:

   (a) The Reorganized Debtors will pay a lump sum, with
       interest, in complete satisfaction of the claims;

   (b) Anderson's Claim Nos. 5697, 5698, 6286, and 6289 will be
       allowed in Class 8 under the Plan in the amount of the
       Settlement Fund;

   (c) The claims filed by other plaintiffs in the Class Action
       will be subsumed within Anderson's Claims, and disallowed
       and expunged; and

   (d) Distribution of the Settlement Fund will be a part of the
       Class Action.  In return, the Debtors will receive a
       release of all the Asbestos Property Damage Claims of the
       class and a right of indemnification.

Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger,
P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that the Settlement
Agreement is contingent upon the Circuit Court approving it
without modification.

The parties have agreed that the Discharge Injunction will be
modified solely to the extent necessary to obtain the Circuit
Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement.

The parties further agreed that if the Circuit Court does not
approve the Settlement Agreement, the Discharge Injunction will
be reinstated, all proceedings before the Circuit Court will
cease and be stayed, and the parties will be returned to the
status quo that existed as of the date of the Settlement
Agreement.

Mr. DeFranceschi notes that the Reorganized Debtors may
terminate the Settlement Agreement if, among other things:

    -- it is disapproved or modified by the Circuit Court or by
       any appellate court;

    -- dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice as to the
       Reorganized Debtors cannot be accomplished;

    -- a final judgment on the Settlement Agreement's terms is
       not entered; or

    -- it is not fully consummated and effected.

Mr. DeFranceschi emphasizes that the Reorganized Debtors are not
seeking the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, but
they are only requesting the Court to modify the Discharge
Injunction on a limited basis to permit the parties to seek the
Circuit Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, which will
result in the liquidation of the asbestos property damage
claims.

Based in Chicago, Ill., USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-
- through its subsidiaries, manufactures and distributes
building materials producing a wide range of products for use in
new residential, new nonresidential and repair and remodel
construction, as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.

The company filed for chapter 11 protection on June 25, 2001
(Bankr. Del. Case No. 01-02094).  David G. Heiman, Esq., Gus
Kallergis, Esq., Brad B. Erens, Esq., Michelle M. Harner, Esq.,
Mark A. Cody, Esq., and Daniel B. Prieto, Esq., at Jones Day
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Lewis
Kruger, Esq., Kenneth Pasquale, Esq., and Denise Wildes, Esq.,
represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  Elihu
Inselbuch, Esq., and peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq., at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered, represent the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  Martin J. Bienenstock,
Esq., Judy G. Z. Liu, Esq., Ralph I. Miller, Esq., and David A.
Hickerson, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP represent the
Statutory Committee of Equity Security Holders.  Dean M.
Trafelet is the Future Claimants Representative.  Michael J.
Crames, Esq., and Andrew A. Kress, Esq., at Kaye Scholer, LLP,
represent the Future Claimants Representative.  Scott Baena,
Esq., and Jay Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzen Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, represent the Asbestos Property Damage Claimants
Committee.

When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, they
listed $3,252,000,000 in assets and $2,739,000,000 in debts.  
The Debtors emerged from bankruptcy protection on June 20, 2006.
(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 127; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Accused of Misrepresenting Multivitamin Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Shoppe Industries faces a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over
alleged fraudulent marketing, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Lead plaintiff, Angelique Odum, brings this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of all
persons residing in California who, during the time period Jan.
22, 2004 through the present purchased The Vitamin Shoppe's
Multivitamins Especially for Women for their own use and not for
resale.

Plaintiffs claim the vitamins contain only 54 percent of the
calcium claimed, and say the pills contain unsafe amounts of
lead.

Plaintiff alleges that tens of thousands of California consumers
were damaged as a result of the violations and
misrepresentations of defendants as alleged.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the
class and predominate over any questions solely affecting
individual members of the class.  Among the questions of law and
fact common to plaintiff and the class are:

    (a) whether defendants' conduct is an unlawful business act  
        or practice within the meaning of Business Profession
        Code Section 17200 et seq.;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct is a fraudulent business  
         act or practice within the meaning of Business and
         Professions Code section 17200 et seq.;

     (c) whether defendants' advertising is untrue or misleading
         within the meaning of Business and Professions Code
         Section 17500 et seq.;

     (d) whether defendants represented that The Vitamin
         Shoppe's Multivitamins Especially for Women have
         characteristics, benefits, uses or quantities which it
         does not have;

     (e) whether defendants made representation that The Vitamin
         Shoppe's Multivitamins Especially for Women contains
         200 milligrams of Calcium per serving;

     (f) whether defendants made representations that The
         Vitamin Shoppe's Multivitamins Especially for Women did
         not violate California's OEHHA Proposition 65 safe
         harbor lead levels;

     (g) whether defendants made representations that The
         Vitamin Shoppe's Multivitamins Especially for Women
         would improve the consumer's overall health and provide
         necessary vitamins and minerals, not harmful chemicals;

     (h) whether defendants' representation were material;

     (i) whether defendants' representations were false or
         misleading; and

     (j) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
         representations were false.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the members of
the class, prays for judgment and relief as follows:

     (1) an order certifying that the action may be maintained
         as a class action;

     (2) on the first and second claims for relief:

              -- restitutionary damages in the amount of $29.99
                 per unit of The Vitamin Shoppe's Multivitamins
                 Especially for Women purchased;

              -- for temporary, preliminary and permanent
                 injunctive relief enjoining defendants from
                 pursuing the policies, acts, and practices
                 complained of and requiring defendants to pay
                 restitution to plaintiff and all members of the
                 class;

     (3) as to the third claim for relief:
              -- for temporary, preliminary and permanent
                 injunctive relief enjoining the wrongful acts
                 and practices of defendants, including, but not
                 limited to, an order enjoining defendants from
                 distributing such false advertising and
                 misrepresentations;

     (4) reasonable attorneys' fees;

     (5) costs of the suit; and

     (6) such other and further relief as the court may deem
         necessary or appropriate.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18e2

The suit is "Odum et al. v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV 07-00508," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are Wayne S. Kreger and Bevin E. Allen,
both of Milstein, Adelman & Kreger LLP, 2800 Donald Douglas Loop
North, Santa Monica, California 90405, Phone: (310) 396-9600,
Fax: (310) 396-9635.


* Poland Moves Toward Introducing Class Action in Legal System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Poland's Justice Ministry's Commission for the Codification of
the Civil Code plans to introduce the institution of class
actions into the Polish body of law, the Polish News Bulletin
reports.

At the moment, the legislators are unsure of what form class
actions will take in Poland as work has only just begun, the
report said.  The Codification Commission has only recently met
with groups of experts and lawyers in order to discuss the
matter in greater detail.

The Polish government, however, is determined to introduce this
new institution, which would give both individual and smaller
companies the ability to take on the larger conglomerates and
cartels, the report said.

Class actions already function in the U.S. as well as many
European Union states, including France, Germany, Italy and
Spain.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CELESTICA INC: Brower Piven Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a lawsuit, seeking class-
action status, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Celestica,
Inc. between July 27, 2006 and Dec. 12, 2006, inclusive.

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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 13,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information on the suit, contact David Brower and
Charles J. Piven, both of 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.


CELESTICA INC: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action was filed, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against Celestica, Inc. (CLS), on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Celestica between July 27, 2006
and Dec. 12, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Celestica and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false
or misleading public statements.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants issued numerous statements describing
the company's financial performance and future prospects, which
they attributed, in part, to success of the company's
restructuring activities and improvements in their Mexican and
European operations.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading when made because defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

      -- the company was experiencing declining demand in its
         Mexican operations and the operations division was
         carrying significant amounts of unneeded inventory
         which would need to be written off;

     -- the company was experiencing declining demand in its
        Information Technology and communications market
        segments as its larger customers scaled back purchases;
        and

     -- as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
        basis to project adjusted earnings per share ranging
        from $0.12 to $0.20.  When this undisclosed information
        later became public, shares of Celestica common stock
        declined.

If you purchased Celestica shares between July 27, 2006 and Dec.
12, 2006, you may, no later than March 13, 2007, request the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Case contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody --
http://www.ssbny.com-- 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017,  
E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Toll-free Number: 1-800-337-4983, Fax:
12-490-2022.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Hornbeck
Offshore Services, Inc. (HOS) between Nov. 1, 2006 and Jan. 10,
2007, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Louisiana.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Hornbeck.

Case contact: Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L. Ackerman,
Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com, Toll-free
number: 877-LEGAL-90.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.
(HOS) between Nov. 1, 2006 and Jan. 10, 2007, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Louisiana.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Hornbeck securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  

Case contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire of Law Offices of Howard
G. Smith -- http://www.howardsmithlaw.com-- 3070 Bristol Pike,  
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215)638-4847,
Toll-Free No.: (888)638-4847, E-mail:
howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in La.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. who purchased during the period
from Nov. 1, 2006 through Jan. 10, 2007.

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.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the court by March 19, 2007.

For more information on the suit, contact David Brower and
Charles Piven, both of 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.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that Hornbeck Offshore
Services, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock and other
securities of the company from Nov. 1, 2006 to Jan. 10, 2007,
may now move the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana for lead plaintiff appointment in the securities fraud
lawsuits filed against the company.

The complaint charges Hornbeck and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions about the
Company's operations and expected earnings for the 4th Quarter
2006, and for fiscal 2007.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the Company shocked the market by announcing
that that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings per share
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 and for fiscal 2006,
materially reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2006 to
range between $33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0
million to $41.0 million.

The Company announced it now expected per share earnings for the
fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63, down
from $0.72 to $0.77. It also expected to reduce 2007 guidance by
15 to 20 percent.

Hornbeck has admitted that it had knowledge over the previous
several months that operating issues had negatively impacted the
Company's financial performance, including volatility in the
offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the shipyard delivery
schedules for new-builds and increased turnaround time for
regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and maintenance, as well as
increased costs for personnel and insurance.

As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck shares
slumped to a 52-week low in early trading on January 11, 2007
and the stock was down $7.11, or 21.2%, on markedly increased
volume.

For more information, contact Kevin Oufnac of Kahn Gauthier
Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 107, E-mail:
kevin.oufnac@kgscounsel.com.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Brower Piven Files DC Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. and one or more of its officers
and/or directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Sunrise between Aug. 4,
2005 and June 15, 2006, inclusive, including those who owned
Sunrise common stock from 2000 through 2006 at the time
Sunrise's 2000-2006 Proxy Statements were circulated to
shareholders to solicit their votes on various matters.

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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven of Brower Piven,
A Professional Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, Phone: 410/986-
0036.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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