CAR_Public/070129.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 29, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 20

                            Headlines

ADAM AIR: Group Might Sue on Behalf of Crash Victims' Families
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Skycaps" Suit in Mass. Becomes Federal Case
AMERIGROUP CORP: Va. Court to Hear Request for $500T Legal Cost
ARIZONA: Ruling on English-Learning Program Expected by March
ARKANSAS: Lafayette County Officials Face Suit Over Royalties

AT&T INC: Calif. Court Resets Schedules in Wiretapping Lawsuit
AT&T INC: Master Consolidated Complaints Filed in Spying Suit
AWB LTD: Receives Complaint Over U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: Status Conference in Negligence Suit Set Jan.
CALIFORNIA: ACLU Seeks Class Certification for Overcrowding Suit

CAMERON INT'L: Settles Tex. Litigation Over Contaminated Water
CANADA: Attorney General Appeals Residential School Suit Deal
CATALINA MARKETING: April Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
CENTURY 21: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Real Estate Deal in Ind.
COLUMBIA NATURAL: W.Va. Court Awards $405M in Royalties Lawsuit

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Holding of Inmates
ELEGANT GOURMET: Recalls Truffles for Undeclared Milk Content
HSBC INVESTMENTS: Faces Litigation Over Pooled Fund Portfolios
IDT CORP: Donates $2M Under Card Rates Suit Settlement in N.J.
ILLINOIS: Appeals Court Dismisses CAC Appeal in Segregation Suit

LESLEY ELIZABETH: Recalls Dried Tomatoes for Undeclared Sulfites
M-QUBE INC: Faces Mass. Suit Over Cell-Phone Billing Practices
MERCK FROSST: Vioxx Case in Saskatchewan Allowed to Proceed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Tenants File Suit in N.Y. Over Rental Hikes
MICROSOFT CORP: Iowans Seek Exclusion From Antitrust Litigation

MICROSOFT CORP: Juror in Iowa Trial Nixed for Unknown Reasons
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Continues to Face Pa. Personal Injury Suit
MURPHY OIL: St. Bernard Parish Votes to Join La. Oil Spill Suit
QUEST SOFTWARE: Calif. Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Appointed
SAUSALITO TRAVELODGE: Overtime Suit Settlement Awaits Final Okay

STATE FARM: Reaches Settlement in Miss. Katrina-Related Suit
SYDNEY STEEL: Faces Breach of Duty Suit Over Toxic Emissions
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Feb. 12
TIME WARNER: $2.65B Settlement Going Smoothly, Gilardi Says
UST LIQUIDATING: Plaintiffs Consider Appeal for Veeder-Root Case

WASHINGTON: U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Union Fees Case in June
WASHINGTON GROUP: Continues to Face La. Suits Over Levee Failure

* Octagon Publishing Introduces New Litigation Periodical


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CELESTICA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


ADAM AIR: Group Might Sue on Behalf of Crash Victims' Families
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indonesian Consumer Foundation (YLKI) is considering filing
a class action -- should it be necessary -- to extract
compensation for families of passengers on the missing Adam Air
flight.

The Adam Air Boeing 737-400 vanished on Jan. 1 en route from
Surabaya in East Java to Manado, North Sulawesi.  Rescue workers
are yet to find any survivors or bodies, according to The
Jakarta Post.

Families of aviation accident victims have two years within the
accident to file compensation claims with the operator of the
airline involved.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Skycaps" Suit in Mass. Becomes Federal Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court class action filed by two "skycaps" at Logan
International Airport in Massachusetts has been transformed into
a federal case and expanded to include all of American's
"skycaps" nationwide, Sacha Pfeiffer of Boston.com Business
reports.

Don DiFiore and Leon Bailey, the "skycaps" that originally filed
the suit in Suffolk Superior Court accuse both American
Airlines, Inc., and G2 Secure Staff of allegedly withholding
their tip money and failing to pay them minimum wage.  Attorney
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston represents both "skycaps" in the
case.

A "skycap" is a porter employed by an airport.  While the
company that employs them usually pays them, it is customary to
tip these workers in the U.S.

The case, now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, stems from a $2-per-bag fee that the
airline began imposing in 2005 on travelers who use its curbside
check-in service, a charge that the airline concedes may cause
tips to plummet, since few passengers offer a tip in addition to
the bag fee.

Traditionally, "skycaps," have received most of their
compensation from tips, however, they have not benefited from
the new charge imposed, according to the complaint.  Instead,
the charge flows primarily to the companies with which American
Airlines contracts for "skycap" services (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 26, 2006).

The suit is also accusing the defendants of not adequately
notifying passengers that the bag fee is not a tip.

The suit is "DiFiore et al v. American Airlines, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-10070-WGY," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge William G. Young.

Representing the plaintiff is Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan of
Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont
Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax:
617-367-4820, E-mail: sliss@prle.com, Web site:
http://www.prle.com/.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) William L. Parker of Fitzhugh, Parker & Alvaro, LLP,
         155 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-695-
         2330, Fax: 617-695-2335, E-mail:
         wparker@fitzhughlaw.com; and

     (2) Michael R. Bernardo and Erin K. Higgins of Conn,
         Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, LLP, Ten Post
         Office Square, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-
         482-8200, Fax: 617-482-6444, E-mail:
         mbernardo@ckrpf.com and ehiggins@ckrpf.com.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Va. Court to Hear Request for $500T Legal Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' attorneys in a securities fraud suit filed against
Amerigroup Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia are seeking $500,000 reimbursement for
their expenses in pursuing the case, according to The Virginian-
Pilot.

Amerigroup settled the suit in October for $5 million.  

Entwistle & Cappucci of New York, lead attorneys for lead
plaintiff, Illinois State Board of Investment, said their
litigation expenses totaled $517,186, including $134,540 for
copying documents and $102,139 for investigations.

The district court will hold on Feb. 5, at 11:00 a.m. a hearing
to approve the settlement and the attorneys' request for
reimbursement.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Amerigroup Corp. common stock during the
period from Feb. 16, 2005 through Sept. 28, 2005.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia in the courtroom of the Judge Henry Coke
Morgan.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection was Jan. 26, 2007.  
Deadline to file claims is March 20, 2007.

Garden City Group said in a court filing that it mailed claims
packets to more than 2,800 brokerage firms, banks and other
institutions and to 238 parties known to have bought Amerigroup
stock during the February-through-September period of 2005,
according to the report.

                        Case Background

In 2005, five company shareholders sued the company in separate
lawsuits, contending that Amerigroup defrauded them.  The suits
were prompted by the collapse of company's stock price after the
disclosure of a third-quarter loss and actuarial difficulties
within the company.   

The state's Board of Investment, which is the overseer of the
assets of public-employee pension funds, was one of five company
shareholders who filed the suit.  It gained lead plaintiff
status when the suits were consolidated in Jan. 10, 2006.

The suit also named as defendants certain company officers,
including Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey L.
McWaters.  He is accused of taking advantage of the favorable
earnings forecasts by selling shares before the company's
disclosures of internal difficulties and its loss for the July-
through-September quarter.  

The suit is "Illinois State Board of Investment v. Amerigroup
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under
Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge F. Bradford
Stillman.

The claims administrator is providing information about the
settlement process at its call center.  A toll-free phone number
for the administrator is (800) 601-7495.


ARIZONA: Ruling on English-Learning Program Expected by March
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins is expected to rule on the
case "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al.," by March,
according to KVOA.com.

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

A Jan. 9 to 12 hearing set by Judge Collins began according to
schedule.  The trial will determine whether the state has
already improved its program for students learning the English
language (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2006).  

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

Final legal pleadings in the case likely will be due about a
month after the testimony ends and Collins has said he will rule
as quickly as possible, the lawyers said, according to the
report.

                        Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ARKANSAS: Lafayette County Officials Face Suit Over Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several officials of Lafayette County were named as defendants
in a purported federal class action alleging that the county
deliberately kept money belonging to private citizens, according
to The Texarkana Gazette.

Jim Cook of Dunn, Nutter and Morgan filed the suit on Jan. 19 in
the U.S. District Court for the West District of Arkansas.  It
could involve hundreds or thousands of people who never were
made aware of unclaimed money held by Lafayette County.

Plaintiffs in the suit include:
        
      -- F & G Investments, LLP;
      -- Allen Nance;
      -- Carole Galloway;
      -- Gary Sharp;
      -- Gerald Sharp;
      -- Jay Lindsay;
      -- Larry Sharp;
      -- Linda Sharp Reames;
      -- Mary Jane McGill;
      -- Michael Sharp;
      -- Randy Wooten;
      -- Richard Sharp;
      -- Sharon Sharp; and
      -- Terry Nichols.

The suit named as defendants:

    -- Lafayette County Judge Frank Scroggins
    -- Former County Attorney Danny Rodgers, and
    -- current County Attorney John Griffin.

Mr. Cook, who has asked that a jury hear the case, named Judge
Scroggins as a defendant, since he is the chief executive
officer for the county.  

He adds that the county attorneys were named as defendants,
since they were responsible for giving notice to individuals
with money being held by the county.

The money in question came from oil and gas royalties and
condemnations, which occur when land is acquired for a highway
or pipeline, for example, and the landowner either does not
agree to sell the property or cannot be located.

According to Mr. Cook, they have asked the county to return the
money to the proper recipients, but it refused, contending that
the money is in the general fund and that's where it belongs.

In practice, royalties for oil and gas are paid to local
governments when owners of the mineral rights cannot be found.  

The suit alleges that the county is violating the Arkansas
Unclaimed Property Act (AUPA).  AUPA illustrates the process by
which the state and counties are to attempt to locate and pay
owners and the steps to be taken when owners ultimately are not
found after these efforts have been made.

Under AUPA, if a property owner cannot be found within one year
of funds being payable using information from the county's, or
holder's, records, the money is placed in an escrow account and
will be paid to the rightful owners if a claim by them is made.  
If the money is not claimed within five years, it is considered
abandoned.

Mr. Cook alleges that Lafayette County did know the locations of
many people whose money they are now trying to keep.  However,
according to him, county officials deliberately made it
difficult for owners of unclaimed property to know money was
being held for them so the county's general fund could be
padded.

The suit, "McGill et al v. Lafayette County, Arkansas et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-04003-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F.
Barnes.

Representing the plaintiffs are James Levi Cook of Dunn, Nutter
& Morgan, L.L.P., State Line Plaza, Box 8030, Suite Six,
Texarkana, AR 71854-5945, Phone: (870) 773-5651, E-mail:
jlcook@dnmlawfirm.com.


AT&T INC: Calif. Court Resets Schedules in Wiretapping Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the oral stipulation of counsel and agreement of the Court
reached during the hearing in the case, "In re National Security
Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL-1791," on Dec.
21, 2006, the court sets these schedule, superseding the one
contained in its Pretrial Order No. 1 (Docket #79):

Master Complaints to be served and filed by
Plaintiffs                                       Jan. 16

Opposition to Motion for Stay filed and served   Jan. 17

Reply to Motion for Stay filed and served        Jan. 30

All parties to SHOW CAUSE in writing why
the Hepting order should not apply to all cases
and claims to which the government asserts the
state secrets privilege                          Feb. 1

Hearing on Stay motion and on the court's
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the
Hepting order should not apply to all cases and
claims to which the government asserts the state
secrets privilege.                               Feb. 9, at
                                                 2 p.m.

                        Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T  
Inc., are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a
massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks
the domestic and foreign communications and communication
records of millions of Americans.    

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that     
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:    

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution     
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by     
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or     
        using plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence    
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by     
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of     
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;    

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control     
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101     
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act     
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and     
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using     
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of    
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized     
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'     
        communications;    

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored     
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)     
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of     
        plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended     
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18     
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records     
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental     
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal     
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,     
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.    

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.    

Since the filing of this complaint, 20 additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.     

All 21 pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court, namely the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California, before the judge
presiding over the Hepting case.   The case is consolidated as:   
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records   
Litigation, MDL-1791."  

A small number of plaintiffs have objected to this consolidation
and their objections are pending before the joint panel on
multidistrict litigation.   

Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. and two of its affiliates
moved the panel, pursuant to section 1407 of the U.S. Judicial
Code, for an order centralizing the MDL-1791 actions in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.     

One of these 21 cases -- "Terkel v. AT&T Corp. and Illinois    
Bell," filed with the U.S. District Court in the Northern    
District of Illinois -- was dismissed in July.

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.   
Walker.  Representing the plaintiffs are:           

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454     
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-    
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:     
         cindy@eff.org; and     

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman     
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San     
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-     
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.          

Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.          
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont          
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:          
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:          
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and  
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


AT&T INC: Master Consolidated Complaints Filed in Spying Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Master consolidated complaints for several defendants in a
class action over alleged spying activities by certain
telecommunications companies in cooperation with the National
Security Agency have been filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the Web site
of Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Those complaints filed were for:

      -- AT&T Mobility and Cingular Wireless,
      -- BellSouth Corp.,
      -- Sprint Nextel,
      -- T-Mobile, Comcast, Transworld, and McLeod; and
      -- Verizon and MCI.

In 2006, a judicial panel of multidistrict litigation chaired by
Wm. Terrell Hodges ordered the transfer of 17 purported class
actions filed against several telecommunication companies to the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker for
coordinated or consolidated trial proceedings.

Twenty-one pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court.   The cases are consolidated as:   
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records   
Litigation, MDL-1791."  

                        Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T  
Inc., are collaborating with the NSA in a massive warrantless
surveillance program that illegally tracks the domestic and
foreign communications and communication records of millions of
Americans.    

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that     
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:    

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution     
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by     
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or     
        using plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence    
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by     
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of     
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;    

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control     
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101     
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act     
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and     
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using     
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of    
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized     
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'     
        communications;    

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored     
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)     
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of     
        plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended     
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18     
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records     
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental     
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal     
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,     
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.    

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.    

A copy of the complaints are available free of charge at:

              AT&T Mobility and Cingular Wireless              
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191a

                            BellSouth
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191b

                          Sprint Nextel
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191c

            T-Mobile, Comcast, Transworld, and McLeod
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191d

                         Verizon and MCI
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191e

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.   
Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:           

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454     
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-    
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:     
         cindy@eff.org; and     

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman     
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San     
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-     
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.        

Representing the defendants are Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.          
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont          
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:          
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:          
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and  
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


AWB LTD: Receives Complaint Over U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Australian wheat exporter AWB Ltd. said in a brief statement to
the Australian Stock Exchange that it had been served with a
class action complaint filed on behalf northern Iraqi
beneficiaries of the United Nations' oil-for-food program, The
Associated Press reports.

AWB stated it will seek the dismissal of the suit that is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Osen and Associate, together with three other law firms, filed
the suit against BNP Paribas and AWB Ltd., (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006).   

According to the lawsuit, residents of the Irbil, Dohuk and
Sulaimaniyah areas of Iraq claimed they did not receive the full
benefits to which they were entitled during the period June 10,
1999 to June 3, 2003.

Under the U.N. program Iraq's oil was sold on the world market,
the proceeds of which were to be used to purchase food,
medicines and other items not embargoed after the 1991 Gulf war.

The lawsuit claims BNP paid as much as $1.5 billion in kickbacks
to Saddam Hussein's deposed government while AWB paid more than
$200 million.

A U.N. report last year found out that AWB paid $221.7 million
in kickbacks to a trucking company linked to Hussein's
government (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

Earlier this year, retired Judge Terence Cole began
investigating AWB for payments it made in Iraq through the
United Nations' oil-for-food program.  

In his final report, public hearings for which began in January,
Judge Cole found AWB, 11 of its former executives, and one
former BHP Billiton executive may have broken Australian laws,
including criminal and banking codes.  

The lawsuit is seeking at least $200 million in damages under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.

For more details, contact Joshua D. Glatter of Osen & Associate,
LLC, 700 Kinderkamack Road, Oradell, New Jersey 07649, (Bergen
Co.), Phone: 201-265-6400, Fax: 201-265-0303, Web Site:
http://www.lawyers.com/osen.


BAYVIEW CREMATORY: Status Conference in Negligence Suit Set Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The civil trial in a class action against Bayview Crematory and
several local funeral homes is not expected until the end of
this year or next after related criminal cases are complete says
lead class action attorney, David Charlip of Florida, The
Portsmouth Herald News.

Mr. Charlip represents numerous families in New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and Maine.  He will be in Rockingham County
Superior Court at the end of the month for a status conference
in the case, according to the report.

In October, the Rockingham County Superior Court in New
Hampshire granted class action status to one of several lawsuits
filed against the current and former owners of Bayview Crematory
and several area funeral homes (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23,
2006).

The crematorium in Seabrook, New Hampshire, is believed to be by
dozens of families as the site were their loved ones' remains
were mistreated.  About 25 plaintiffs have signed onto the
lawsuit.

In 2005, police discovered that remains at the crematorium were
mishandled, mislabeled and mistreated.  Investigators later
discovered a body decomposing in an unrefrigerated unit,
unlabeled urns of ashes, and more than one body was being burned
at a time.

The lawsuit alleges negligence in the handling of bodies,
consumer protection violations and misrepresentation against
operators Derek Wallace and Linda Stokes, as well as Simplicity
Burial and Cremation Services Incorporated of Massachusetts.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for all forms of damage,
including emotional distress and presumed damages for the
alleged mishandling of bodies at the crematorium (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

Recently, a jury convicted former medical examiner Putnam Breed
of Hampton Falls, Massachusetts, guilty of signing cremation
certificates without viewing the bodies.

For more details, contact David H. Charlip of The Charlip Law
Group, LC, 1930 Harrison St., Suit 208, Hollywood, FL 33020,
Phone: 954- 921-2131, Fax: 954-921-2191.


CALIFORNIA: ACLU Seeks Class Certification for Overcrowding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is seeking class-
action status for a lawsuit against a privately operated federal
immigration detention center near the U.S.-Mexico border on
behalf detainees who claim they are being held in overcrowded
and inhumane conditions.

In legal papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, the ACLU is seeking to amend a
complaint filed by detainee Isaac Kigondu Kiniti, who has been
representing himself in a case he filed in May 2005 that
challenges overcrowded conditions at the San Diego Correctional
Facility (SCDF).  

Mr. Kiniti was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) custody in May 2004 and sent to the facility in November
2004.  Since then he has been awaiting proceedings to determine
whether he will have to return to Kenya, where he fears he will
be subjected to persecution and torture.  

Living conditions have worsened since Mr. Kiniti's case was
filed in May 9, 2005, and the ACLU hopes its involvement will
help improve conditions at SDCF so that they meet constitutional
standards.

The original suit generally contends that people being held for
immigration violations, which are violations of civil and not
criminal laws, are constitutionally entitled to better
conditions than criminal defendants.

In its proposed class-action complaint, which aims to broaden
the case, "Kiniti v. Wagner," the ACLU charges that the 1,232-
bed SDCF is "chronically and dangerously overcrowded," which
leads to an increase in violence among inmates, poor sanitation
and hygiene, diminished access to medical attention, and "a loss
of personal dignity."

The complaint names Julie Myers, the assistant secretary of ICE,
John Torres, the director of detention operations for ICE, and
ICE officials in San Diego with supervisory responsibility for
the facility operated by the private Corrections Corporation of
America, a private company that operates prisons for governments
around the country.  The company, based in Nashville, Tenn., is
also named in the complaint.

Inmates at the facility include illegal immigrants caught at the
border, asylum seekers, or people who are challenging
deportation orders.  They can be held for periods ranging from
months to years.

The complaint alleges that 675 detainees are subject to "triple-
celling," in which three people share cells that measure 6 feet
by 12 feet.  

Plaintiffs claim they had to sleep on plastic mats on the floor
and were close enough to the cell toilets that they were
"sprayed" by cellmates using the toilet or sink.

The ACLU's National Prison Project, and Immigrants' Rights
Project, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the law
firm of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP filed the proposed class-
action complaint.

In seeking class-action status, the case would in effect be one
of the first in the country that demands better treatment for a
large group of immigration violators based on their status as
civil detainees.

The proposed second amended complaint is available at:              
               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1912

The suit is "Kiniti v. Wagner, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-01013-
DMS-PCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Dana M. Sabraw with referral
to Judge Peter C. Lewis.

Representing the plaintiffs is John David Blair-Loy of ACLU of
San Diego and Imperial Counties, P.O. Box 87131, San Diego, CA
92138, Phone: (619) 232-2121, Fax: (619) 232-0036, E-mail:
dblairloy@aclusandiego.org.

Representing the defendants is David B. Monks of Klinedinst, PC,
501 West Broadway, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101-3544, Phone:
(619) 239-8131, Fax: (619) 238-8707 E-mail:
dmonks@klinedinstlaw.com.


CAMERON INT'L: Settles Tex. Litigation Over Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron International Corp. (formerly Cooper Cameron) settled a
class action lawsuit related to contaminated underground water
near a former manufacturing facility in Houston, Texas --
expecting to post a related pretax charge of about $9 million,
or 5 cents a share, on an after-tax basis.

The lawsuit, filed in 2002, related to homeowners' concerns
about the impact on property values from contaminated
underground water.

Under the terms of the settlement, Cameron will provide
homeowners in the affected area with an option to choose a one-
time lump sum settlement equal to approximately 3% of the
appraised value of their property or a "property protection
program" that will reimburse them when the value of their home,
in the event of a sale during the remediation process, is
determined to be lower than that of similar properties in
similar neighborhoods.

Cameron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Sheldon R. Erikson
said, "Over the years, we have worked closely with the
appropriate regulatory authorities to address these issues,
which we originally discovered and reported to them in 2001, and
we have advised residents by direct contact, through public
meetings and via a related website of our testing and monitoring
results and have worked with a number of homeowners to preserve
their homes' values. We are pleased to have reached this
settlement working with the homeowners' representatives."

Cameron is a leading provider of flow equipment products,
systems and services to worldwide oil, gas and process
industries.


CANADA: Attorney General Appeals Residential School Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Attorney General of Canada has appealed part of a Regina
Court decision to approve the Indian residential school class
action lawsuit.

"We are very disappointed to learn [of the appeal]," said
National Chief Phil Fontaine of The Assembly of First Nations, a
national organization representing First Nations citizens in
Canada.

                   Phil Fontaine's Statement

"We have now heard from all nine courts.  All agree the
settlement agreement is fair and just.  Some courts have raised
some concerns that need to be addressed immediately to ensure
survivors get their money in a timely fashion.  Compensation
payments for the approximately 80,000 residential school
survivors should likely begin later this summer."

"We want to emphasize to the courts and the government the
importance of getting this historic settlement completed in a
timely matter.  Many of the survivors, who are elderly and sick,
are dying at a rate of four a day.  We all agree we want to see
an end to this sad chapter of Canadian history."

"The courts certification also means the Truth Commission will
be starting its work next summer.  The Truth Commission will
ensure that all Canadians will understand the significance of
the serious harm done to our people.  First Nations are
determined to send the message to the world that "Never Again"
will such actions be tolerated in Canada."

"A comprehensive communications outreach plan to inform
survivors of their rights to compensation is expected to begin
once the court certification process is completed."

                        Case Background

A settlement in principle was reached in proceedings in Ontario,
Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Nunavut,
British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon in November 2005.  Approval
hearings in the Ontario suit took place before Justice Warren
Winkler in Toronto the week of Aug. 28, 2006.  Ontario Superior
Court approved the deal on Dec. 15, 2006.  The Nunavut and the
Northwest Territories are the only jurisdictions left to approve
the deal, according to Edmonton Sun.com (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 18, 2006).

The settlement provides:  

     -- at least CAD$1.9 billion available for "common   
        experience" payments to former students who lived at one   
        of the schools.  Payments will be CAD$10,000 for the   
        first school year (or part of a school year) plus   
        CA$3,000 for each school year (or part of a school year)   
        after that;  

     -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious   
        physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious   
        psychological effects, to get between CAD$5,000 and   
        CA$275,000 each.  Students could get more money if they   
        also show a loss of income; and  

     -- money for programs for former students and their   
        families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and   
        commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses   
        suffered: CAD$125 million to the Aboriginal Healing   
        Foundation, CAD$60 million to research, document, and   
        preserve the experiences of the survivors, and CAD$20   
        million for national and community commemorative   
        projects (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).  

The government will pay lawyers representing former students up
to approximately CAD$100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes.

The compensation will only be paid out to former students who
were still living on May 30, 2005, and who have attended
recognized Indian residential schools.  

Students who are eligible can apply for an advance payment of
CAD$8,000 by filling out a form available on the Indian
Residential Schools Resolution Web site (http://www.irsr-
rqpi.gc.ca/) or by calling 1-800-816-7293.   Applications for
advance payment will be accepted until Dec. 31.  

For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement   
Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247.


CATALINA MARKETING: April Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida will hold
a fairness hearing on April 26, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $8,500,000.00 settlement in the matter, "In Re Catalina
Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-
27TBM."

The hearing will be held before Judge James D. Whittemore, U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M.
Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Courtroom 13B,
Tampa, Florida.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased the common stock
of Catalina Marketing Corp. Between Oct. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25,
2003.

                        Case Background

Numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle  
District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and  
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and  
Rule 10b-5 thereunder (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2006).

The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 17, 2002 and  
Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.  

The complaints contain various allegations, including that,
during the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
operations with the result of artificially inflating the
company's share price and maintained inadequate internal
controls.  It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.   

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S.  
District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re  
Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-
CV-1582-T-27TBM."    

Named as co-lead plaintiffs in December 2003 are:

     -- Virginia P. Anderson, and  
     -- the Alaska Electric Pension Fund  

On Jun. 21, 2004, they served their consolidated amended class
action complaint on behalf of those who purchased the company's
stock between Aug. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.   

The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended class action complaint which motion was
denied by the court on March 31, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in May 2005, which was
subsequently granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.   

On May 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, granted class-action status to the consolidated
securities class action against Catalina Marketing Corp.,
certain of its present and former officers and directors and
Catalina Health Resource.

The suit is "Corwin, et al. v. Catalina Marketing, et al., Case
No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth J. Arleo, Andrew Brown, William S. Lerach and  
         Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins  
         LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:  
         619/231-1058, E-mail: AndrewB@lerachlaw.com;
  
     (2) Jack G. Fruchter of Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn Plaza,  
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212/279-5050;  

     (3) Christopher S. Jones, Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya  
         Saxena, Joseph E. White of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &  
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite  
         600, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561/361-5000,  
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cjones@milbergweiss.com,
         cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com;
         and
  
     (4) Andrei Rado and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg, Weiss,  
         Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,  
         49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212/594-
         5300.

Representing the company are Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A.  
Nichols of Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100,  
P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:  
813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or  
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com.

For more details, contact Catalina Shareholder Litigation,
Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte
Madera, CA 94976-0990, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com.


CENTURY 21: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Real Estate Deal in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for a former client of Trinity Century 21 Realty is
planning to ask St. Joseph (Indiana) Superior Judge William
Means to certify a suit by his client as a class-action
complaint, PR-Inside.com reports.

Douglas Small, attorney for Barbara Clayton of 1010 W. Rose St.,
South Bend, is suing Trinity Century 21 Realty co-owners
Sotirios "Steve" Gertzas and Radomir "Erik" Ivanovich, along
with one of their brokers, Debra Young; Mr. Ivanovich's mortgage
company, Mill Lake Mortgage; Title Express Inc., a Fort Wayne-
based company with an office in Osceola; and Kayci Mueller, a
local Title Express employee.

Ms. Clayton says she's been duped into a real estate deal with
the company's brokers.  She told the brokers she needed to sell
her house for at least $35,000, plus enough money to pay off a
$5,000 home equity loan.  She did not receive copies of sales
documents in the process.  

When she finally obtained the papers, she found out that the
home was sold for $81,000.  As a result, she will have to pay a
much higher capital gains tax than she should have, according to
Mr. Small.

Ms. Young admitted to Ms. Clayton that the Trinity group has
entered other fraudulent transactions with other buyers and
sellers, in South Bend, Mishawaka, Michigan City and Benton
Harbor.  

Case contact: Douglas D. Small, member at Foley & Small, 1002
East Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana 46617 (St. Joseph
Co.), Phone: 574-288-7676; 800-276-2525, Fax: 574-288-4939.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: W.Va. Court Awards $405M in Royalties Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Spencer, West Virginia has imposed approximately
$134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in
punitive damages against defendants in the case, "Tawney, et al.
v. Columbia Natural Resources et al.," which is pending in Roane
County Circuit Court.

Columbia Natural is a former NiSource Inc. subsidiary, which was
sold in 2003.  NiSource, Columbia Energy Group and Chesapeake
Appalachia LLC are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

NiSource believes the verdict in the case is clearly excessive
and should be set aside by the trial court or overturned on
appeal.  

The result, if left standing, would set a precedent that is
contrary to existing law and could undermine the legal
underpinnings of nearly every natural gas royalty contract in
the state, the company said in a statement.  

As such, the decision not only affects the defendants, but also
potentially harms every natural gas producer in West Virginia
and could have a negative impact on future oil and gas
development, NiSource said.

The plaintiffs in the case, natural gas royalty owners, filed
the lawsuit in early 2003 alleging that Columbia Natural
underpaid royalties by deducting a portion of post-production
costs incurred in order to gather and transport gas to
interstate pipelines and by not paying market value for gas
produced under all leases, even those providing for payment
based on actual proceeds received for the gas.  Plaintiffs
sought the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive damages.

The defendants believe Columbia Natural operated in good faith
and that there is no valid basis for any award of punitive
damages, let alone the unwarranted and unreasonable levels
granted in this case.

The defendants also expressed disappointment that the judge in
the case did not allow presentation of key evidence.  They
believe the verdict would have been different had the jury been
allowed to hear all the evidence in the case.

The jury's verdict and its award of damages are subject to
review by the trial court, which could result in the verdict
being set aside or reduced.  The defendants will appeal any
adverse judgment, NiSource said in the statement.

Although NiSource Inc. sold CNR in 2003, the company is a
defendant in the case and remains primarily responsible for any
damages ultimately determined to be due following appeal.  

The company has already recorded a reserve for this litigation,
and is assessing whether to adjust the level of that accrual
based on the verdict and all information available to the
company.

The court has certified the case as a class action that includes
any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due
royalties from CNR, and its predecessors or successors, on lands
lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

All claims by the government of the United States are excluded
from the class.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is Marvin Masters of Charleston (181  
Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301, (Kanawha Co.),  
Phone: 304-342-3106, Fax: 304-342-3189.  

Representing the defendants is Timothy Miller, 400 Fifth Third
Center, 700 Virginia Street, East, P.O. Box 1791 Charleston,
West Virginia 25326 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-344-5800, Fax:
304-344-9566.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Holding of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action civil rights case filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia accuses the state of
unconstitutionally holding prisoners beyond their release dates,
The Courthouse News Service Reports.

The suit was filed against the District of Columbia and current
Director of the Department of Corrections, Devon Brown.

Named plaintiffs are:

     -- Nicole Morgan of Maryland
     -- Marquetta Bennett of the District of Columbia
     -- Stephen Morenau of the District of Columbia
     -- Delonta Reeves of the District of Columbia
     -- Santos Melendez of Maryland
     -- Frank West of the District of Columbia
     -- Jeffrey Thomas of the District of Columbia
     -- Rochelle Wiggins of the District of Columbia, and
     -- Chawndra Royal of the District of Columbia.

Most of the plaintiffs "are either pre-trial detainees,
misdemeanants serving sentences, or parole and probation
violators."

Plaintiffs bring this action under rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
(23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a
class consisting of each individual who has been, is, or will
incarcerated at any District of Columbia Department of
Corrections facility until the date this case is terminated, who
has not been released, or, in the future, will not be released
by midnight on the day of his or her release date.

They claim the defendants are deliberately indifferent that
their inmate-management system has collapsed.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

      -- whether the District of Columbia has a pattern and         
         practice of holding detainees and inmates past their
         release dates;

      -- whether the District of Columbia has a pattern and
         practice of being deliberately indifferent to the
         rights of detainees and inmates by holding them past
         their release dates;

      -- whether the District of Columbia's acts as alleged
         herein violate the U.S. Constitution of the by holding
         detainees and inmates past their release dates;

      -- whether Devon Brown was deliberately indifferent to the
         rights of inmates and detainees in the custody of the
         Department of Corrections by failing to supervise his
         subordinates;

      -- whether plaintiffs and the members of the class have
         sustained damages and, if so, the proper measure of
         such damages; and

      -- whether plaintiffs and the members of the class and
         future members are entitled to equitable relief, and if
         so, what is the nature of that relief.

Plaintiffs request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- grant a jury trial on all triable claims;

     -- declare that this action may be maintained as a class
        action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and certifying plaintiffs as the
        proper representative of the class consisting of each
        individual:

        (i) who has been, is, or will be incarcerated in any
            District of Columbia Department of Corrections
            facility up until the date this case is terminated;

       (ii) who was not released, or, in the future, will not be
            released, by midnight of the day of his or her
            release date.

     -- declare that defendants' acts alleged violate the 4th,
        5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution by
        over detaining them as alleged;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from
        pursuing the course of conduct complained;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from
        pursuing settlement directly with any member of the
        putative class described unless that person is
        represented by counsel;

     -- award all plaintiffs compensatory and consequential
        damages in an amount to be determined;

     -- award plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs incurred in
        bringing this action under U.S.C. Section 1988; and

     -- grant such other and further relied as the nature of
        this case may require.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?191f

The suit is "Morgan et al v. Government of the District of
Columbia et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00172-JDB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge John D.
Bates.

Representing plaintiffs is John O. Iweanoge, Jr. of The
Iweanoges Firm, 1010 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington,
DC 20005-4958, Phone: (202) 347-7026, Fax: (202) 347-7108, E-
mail: joi@iweanogesfirm.com.


ELEGANT GOURMET: Recalls Truffles for Undeclared Milk Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elegant Gourmet Inc. of Woodinville, Washington, is voluntarily
recalling all packages of Elegant Sweets Chocolate Cream
Truffles because they contain undeclared milk.

People who have allergies or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled Chocolate Cream Truffles were distributed
nationwide in retail stores and through mail orders.

The Chocolate Cream Truffles are packaged in three different
styles/sizes.  One is a round, brown and beige box, tied with a
brown ribbon, net wt. 8.8-oz (246 grams).  

The second one is in a pink and white box tied with a pink
ribbon, net wt. 3-oz (85 g) and is part of the Valentine's Day
Collection in the catalog.  

The third style/size is a red velvet heart shaped box with a red
ribbon and white roses tied on top, net wt. 4.5-oz (128 g).
Individual product containers are not coded.  

No complaints have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the whey
in the product was not properly disclosed as milk derived
product.  

Subsequent investigation indicates that supplier information
needed to be updated to reveal the change in the current
labeling laws and in ingredient listings.

Consumers who have purchased Elegant Sweets Chocolate Cream
Truffles are urged to return them to Elegant Gourmet for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-
425-814-2500.


HSBC INVESTMENTS: Faces Litigation Over Pooled Fund Portfolios
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant Law Group has launched class actions against HSBC
Investments (Canada) Limited (formerly HSBC Asset Management
Limited) concerning allegations that in about 2001, it changed
non-discretionary investment limits in certain pooled fund
portfolios and invested clients' monies over the authorized
limits.

All Canadian investors who prior to 2001 purchased any of the
following pooled fund portfolios, and held those portfolios
through the year 2001 are eligible for the class action:

      -- "Conservative Growth of Capital"
      -- "Growth of Capital"
      -- "Registered Conservative Growth of Capital"
      -- "Registered Growth of Capital"

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


IDT CORP: Donates $2M Under Card Rates Suit Settlement in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corp., Union Telecard Alliance, LLC and IDT Telecom, Inc.
(collectively, IDT) reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a
nationwide calling card related class action.  

IDT previously accrued for and disclosed an agreement in
principle in March 2005 in its quarterly report.  The action
related to claims concerning IDT's prepaid and rechargeable
calling card disclosures regarding rates and charges.  

The settlement resolves all of the companies' pending calling
card litigations.  As part of the settlement, IDT denies any
wrongdoing or liability and the parties agreed to the settlement
to avoid further costs and uncertainties related to litigation.

The class action, "In re IDT Corp. Calling Card Terms
Litigation, MDL-1550, Master Docket No. 2:03-375," will remain
pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey until the settlement agreement is given final approval.

The settlement affects customers who purchased an IDT calling
card in the U.S. at any time between Jan. 1, 1997, and Jan. 22,
2007, or purchased an IDT calling card in the U.S. any time
between Jan. 22, 2007, and Dec. 16, 2007.  The settlement will
provide refund PINs to those people who submit an eligible PIN
to IDT.

IDT agreed to provide refund PINs worth up to $20 million to
eligible consumers of IDT calling cards for domestic telephone
calls.  Eligible consumers of IDT prepaid calling cards are
entitled to a refund PIN with a value of $0.50 for domestic
calls at $0.10 per minute for each eligible PIN submitted.

Eligible consumers of IDT rechargeable calling cards are
entitled to a refund PIN with a value of $0.50 for domestic
calls at $0.10 per minute for every $5.00 worth of calling time
that was loaded onto the card when it was first purchased and
charged.  

IDT also has agreed to modify the disclosures contained on its
calling cards and to propose a uniform calling card regulation
to the New Jersey Attorney General's Office.  In addition, IDT
has agreed to make $2 million or the equivalent dollar value of
donations to charitable organizations such as educational
scholarships and/or donations of calling cards as additional cy
pres relief.

If the settlement receives final approval by the Court, members
of the settlement class can submit a claim by accessing IDT's
interactive voice response telephone system by either calling a
toll-free number (800-921-2781) or any IDT calling card access
number or customer service number, or through http://www.idt.net
or http://www.uniontelecard.com.   

They must then enter a PIN number from an IDT calling card that
was purchased on or before Jan. 22, 2007 or purchased any time
after Jan. 22, 2007, but before Dec. 16, 2007.  Members of the
settlement class may be required to provide their names and
addresses, and the name of the calling card associated with the
PIN number.  IDT, subject to Court review, will then determine
whether the member of the settlement class is eligible for a
refund based on confirmation of a legitimate PIN and remaining
funds in the pool.  If eligible, IDT will provide members of the
settlement class with a refund PIN.


The suit is "In re IDT Corp. Calling Card Terms Litigation, MDL-
1550, Master Docket No. 2:03-375," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Susan D.
Wigenton with referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10th
          Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600, Web
          site: http://kmslaw.com/;and

      (2) Lawrence Jay Sass, 443 Northfield Avenue, West Orange,
          NJ 07052, Phone: (973) 324-5500, E-mail:
          sasslaw@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Patton Boggs, LLP, One Riverfront
Plaza, 6th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 848-5633, E-
mail: eglasband@pattonboggs.com.


ILLINOIS: Appeals Court Dismisses CAC Appeal in Segregation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed an
appeal filed by the Central Advisory Council (CAC) -- an
organization representing tenants currently residing in the
Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) public housing -- against the
denial by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois of its motion to amend a 1996 order entered as part of
its ongoing remedial relief in this class action brought against
CHA for de jure segregation in public housing.

Dorothy Gautreaux, Odell Jones, Doreatha R. Crenchaw, et al.,
filed the suit (Case No. 05-3968) in 1966 against the Chicago
Housing Authority and Terry Peterson, and Daniel El Levin and
the Habitat Company, LLC.

The suit was brought on behalf of a purported a class of
individuals who either lived in Chicago public housing or on the
wait list for public housing (Gautreaux plaintiffs).  They
alleged that CHA was practicing de jure housing segregation.  

In 1969, the district court granted summary judgment to the
Gautreaux plaintiffs, finding that CHA had selected housing
sites using race as a criteria in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

                Background of the Current Action

The dispute involves a development called Lake Park Crescent,
which is located in the North Kenwood-Oakland area on the south
side of Chicago.  Lake Park Crescent was built by a private
developer and overseen Daniel E. Levin as the Receiver.  

The North Kenwood-Oakland neighborhood formerly had contained
high-density, dilapidated public housing; CHA demolished the
high-rise buildings in the neighborhood and sought adequate
housing alternatives.

On June 3, 1996, the district court issued a "revitalizing
order" for the North Kenwood-Oakland neighborhood.  This order
stated that, in order to prevent a re-concentration of public
housing, any new public housing in the North Kenwood-Oakland
neighborhood must be economically integrated; one-half of the
units must be reserved for low-income families earning 50-80% of
the area No. 05-3968 5 median income (AMI), while the other half
could be occupied by very low-income families earning 0-50% of
the AMI.

The first phase of Lake Park Crescent was completed and had 60
public housing units: 30 reserved for families earning 50-80% of
AMI, and 30 reserved for families earning 0-50% of AMI.  

The developer had no difficulty finding families to occupy the
0-50% units; however, it did encounter difficulty identifying
eligible existing public housing tenants to occupy the 50-80%
units.

Consequently, some of those units remained vacant.  The
developer contacted all families on CHA's waiting list who
satisfied the existing income limits; in August 2004, an open
house was held for CHA families at or above 50% AMI; in February
2005, CHA began an outreach effort to wait list families in the
surrounding communities; and, in March 2005, CHA began to
contact the entire wait list.  

As of May 20, 2005, nine of the thirty units (requiring 50-80%
AMI) were occupied, and eleven other units were assigned to
individuals whose applications were being processed.  
Nevertheless, there was still concern about filling the
remaining 50-80% AMI units.

On May 3, 2005, CAC filed a motion to amend the 1996
revitalizing order to allow working public housing families to
occupy the units reserved for those who make 50-80% of the AMI,
even if their income was not as high as 50% of the AMI.

In that motion, CAC expressed a concern that the developer was
planning a sitebased wait list for Lake Park Crescent that would
invite members of the general community to live in Lake Park
Crescent.

CAC contended that such a list would bypass the thousands of
current and past CHA residents who are currently on wait lists
awaiting housing relocation.

After a July 7, 2005 hearing, the district court denied CAC's
motion to amend the June 3, 1996 order.  CAC afterwards filed
this appeal, arguing that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied CAC's motion to modify the 1996
revitalization order.

On Jan. 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
dismissed the appeal because the Council is not a party to this
action.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1916

The suit is "Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority," No. 66 C
1459-Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.


LESLEY ELIZABETH: Recalls Dried Tomatoes for Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Elizabeth Inc. is voluntarily recalling, due to
undeclared sulfites, all codes of certain products that are sold
nationwide in retail stores and are marketed under the brand
names:

     -- Lesley Elizabeth Inc,
     -- Lizzie's Kitchen,
     -- Attrezzi,
     -- Bangma,
     -- Doms,
     -- Liebmans,
     -- Robies,
     -- Savory,
     -- Smoke & Fire,
     -- Sociale,
     -- Trade Winds,
     -- Urban Villa,
     -- Westborn Markets,
     -- Wonderful, and
     -- Good Spirits

Anyone who is allergic to sulfites should not consume these
products.  People who are allergic to sulfites and eat these
products run the risk of an allergic reaction that may vary from
mild to life threatening.  There is no risk to individuals who
are not allergic to sulfites.  

No illnesses have been reported to date.

All products being shipped from today forward will be correctly
labeled to reveal the presence of sulfites or the formula will
be altered to remove the Sun dried Tomatoes.  The products
included in this recall are:

     -- Chunky Guacamole in 8oz. and 225 ml. Jars,

     -- Garden Vegetable Seasoning in 8oz., 125 ml. and 225 ml.
        Jars,

     -- Brown Basmati Rice in 8 oz. tubes with a sample bag of
        Dried Tomato Seasoning included in the tube,

     -- Short Brown Rice in 1.28oz. tubes with a sample bag of
        Garden Vegetable Seasoning included in the tube,

     -- Pasta For Two Dried Tomato in 1.28oz. tubes with a
        sample bag of Dried Tomato Seasoning included in the
        tube,

     -- Pasta For Two Garden Vegetable in 1.28 oz. tubes with a
        sample bag of Garden Vegetable Seasoning included in the
        tube,

     -- Dried Tomato Pesto in 4oz. Jars,

     -- Sundried Tomato Dipping Oil in 8.5oz., 10oz. and 12oz.
        Bottles,

     -- Lesley Elizabeth Inc. has always been committed to
        producing products of the highest quality.

Customers who have any of these products and have sulfite
concerns should return the product to the place of purchase for
refund or replacement.

Customers with other concerns are urged to call the company at
1-800-684-3300 between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm EST Monday through
Friday.


M-QUBE INC: Faces Mass. Suit Over Cell-Phone Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
M-Qube, Inc. faces a purported class action in Massachusetts
District Court over allegations that it knowingly billed certain
cell-phone users for content they never signed up for, The
Boston Herald reports.

The suit was field by the Chicago-based law firm of Blim &
Edelson on Jan. 24.  It addresses the so-called "dirty" cell-
phone numbers, which are recycled numbers passed on to new
customers with previously purchased services still attached to
the number.

The suit claims that M-Qube continues to bill the number without
seeing if the account has changed hands, according Jay Edelson
of Blim & Edelson, who is seeking more than $5 million in
damages.

Mr. Edelson contends that the billing problem is easily remedied
by M-Qube just by checking to see if customers signed up for
particular services before the phone's current owners obtained
the number.

However, Mr. Edelson claims that it is so easy to fix that the
company chose not to implement such a measure, and instead
profits from billing problem.  He suggests that that this is not
"accidental behavior" by the company.

M-Qube, which was bought last year by VeriSign, acts as a
middleman between content providers and wireless carriers,
distributing and billing for games, ringtones, and other
entertainment options.

For more details, contact Blim & Edelson, LLC, The Monadnock
Building, 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1642, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, Phone: (312) 913-9400 and (888) 325-4652, Fax:
(312) 913-9401, E-Mail: info@blimlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.blimlaw.com.


MERCK FROSST: Vioxx Case in Saskatchewan Allowed to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
An attempt to certify a class-action lawsuit against Merck
Frosst Canada Ltd., and U.S.-based parent company Merck & Co.
Inc., makers of the drug Vioxx will push forward in
Saskatchewan, The Canadian Press.

In a recently issued ruling, Judge John Klebuc of the Court of
Queen's Bench said that that a case against the defendants has
merit on the issues of negligence, deceit, battery and breaches
of consumer protection legislation.  

Thus, the case warrants further consideration, according to the
court, which also cleared the Canadian government any wrongdoing
in its ruling.

Regina attorney Tony Merchant, who is representing about 2,500
claimants, said that the court decision that there's validity in
the action against Merck is a "huge success" for them.

Generally, the suit alleges the painkiller Vioxx caused serious,
even fatal, side effects including heart problems.

Mr. Merchant of the Merchant Law Group pointed out that the suit
was not certified as a class action yet, since the court wants a
plan from the plaintiffs on how the case would be pursued.  

The judge said that issues related to notification have to be
sorted out, issues related to plaintiffs' plan for the trial
have to be sorted out and that plaintiffs are to go back with
more information, according to Mr. Merchant.

Despite having no decision on class certification, Mr. Merchant
calls the judge's comments important because an attempt to build
a national class action in the U.S. failed.

Previously, defendants had argued that people who claim they
suffered injury from taking Vioxx must pursue individual
lawsuits.

The suit had argued that Canadian officials should not have
allowed Vioxx into the country in 1999 and did not act quickly
enough when problems with the drug became apparent.  Vioxx was
withdrawn from the market in 2004.

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Tenants File Suit in N.Y. Over Rental Hikes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., and Tishman Speyer Properties
faces a purported class action in Manhattan state Supreme Court
from tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village who are
irate over the rent increase.

The complex, which previously owned by Metropolitan Life, was
later sold to Tishman Speyer, which bought it for a record $5.4
billion in 2006.

The tenants, who are represented by attorney Stuart M. Saft, are
seeking are roll back of their rents, claiming that the
complex's owners illegally charged market-rate rents for more
than 3,000 apartments in the complexes while benefiting from tax
breaks that should have precluded them from doing so.

In general, the suit, filed on Jan. 22, accuses the company of
"wrongfully pocketing nearly $25 million in New York City tax
benefits."  It also pointed out that the tax breaks, which were
received by the owners since 1992 under the city's J-51 property
tax program, prohibits them from removing apartments from rent
regulation.

The program, intended to encourage landlords to refurbish their
properties and make capital improvements, gives tax breaks in
return for pledges to keep rents relatively low.  

Most of the 11,000 apartments in the two complexes still have
regulated rents, at one third to one half of market rate.  About
3,000 other apartments though do not have regulated rents.  

The class action seeks to have those apartments put back under
rent regulation for another 10 years, until a series of city-
given tax breaks expire.  

It cited the regulations governing J-51 benefits as the reason
for the extension of coverage.  That part of the J-51 which
states that apartments receiving the tax breaks shall remain
subject to rent regulation until the occurrence of the first
vacancy after the tax benefits expire.

Additionally, the suit also seeks $320 million in damages or
three times the rent overcharges for the past two years, as
calculated by the plaintiffs.

For more details, contact Stuart M. Saft of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 545-4710, Fax: (212) 686-0114, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Iowans Seek Exclusion From Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,100 individuals and businesses in Iowa have decided
not to be a party in the antitrust class action against
Microsoft Corp., which is pending in Polk County District Court,
The Associated Press reports.

To exclude themselves, business owners or individuals had to
contact the plaintiffs' attorneys saying they wanted to give up
their right to any money that might be awarded.

Attorney Roxanne Conlin of Des Moines filed the lawsuit
representing thousands of Iowans who purchased Microsoft
software between 1994 and 2006.

The lawsuit claims that the company engaged in anticompetitive
conduct that caused customers to pay more.  Their expert
witnesses will place damages at more than $300 million.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed class
members by:      

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

      -- denying class members free choice in software products      
         and the benefits of software innovation; and      

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.      

Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.      

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,      
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: 515-283-1111,
         Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and             

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN      
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, E-mail:      
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
    
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Juror in Iowa Trial Nixed for Unknown Reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------
A juror was dismissed for undisclosed reasons from the antitrust
class action pending against Microsoft Corp. in Polk County
District Court in Iowa, The Associated Press reports.

With the dismissal, eleven jurors are now left to review
allegations that Microsoft used anticompetitive practices that
caused thousands of Iowans to pay more for the company's
software.

Commenting on the dismissal, Judge Scott Rosenberg says he
considered it a personnel matter and, thus would not say why the
juror was dismissed.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say juror dismissals are not unusual in
lengthy trials and their case will not be affected.  Attorneys
for the company declined to comment on the dismissal.

Commenting on the turn of events, plaintiffs' attorneys Roxanne
Conlin and Richard Hagstrom explained that juror dismissals are
not unusual in lengthy trials.  Both lawyers maintained that it
would not affect their case against the Redmond, Wash.-based
software giant.

For their part, Rich Wallis, a lawyer for Microsoft, said that
he does not anticipate any other dismissals, though he expects
the remaining jurors will be in court longer than the six months
that were initially predicted.

More than 80 prospective jurors were questioned before 12 were
chosen for the civil trial, which normally has eight jurors.  It
was agreed in this case that up to 12 jurors will be allowed, in
case some had to be dismissed or leave.  

Majority of the prospective jurors were allowed to leave, since
the length of the trial would have been too much of a hardship.

Of the 80 prospective jurors, seven men and five women were
eventually seated on Nov. 21, 2006 to hear the case in Polk
County District Court.  They began hearing opening statements
from attorneys on Dec. 1, 2006.  The trial is expected to last
six months.

                          Case Background

The class action against Microsoft was filed attorney Roxanne
Conlin of Des Moines on behalf of Iowans who purchased Microsoft
software between 1994 and 2006.  In it, plaintiffs generally
claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:      

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;      

      -- denying class members free choice in software products      
         and the benefits of software innovation; and      

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security      
         breaches.      

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,      
         Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: 515-283-1111,
         Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
         rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and             

     (2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
         Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN      
         55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, E-mail:      
         mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
    
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Continues to Face Pa. Personal Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Modine Manufacturing Co. was named as a defendant, along with
Rohm & Haas Company, Morton International, and Huntsman Corp.,
in 12 separate personal injury actions that were filed in
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas (PCCP).

These cases allege personal injury due to exposure to certain
solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air for
an undetermined period of time.  

Under similar facts as the PCCP cases but alleging a federal
putative class action, the company was named as a defendant,
along with Rohm & Haas Company, Morton International, and
Huntsman Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas
Company, et al., Case No. 06-1743."

The company is in the earliest states of discovery with these
cases, according to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2006.

Representing the plaintiffs is Aaron J. Freiwald of Layser &
Freiwald PC, 1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19102,
Phone: 215-875-8000, E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com.

Representing the defendants is Albert G. Bixler of Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 1515 Market Street, 9th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: 215-851-8412, E-mail:
abixler@eckertseamans.com.


MURPHY OIL: St. Bernard Parish Votes to Join La. Oil Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Bernard Parish Council voted to join a class action
against Murphy Oil Corp., stemming from a spill of 1 million
gallons of oil during Hurricane Katrina, The Associated Press
reports.

The decision is expected to net the parish a $1 million payout
under a pending $330 million proposed settlement in the case,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

Back in May 2006, parish officials had decided not to take part
in the lawsuit, saying at the time that government may have
different damages than homeowners who were part of the suit.

However, on Jan. 22, parish attorney David Paysse advised the
council to opt back into the lawsuit because the $1 million
payment was reasonable.  

Mr. Paysse also told the council at a special meeting in
Chalmette that being a member of the class action offered an
expedited manner for the parish to get paid for the damages.

Thus, in that meeting, the council voted 5-1 to opt back into
the lawsuit and to file a "proof of claim," which is due by Jan.
31.

On Jan. 4, Judge Eldon E. Fallon reviewed the proposed $330
million settlement between the Murphy Oil and thousands of St.
Bernard Parish homeowners for damages caused by an oil spill
during Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007).

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

                        Settlement Terms

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

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

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

Under the settlement, all residential and commercial properties
in the class area will receive a cash payment pursuant to a fair
and equitable allocation subject to court approval following
recommendations by a court-appointed Special Master.  

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

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

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

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

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

If the deal were approved, the company would seek to buy about
570 homes on the four streets next to the refinery and tank
farm.  Company lawyer Kerry Miller explained that the area would
be turned into a "green zone" to buffer the refinery from
neighborhoods.  No cap will be paced on what the company spends
to achieve that goal

                        Case Background

The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of
residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation
for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux,  
Louisiana.  Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that
was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2006).  

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:     

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

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

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

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


QUEST SOFTWARE: Calif. Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Appointed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California appointed the Middlesex Retirement System
as Lead Plaintiff and Wolf Popper LLP as Lead Counsel in the
class action against Quest Software, Inc.

The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software,
Inc. and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing
through various false statements and omissions that they did not
properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which
were below fair market value on the actual grant date.

Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated
during the period Nov. 9, 2001 through July 3, 2006.

The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge David O. Carter, with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing plaintiffs are Patricia I. Avery, Anthony D. Green
and Marian P. Rosner, all of Wolf Popper LLP, 845 3rd Avenue,
12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax: 212-
486-2093.


SAUSALITO TRAVELODGE: Overtime Suit Settlement Awaits Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Dufficy of the Marin Superior Court in California
has yet to give final approval to the settlement of overtime
case against Sausalito Travelodge in Mill Valley, The Marin
Independent-Journal reports.

Plaintiffs in the class action are hoping that the judge, who
gave preliminary approval to the deal back in December, will
give final approval to the settlement soon.

Represented by Legal Aid of Marin and private attorneys,
plaintiffs, who worked at the Travelodge in 707 Redwood Highway
between Nov. 15, 2001, and July 15, 2006, claimed that
housekeepers, clerks and maintenance workers did not receive
overtime pay, missed meal and rest breaks, and were not provided
payroll records when requested.

Under the settlement, Travelodge denied all liability in the
lawsuit and maintained that the owners had fully complied with
wage-and-hour laws.  It said that it has agreed to the
settlement in order to avoid further litigation costs.

Karen Carrera of Talamantes, Villegas & Carrera, one of the
private attorneys representing the employees, they are still
hoping to find former employees who worked at Travelodge during
the period stated in the lawsuit.  The deadline for filing a
claim with Legal Aid of Marin is March 20, she adds.

For more details, contact Karen Carrera of Talamantes, Villegas
& Carrera, 1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725, San Francisco, CA
94103, Phone: 415-861-9600, Fax: 415-861-9622, Web site:
http://www.e-licenciados.com/.


STATE FARM: Reaches Settlement in Miss. Katrina-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. reached an agreement to settle a
suit filed by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood over the
refusal of the company to honor policyholders' damage claim from
Hurricane Katrina.

Under the settlement, State Farm will participate in a court
supervised resolution process to reconsider and fully resolve
claims from Hurricane Katrina in three Mississippi coastal
counties.

The process is part of an agreement reached through the
settlement of a class action lawsuit against the insurer by
families who believe their damage claims were not adequately
resolved.

This agreement can affect some 35,000 Mississippi families, if
approved by the U.S. District Court in Mississippi overseeing
hurricane litigation.

The agreement is the result of lengthy negotiations between
State Farm, the largest property insurer in the state, and the
Scruggs Katrina Group.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr., who is presiding over
hurricane litigation, has been asked to give preliminary
approval to the settlement plan.

"This agreement can bring prompt and fair relief to residents of
the three coastal counties who filed a claim with State Farm,"
said attorney Richard Scruggs of the Scruggs Katrina Group.

"Thousands of families now have a second chance to have their
claims reopened and receive money to rebuild," added Don
Barrett, an attorney also involved in the negotiations.

The process applies to State Farm policyholders -- including
homeowners, renters and owners of business properties -- in
Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, who experienced
property damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

These policyholders will have an opportunity to have their cases
reconsidered and receive speedy payment for losses under the
court-supervised program.

If, after filing a settlement form and receiving an offer from
State Farm under this resolution process, policyholders are not
satisfied and reject the offer, they can request arbitration,
which unlike mediation is binding and is not subject to appeal
for both State Farm and the policyholder. Homeowners will have
the opportunity to decide if they wish to participate in this
class settlement.

The agreement was immediately praised by Senator Trent Lott (R-
Miss), himself a State Farm policyholder who suffered homeowner
damage as a result of Katrina. "We've been waiting for a
development like this. This is good for Mississippi and is so
important to people along the Gulf Coast and in South
Mississippi in getting on with their lives and rebuilding their
homes," said Mr. Lott.

"This is a big step in the right direction," said George Dale,
Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Mississippi. "I'm
pleased that this agreement will quickly put money into the
hands of those along the Gulf Coast without lengthy litigation."

"Our goal has always been to resolve these matters quickly,
fairly and efficiently," said Jeffrey W. Jackson, Vice President
- Corporate General Counsel, State Farm Insurance.

"This settlement offers policyholders who resided in the areas
most impacted by the unprecedented storm an opportunity to have
their claims reviewed, share any additional information, and, if
they choose, have their cases resolved through binding
arbitration."

State Farm will initiate the resolution process by notifying all
policyholders impacted by this agreement. Policyholders will
have 60 days to register for participation in the process, which
is designed to have participants paid before the end of this
calendar year.

                       Case Background

The attorney general filed a civil action in the Chancery Court
of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial District on Sept.
15 against the insurance industry to protect Mississippi's
property owners who incurred damage from Hurricane Katrina.  

The lawsuit seeks to make the insurance industry honor their
contracts to pay for losses caused by Katrina, particularly
their attempt to exclude damage caused directly or indirectly by
water, whether or not driven by wind.  

The complaint asks the court to declare that certain insurance
contract provisions are void and unenforceable as the same are
contrary to public policy, are unconscionable, and are ambiguous
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2005).

The provisions at issue attempt to exclude from coverage loss or
damage caused directly or indirectly by water, whether or not
driven by wind.

The complaint states that these provisions should be strictly
construed against the insurance companies who drafted the
insurance policies and their exclusions.  The complaint also
states that the issuance of such insurance policies violates the
Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint also asks the court, among other things, to enter
a Temporary Restraining Order to immediately stop insurance
companies from asking property owners to sign documents stating
that their loss was caused by flood or water as opposed to wind,
and to stop using water exclusions to deny or reduce coverage
for hurricane damage or loss.  The court is also being asked to
enter a preliminary and permanent injunction with regard to
these same matters.

The suit is Civil Action No. G2005-1642 R1.  Defendants are:   

     -- Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance,  
     -- State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,  
     -- Allstate Property and Casualty,  
     -- Insurance Company, United Services,  
     -- Automobile Association, Nationwide Mutual,  
     -- Insurance Company, and "A" through "Z" Entities   

According to a report by Associated Press, State Farm agreed "in
principle" to pay an undisclosed amount of money to more than
600 policyholders (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2007).

A "class action resolution" component of the proposed deal calls
for the company to review the claims filed by roughly 35,000
policyholders who live in Mississippi's three coastal counties
but didn't file lawsuits against State Farm for refusing to
cover storm damage, according to the report.  State Farm's
potential liability is estimated at least $50 million.

A copy of the complaint and motion for temporary restraining
order is at available for free at:
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d87

Lead attorneys for the class action settlement are:

     (1) Don Barrett and Marshall Smith of the Barrett Law
         Office, 404 Court Square North, P.O. Box 987,
         Lexington, Mississippi 39095, E-mail:
         info@barrettlawoffice.com;

     (2) Johnny Jones, Steve Funderburg, and Stewart Lee of
         Jones, Funderburg, Peterson, Sessums, and Lee, 901
         North State Street, Jackson, MS 39236, Phone: (601)
         355-5200, Fax: (601) 355-5400;

     (3) Dewitt Lovelace of the Lovelace Law Firm, 36474 Emerald
         Coast Parkway, Suite 4202, Destin, FL 32541, Phone:
         (850) 837-6020, Fax: (850) 837-4093;

     (4) David Nutt, Meg McAllister, and Derek Wyatt of Nutt &
         McAllister, PLLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi; and

     (5) Richard Scruggs, Sid Backstrom and Zach Scruggs all of
         the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., 120A Courthouse Square,
         P.O. Box 1136, Oxford, Mississippi 38655, Phone: 662-
         281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.


SYDNEY STEEL: Faces Breach of Duty Suit Over Toxic Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Over 400 plaintiffs who live nearby the plant are now suing a
Sydney Steel Corp. plant and its past operators for breach of
their fiduciary duty to the public when they knowingly spewed
toxic emissions into the air and contaminated the environment
and residential neighborhoods, The Chronicle Herald.ca reports.

Judge Davis MacAdam of the Supreme Court of Canada has already
ruled that the claim can proceed.

Plaintiffs Neila McQueen, Joe Petripas, Ann Marie Ross and Iris
Crawdford already filed statements moving to have the case heard
as class action law action-lawsuit.  The case is set to continue
on Jan. 31.

Ray Wagner, lawyer for the plaintiffs said that the plants knew
they were polluting the nearby neighborhoods but did nothing to
protect the residents.

Plaintiffs hold the defendants liable for:

      -- battery,
      -- nuisance,
      -- negligence,
      -- harm and injuries
      -- family losses,
      -- aggravated, punitive and other charges.

The allegations though are yet to be proven.  Defendants will
have a have a chance to have the claim dropped on a Tuesday
appeal.

Lawyers who aims to have the claim dropped represent

      -- Nova Scotia and federal governments,
-- Canadain National Railway, and
      -- Ispat Sidbec Inc. and its principal Hawker Sidley.

Mr. Wagner disclosed to The Chronicle Herald.ca that if the
class-action suit were successful, it would be the first time in
Canada that a polluter is held responsible for not acting in the
best interest of those around them.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Feb. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties interested to become lead plaintiff in a class action
pending against Technical Olympic USA, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida have until Feb. 12,
2007 to file for appointment, according to the law firm of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP.

The suit was filed on behalf of public investors who purchased
common stock, purchased or sold call options or purchased or
sold put options of the company between Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 6,
2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2007).

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Technical Olympic is a Delaware Corporation, which maintains its
principal executive office in Hollywood, Florida. The company
designs, builds, and markets single-family residences, town
homes, patio homes, and condominiums.

The complaint alleges that on Aug. 1, 2005, the company entered
into a highly leveraged joint venture to purchase and operate
the homebuilding businesses of Transeastern Properties, Inc.

Technical Olympic boasted that the joint venture would add
considerably to future profits without any recourse against the
Company should Transeastern default on its considerable debt.

But as Technical Olympic would later be forced to admit, the
Company faced liability under certain circumstances for the full
amount of the debt issued by Transeastern.

The complaint spells out that during the Class Period, in SEC
filings and press releases defendants reiterated their false
statement that Transeastern debt was non-recourse as to
Technical Olympic.

In addition, defendants misrepresented the success of the
operations and prospects of Transeastern.  In fact, as late as
May 8, 2006, defendants emphasized the progress of their joint
ventures and reiterated that the success of such join ventures
would lead to phenomenal earnings gains in 2006.

Less than one month later, on June 5, 2006, defendants admitted
that sales were actually declining by 25-40%, and on Sept. 27,
2006, admitted for the first time that the Florida market, in
which the heavily leveraged Transeastern operated, actually
suffered from a "severe decline."

On Nov. 6, 2006, defendants disclosed for the first time that
they could be fully liable for the Transeastern debt.  These
revelations caused Technical Olympic shares to plunge over 30%,
wiping out over $225 million in shareholder equity.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 12,
2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-
POMLAW, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com.


TIME WARNER: $2.65B Settlement Going Smoothly, Gilardi Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lead counsel for the class in the lawsuit, "AOL Time Warner,
Inc. Securities & 'ERISA' Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575
(SWK)," denied that settlement claims filed in the case were
mishandled, according to The New York Sun.

Robert Forrest an official with the California-based claim-
processing firm, Gilardi & Co., said in a declaration filed with
the federal court late in December "No claims have been
'misplaced' or 'recently discovered,'" the report said.

On April 6, 2006 the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York granted final approval to a $2.65 billion settlement
of a consolidated class action alleging that Time Warner, Inc.
and America Online Inc. inappropriately inflated advertising
revenues in a series of transactions.

The lead counsel for the class, Heins, Mills, & Olson of
Minneapolis and Gilardi initially projected that class members
would be paid by the end of 2006, according to the report.  

However, in late 2006, Gilardi said it would not close
processing the claims until February 2007, and that payment
might not come until April.

According to the report, Mr. Forrest said they receive about
695,000 claims.  The number exceeded early estimates by 95,000
and resulted in the two-month delay.  

He added that about 120,000 claims have been rejected and
roughly 20,000 claims filed after the February 2006 deadline are
being processed, but will only be paid if the court approves.

One shareholder, Scott Spielberg of Missouri, is requesting the
court to have an independent audit of the claims.  One of the
class counsel, Samuel Heins, opposed Mr. Spielberg's request
that the fund be audited, the report said.  Mr. Heins' firm
received $147.5 million in legal fees for the case last year
before the class was paid.

                        Case Background

As of July 31, 2006, 30 shareholder class actions have been
filed naming as defendants the company, certain current and
former executives of the company and, in several instances, AOL.

These lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia,
and the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the company and allege that the company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to disclose AOL's
declining advertising revenues and that the company and AOL
inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of
transactions.

Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the
individual defendants and other insiders at the company
improperly sold their personal holdings of Time Warner stock,
that the company failed to disclose that the AOL-Historic Time
Warner Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at
the time of the announcement of the merger and, further, that
the company inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50
billion of goodwill.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings -- along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act -- under the caption, "In re AOL
Time Warner Inc. Securities and 'ERISA' Litigation."

Additional lawsuits brought by individual shareholders have also
been filed, and the federal actions have been, or are in the
process of being transferred and/or consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead
plaintiff for the consolidated securities actions and filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2003, adding
additional defendants, including:

      -- additional officers and directors of the company,
      -- Morgan Stanley & Co.,
      -- Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Inc.,
      -- Banc of America Securities LLC, and
      -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the
company made material misrepresentations in its registration
statements and joint proxy statement-prospectus related to the
AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger and in its registration
statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in
April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11
and Section 12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle for
the settlement of the case.  The court granted initial approval
to the settlement in September 2005.  On April 6, 2006, the
court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement.

The class consists of those who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of AOL, and/or
bought or sold options on AOL common stock during the period
Jan. 27, 1999 through Jan. 11, 2001, and/or purchased, exchanged
or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and bonds of
Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time Warner common
stock during the period Jan. 11, 2001 through and including Aug.
27, 2002.

                        Settlement Terms

In exchange for the dismissal of all claims against all
Defendants, Time Warner and Ernst & Young have paid $2.4 billion
and $100 million, respectively, into the Settlement Account.  In
addition, $150 million set aside as part of the Time Warner
settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ Funds),
has also been placed in the settlement account as part of this
settlement.

The $2.65 billion in settlement monies have been earning
interest for the securities class since Oct. 7, 2005.  Another
$300 million Time Warner paid to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC Fair Fund), or the SEC for distribution
as part of the settlement thereof, may also make a portion
available.

Deadline to file a claim is Feb. 21, 2006.

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-
mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web site:  
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.


UST LIQUIDATING: Plaintiffs Consider Appeal for Veeder-Root Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against UST Liquidating
Corp. for breach of fiduciary duty when it sold Danaher Corp.'s
wholly owned subsidiary -- Veeder-Root Service -- still have the
right to appeal and may also file a post-trial motion in an
effort to change the a California court's ruling in the case.

In June 2000, a class action complaint was filed against the
company and certain other parties on behalf of certain common
shareholders of the company, alleging that the company and other
parties breached their fiduciary duty to the company's common
shareholders in connection with the Veeder-Root sale
transaction.
  
A trial was held in March and April 2006.  In July 2006, the
court issued its decision, finding no liability on behalf of the
company.

The court issued a statement of decision ruling that the
business judgment rule applied because there were disinterested
directors in the decision process and that even if the case is
analyzed under the inherent fairness test, the transaction was
fair and the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving
breach of duty.

Plaintiffs, however, still have the right to appeal and may also
file a post-trial motion in an effort to change the judge's
ruling, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2006.


WASHINGTON: U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Union Fees Case in June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to make a ruling this year on an
appeal filed by a group of teachers in which Washington State's
high court struck down a state law intending to limit the misuse
of mandatory union dues for certain political activities.

The Supreme Court, which was scheduled to hear arguments in the
case in January and is expected to rule by June, according to
The Heartland Institute.  

The voided Washington law required union officials to obtain the
prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending their
mandatory union dues on a tiny fraction of what the union
actually spends on politics (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16,
2006).

However, in the process of striking down the law, the Washington
court said there is a constitutional "right" for union officials
to spend on politics the money of employees who want nothing to
do with the union.

If the Supreme Court upholds the March 2006 Washington State
Supreme Court ruling in "Davenport v. Washington Education
Association (WEA)," it could open the door for union attorney to
challenge America's 22 state right-to-work laws, which make
union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.

National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW) attorneys, working with
Steve O'Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry in Seattle, originally
filed the "Davenport" class action in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington in 2001, on behalf of more than 4,000
teachers who are not union members, but are nonetheless forced
to pay union dues or be fired.

The suit came in response to WEA union officials' seizure of $10
to $25 annually from the teachers in apparent violation of
provisions of the state's campaign finance law.

The legal issues involved in the Davenport case allow NRTW
attorneys to challenge a doctrine that flowed from a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling handed down 45 years ago in "Machinists v.
Street."  

The union bosses have used that doctrine ever since to hamstring
workers who do not want to pay for a union's political
activities.

The 1961 case was one of the earliest Supreme Court cases
dealing with forced unionism.  It involved both dues-paying
union members and non-members threatened with discharge for not
joining the union.

Although the Supreme Court found that the workers had a right to
withhold forced dues for politics, it pointed out "dissent is
not to be presumed."

For decades, union bosses have used this phrase to justify
setting up procedures that make non-members submit objections
during narrow "window periods" every year, just to get forced
dues refunds to which the workers are already entitled by law.

For more details, contact:

     (1) National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education
         Foundation, Inc., 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield,
         Virginia 22160, Phone: (703) 321-8510 and (800) 336-
         3600, Fax: (703) 321-9613 [general] and (703) 321-9319
         [legal department], E-mail: info@nrtw.org, Web site:
         http://www.nrtw.org/;and

     (2) Steven O'Ban of Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC, Two Union
         Square, 601 Union Street, Suite 4900, Seattle, WA
         98101, Phone: 206-682-0565, Fax: 206-625-1052, E-mail:
         soban@elmlaw.com, Web site: http://www.elmlaw.com/.


WASHINGTON GROUP: Continues to Face La. Suits Over Levee Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. is one of many defendants
in several class actions pending in Louisiana State and Federal
courts in relation to the alleged failure of the New Orleans
Levee in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

From July 1999 through May 2005, the company performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) on the
east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (Industrial
Canal) in New Orleans, Louisiana (Task Order 26).  All the work
performed by the company and its subcontractors was directed,
supervised and approved by the USACOE.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane flooded the east bank of
the Industrial Canal and overtopped the Industrial Canal levee
floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the
City.

In the wake of that hurricane, multiple personal injury and
property damage class actions were filed in Louisiana state and
federal court naming the company as one of numerous defendants
including The City of New Orleans, the Board of Commissioners
for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer St. Paul
Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees and
assert their claims under the federal Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 12(d)(2).  

The alleged class of plaintiffs are all residents and property
owners of the Parishes of Orleans and Jefferson in the State of
Louisiana "who incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls along
the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, and the
Industrial Canal...in the wake of Hurricane Katrina."

In all of the lawsuits to date, the only specific allegation
against the company is that it "contracted to level and clear
abandoned industrial sites along the Industrial Canal between
the floodwall and the canal" and plaintiffs believe "the use of
heavy vehicles and/or other heavy construction equipment along
the Industrial Canal between the floodwall and the canal damaged
the levee and/or floodwall and caused and/or contributed [to]
the...breach in the levee and/or floodwall."

Plaintiffs also allege damages as high as $200 billion and
demand attorneys' fees and costs.  

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.


* Octagon Publishing Introduces New Litigation Periodical
---------------------------------------------------------
Octagon Publishing, Inc., of Washington, D.C., introduced a new
product, Class Action Attorney Fee Digest, a periodical devoted
solely to the topic of class action attorney fee awards.  

Published monthly, each issue reports on over 20 cases from
state and federal courts.

The inaugural issue of Class Action Attorney Fee Digest (January
2007) featured 37 cases, 24 from federal courts and 13 from
state courts.

The cases involved the areas of antitrust, civil rights,
consumer, employment, and securities. Each case abstract
included the plaintiffs' claims, settlement benefits, amount of
attorney fees, the fees as a percentage of the recovery,
expenses, hours, multiplier, and the court's reasoning (when
provided in the fee order).

"By devoting our energy to one topic, we can report on
difficult-to-find information. In particular, we uncover
unpublished class action attorney fee orders in state court as
well as federal court class actions," said Stuart J. Logan,
Editor-in-Chief.

"Readers can also turn to us for data on awards to named
plaintiffs," said Phoebe Schlanger, Managing Editor. "Our
journal offers clear charts and indexes for easy reference." The
Digest is available in print or in pdf.

In short, Class Action Attorney Fee Digest should prove to be a
valuable tool for class action practitioners -- whether
plaintiff or defense counsels -- as well as judges and
academics.

For more information, contact Stuart J. Logan, Editor-in-Chief,
Octagon Publishing, Inc., 1929 18th St. NW, #1138, Washington,
DC 20009-1710, Phone: (202) 213-0430, E-mail:
S.Logan@octagonpublishing.com, Website:
http://www.OctagonPublishing.com/.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CELESTICA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP gives
notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all common stock purchasers of Celestica, Inc. (CLS)
from July 27, 2006 through Dec. 12, 2006 inclusive.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     -- that demand for products produced by the Company's
        Information Technology and Communications divisions was
        declining due to a drop off in orders placed by its key
        customers;

     -- due to this, inventory at the Company's Monterrey,
        Mexico facility (the facility that supports the
        Information Technology and Communications divisions)
        built up to the point where much of said inventory would
        have to be written off;

     -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         effectively forecast demand; and

     -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
        statements about its financial well-being and future
        business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
        when made.

After a series of announcements by the company, which included
news that defendant Stephen Delaney had resigned, Celestica
shocked investors on Dec. 12, 2006, when it announced that, in
striking contrast to the company's prior announcements regarding
forecasting, demand and inventory, the company was drastically
slashing its financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006.

On this news, shares of the company's stock plunged $1.14, or 12
percent, to close, on Dec. 12, 2006, at $8.23 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler, which prosecutes class actions in both state and
federal courts throughout the country.

Deadline to file for lead plaintiff is March 13, 2007.

Case Contact: Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP Darren J.
Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail at info@sbtklaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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