/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/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 * * *