CAR_Public/070205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 25

                            Headlines


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Accused of Conspiracy to Inflate Freight Fees
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Class Certified in Enron Securities Suit
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Disburses Market Timing Suit Settlement
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Dismissal of N.Y. "Aucoin" Suit Appealed
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Fix Suspension Arm Ball Joints

ARKANSAS: County, Judge Face Suit Over $35 Fee on Plea Change
ASARCO LLC: Seeks Court Okay on Ariz. Litigation Settlement Pact
CALCOT LTD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged "Enron-like" Schemes
CAREER EDUCATION: Admissions Advisors Join Ill. FLSA Suit Class
CAREER EDUCATION: Fla. Court Stays Unfair Trade Practices Suit

CAREER EDUCATION: Plaintiffs in "Viles" Agree to Transfer Venue
CHEVRON USA: La. Plant Explosion Triggers Personal Injuries Suit
DENTSPLY INT'L: Plaintiffs Propose Advance(R) Opt-Out Class
DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Priest Abuse Victims Get $12M Windfall
EL NORTENO: Recalls Corn Cookies Over Undeclared Egg Content

FOCAL COMMS: March 23 Hearing Set for $13M Stock Suit Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Faces Lawsuits in Ill. Over Defective Speed Switches
GENTA INC: Mediation in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Fails
GREYSTONE & CO: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for TCPA Suit Settlement
H.A. BERKHEIMER: May 22 Hearing Set for Pa. Taxpayers Suit Deal

HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Degenshein" Pavilion Notebook Suit Certified
HOLMES GROUP: Recalls Oscillating Tower Fans with Faulty Wiring
HONG TENG: Recalls Electric Oil Lamps with Defective Power Cord
HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
IKEA HOME: Recalls PARODI Glass Floor Vases Prone to Breakage

JANUS CAPITAL: Subsidiary Faces IPO Antitrust Litigation in N.Y.
KINDER MORGAN: Appeals Court Denies Leukemia Cluster Suit Review
LEAR CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Mich.
MAYTAG CORP: Recalls Dishwashers to Fix Liquid Dispenser Setup
NEW HAMPSHIRE: DHHS Faces Suit Over Medicaid Disability Benefits

NORTH DAKOTA: Fargo City Faces Lawsuit Over Traffic Fines
PIONEER COS: Continues to Face Mercury Emission Suit in La.
SPX CORP: April 10 Hearing Set for N.C. ERISA Suit Settlement
ST. PAUL: Mar. 20 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement in Minn.
TASER INT'L: March 12 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement

UNITED STATES BAKERY: Recalls Donuts for Undeclared Milk Content
U.S. FOODSERVICE: Conn. Court Allows RICO Lawsuit to Go Ahead
WILLBROS GROUP: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for $10.5M Stock Settlement
WILLIS GROUP: Suit Filed in Massachusetts State Court Withdrawn
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Jars of Tapenade Containing Glass Shards


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: KGS Files Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Accused of Conspiracy to Inflate Freight Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Air New Zealand's General Counsel John Blair said the company
has been served with the cartel class action filed by the law
firm of Maurice Blackburn Cashman against seven large
international airlines in federal court in Australia.

"We have now received the papers and will examine the issues.
However, we are already well aware of the allegations which stem
from an almost industry wide regulatory investigation of air
cargo in a number of jurisdictions.  In responding to requests
for information from various regulators we have yet to see
anything which causes us to conclude that Air New Zealand has
breached applicable competition laws," Mr. Blair said in a
statement.

Earlier, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, in a writ lodged in
Australian Federal Court, alleged that seven large international
airlines secretly agreed to use the rise in fuel prices and
security costs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Iraq
war, as an excuse to over-inflate freight charges (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 1, 2007).

The airlines named in the suit are:

     -- Qantas Airways Ltd.,
     -- Lufthansa,
     -- Singapore Airlines,
     -- Cathay Pacific,
     -- Air New Zealand,
     -- Japan Airlines (JAL) and
     -- British Airways.

According to Mr. Blair, the action appears to be yet another
attempt by an opportunistic law firm to target large, high-
profile corporates.

"There is a growing trend internationally where legal firms are
targeting multi-national companies with class actions on issues
of little, if any substance usually in the expectation of
substantial contingency fees.  These opportunists expect
companies to take the easy route of making an out-of-court
settlement rather than incurring the expense and time of legal
wrangles over many years," Mr. Blair said.

"This action has all the hallmarks of similar class actions that
Air New Zealand has been subject to in the past including in the
USA -- complete with a blatant attempt to sensationalize it by
sending out media releases and holding press conferences well in
advance of the named parties being served with proceedings," he
concluded.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman on the net:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Class Certified in Enron Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, granted plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification in a suit against AllianceBernstein LP in relation
to Enron Corp.'s registration statement.

On April 8, 2002, in "In re Enron Corp. Securities Litigation,"
a consolidated complaint (as subsequently amended) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, against numerous defendants, including
AllianceBernstein.

The principal allegations of the Enron Complaint, as they
pertain to AllianceBernstein, are that AllianceBernstein
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
as amended with respect to a registration statement filed by
Enron Corp. and effective with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 18, 2001, which was used to sell $1.9 billion
Enron Zero Coupon Convertible Notes due 2021.

Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement was materially
misleading and that Frank Savage, a director of Enron, signed
the registration statement at issue.  Plaintiffs further allege
that AllianceBernstein was a controlling person of Frank Savage,
who was at that time an employee of AllianceBernstein and a
director of AllianceBernstein Corp.

Plaintiffs therefore assert that AllianceBernstein is itself
liable for the allegedly misleading registration statement.  
Plaintiffs seek rescission or a rescissionary measure of
damages.  

On April 12, 2006, AllianceBernstein moved for summary judgment
dismissing the Enron Complaint as the allegations therein
pertain to AllianceBernstein.  This motion is pending.  On July
5, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification.

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

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et
al. (4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.   
Representing the defendants is J. Mark Brewer of Brewer and  
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:   
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com.


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Disburses Market Timing Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein, L.P. said it has disbursed the settlement
money in the market timing-related litigation pending against it
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

In April 2006, the company entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding to settle:

     -- mutual fund shareholder claims,  

     -- mutual fund derivative claims, and  

     -- Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims.  

                        Case Background

On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint, "Hindo, et
al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.," was
filed against:

     -- AllianceBernstein, L.P., formerly Alliance Capital  
        Management L.P.;

     -- Alliance Capital Management Holding, L.P.;  

     -- Alliance Capital Management Corp. (ACMC);  

     -- AXA Financial Corp.;  

     -- the AllianceBernstein Funds;  

     -- the registrants and issuers of those funds;  

     -- certain officers of the company and certain other  
        defendants not affiliated with the company; and

     -- unnamed Doe defendants.

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of two  
U.S. Funds.  It alleges that certain of the AllianceBernstein,  
L.P. defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds and other unidentified parties to engage in
"late trading" and "market timing" of U.S. Fund securities,
violating Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 206 and 215 of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.   

Plaintiffs sought unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
rescission of their contracts with AllianceBernstein, including
recovery of all fees paid to AllianceBernstein pursuant to such
contracts.

Since Oct. 2, 2003, 43 additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint
were filed in various federal and state courts against  
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants.  

The plaintiffs in such lawsuits have asserted a variety of
theories for recovery including, but not limited to, violations
of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the
Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, certain state securities laws, and common law.  All
state court actions against AllianceBernstein either were
voluntarily dismissed or removed to federal court.  On Feb. 20,
2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
all actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types:  

     -- mutual fund shareholder claims,  

     -- mutual fund derivative claims,

     -- derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, and  

     -- claims brought under ERISA by participants in the Profit  
        Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein.  

All four complaints include substantially identical factual
allegations, which appear to be based in large part on the
company's agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Order dated Dec. 18, 2003 (amended and restated Jan.
15, 2004), and the company's final agreement with the New York
State Attorney General on Sept. 1, 2004.  

The claims in the mutual fund derivative consolidated amended
complaint are generally based on the theory that all fund
advisory agreements, distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans
between AllianceBernstein and the U.S. Funds should be
invalidated, regardless of whether market timing occurred in
each individual fund, because each was approved by fund trustees
on the basis of materially misleading information with respect
to the level of market timing permitted in funds managed by  
AllianceBernstein.   

The claims asserted in the other three consolidated amended
complaints are similar to those that the respective plaintiffs
asserted in their previous federal lawsuits.  All of these
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims.  The company said at its form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006 that the agreement will be documented by a
stipulation of settlement and will be submitted for court
approval at a later date.

The settlement amount, which the company previously accrued and
disclosed, has been disbursed, the company said.  


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Dismissal of N.Y. "Aucoin" Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of New York of the remaining  
claim in the consolidated securities class action, "Aucoin, et  
al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al."   

The suit names as defendants:

      -- AllianceBernstein L.P.,

      -- AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.,

      -- AllianceBernstein Corp.

      -- AXA Financial Corp.,

      -- Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,  
         Inc.,  

      -- certain current and former directors of the U.S. Funds,  
         and  

      -- unnamed Doe defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:  

      -- that certain of the defendants improperly authorized  
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees  
         from U.S. Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for  
         preferential marketing services;  

      -- that certain of the defendants misrepresented and  
         omitted from registration statements and other reports  
         material facts concerning such payments; and  

      -- that certain defendants caused such conduct as control  
         persons of other defendants.  

The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections  
34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections  
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary  
duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary  
duties.  

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages  
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with  
AllianceBernstein, including recovery of all fees paid to  
AllianceBernstein pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of  
all U.S. Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar  
payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily  
obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual  
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit  
were filed against the company and certain other defendants.   
All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in  
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York  
assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint.   
They were brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein  
Funds.

On Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class  
action complaint that asserted claims substantially similar to  
the lawsuits referred above.  On April 14, 2005, defendants  
moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On  
Oct. 19, 2005, the District Court dismissed each of the claims  
set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint, except  
for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment  
Company Act.

In January 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion  
for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim under  
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.  Plaintiffs have  
moved for leave to amend their consolidated complaint.

On May 31, 2006, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion  
for leave to file their amended complaint.  On July 5, 2006,  
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

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

The suit is "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee  
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under  
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Jerome M. Congress, Kim Elaine Levy, Janine Lee  
         Pollack, Michael Robert Reese, Steven Schulman, Peter  
         Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP  
         (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,  
         Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:  
         klevy@milberg.com, jpollack@milbergweiss.com,  
         mreese@milberg.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Marshall N. Perkins and Charles J. Piven, The World  
         Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street,  
         Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: (410) 332-0030.

Representing the company are Mark Holland and Mark Adam Kirsch  
of Clifford Chance US, LLP (NYC), 31 West 52nd Street, New York,  
NY 10019-6131, Phone: (212)-878-8432, Fax: (212)-878-8375, E-
mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com or  
mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Fix Suspension Arm Ball Joints
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Corp. Inc., of Torrance, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 11,000 units of Honda Model Year 2006 TRX450ER/R
all-terrain vehicles.

The company said the front suspension arm ball joints could have
been contaminated during production, resulting in rapid wear of
one or more of the ball joints and possible ball joint
separation.  If the ball joint separation occurs while riding,
the operator could lose control of the ATV.

American Honda Motor Corp. has received seven warranty claims
about this problem.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves 2006 model year TRX450ER and TRX450R ATVs.  
They are adult-sized ATVs designed for use by riders age 16 and
older.  The ATVs are available in red or black.  The TRX450ER
and TRX450R model names are located on the front cowling just
below the handlebars and the name Honda is printed on the seat.

These recalled ATVs were manufactured in Japan and are being
sold by Honda dealers nationwide from September 2005 through
December 2006 for between $6,600 and $7,000.

Picture of the recalled ATVs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07525.jpg

Customers are advised to stop using these recalled ATVs until
the repair has been completed.  Call any Honda ATV dealer to
make an appointment to have the ATV repaired.  The dealer will
inspect and repair your ATV, if necessary.  Registered owners of
the recalled ATVs have been sent direct notice.

For more information, call Honda toll-free at (866) 784-1870
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.powersports.honda.com.


ARKANSAS: County, Judge Face Suit Over $35 Fee on Plea Change
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seven people filed a purported class action against Judge Keith
Blackman of the Craighead County District Court and the small
towns located in the county over a $35 fee when defendants
change their pleas from not guilty to guilty, The K8 News
reports.

The suit, filed by attorney Donn Mixon, alleges that Judge
Blackman should have known that the charges levied by him were
improper and in violation of Arkansas law.

Named in the suit is the City of Jonesboro.  City attorney
Phillip Crego told K8 News that there are a few people listed in
the lawsuit, but there are about 1,000 people who would be
affected by it.

Mr. Mixon says that their purpose in filing the lawsuit is to
get the practice of adding this extra fee stopped.  He specified
that he and his clients are also seeking an order to refund
those who paid the fee.

If the case is successful the cities that received the money
from the fee will have to pay it back.  For the county as a
whole, it would add up to about $35,000.

For more details, contact Donn Mixon of Mixon Parker & Hurst
PLC, 505 Union, P.O. Box 1442, Jonesboro, AR 72403-1442, Phone:
(870) 268-7600, Fax: (870) 935-8622, E-mail: dmixon@mphlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.mphlaw.com/.


ASARCO LLC: Seeks Court Okay on Ariz. Litigation Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC asks the Honorable Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas to approve
the Arizona Litigation settlement agreement.

In June 2003, ASARCO LLC, Silver Bell Mining, L.L.C., and
Encycle/Texas, Inc., had initiated a class action civil suit No.
03-1297 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix Division, seeking a declaratory judgment to
determine rights under certain retiree health and benefit plans.

Concurrent with ASARCO's negotiations of a new collective
bargaining agreement with certain labor unions, it also
negotiated a settlement to resolve all retiree medical benefit
claims asserted in the Arizona Litigation.

Parties to the Settlement are:

   * ASARCO LLC;

   * The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,  
     Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
     Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC; the
     International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Locals 518,
     570, 583 and 602; and the International Chemical Workers
     Union Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers; and

   * Any individual who was an employee-participant, a dependent
     or a spouse of a participant in the ASARCO employee benefit
     plans that provided for retiree health and prescription
     drug benefits; and

   * Any individual who retired before Jan. 1, 2007, from a
     union represented position at an ASARCO, Silver Bell, and
     Encycle/Texas, location who is not yet 65 years old or is
     qualified for Medicare.

The Settlement provides that:

   (a) Class Members not yet eligible for Medicare will pay
       monthly premiums of $100 per participant and a maximum of
       $200 per family, instead of continuing to pay monthly
       premiums ranging from $220 to $430 per month.  Medicare
       eligible Class Members who continue to be eligible for
       benefits will pay monthly premiums of $75 per participant
       and a $150 maximum per family.

   (b) Annual deductibles will be reduced to $200 for an
       individual and $400 for a family.  The separate
       prescription drug deductible that the company had imposed
       will be eliminated.

   (c) The general mail order for prescription drug co-pays will
       be $5 rather than the greater of $5 or 20% of the cost.

   (d) The new program requires ASARCO to pay 90% of non-drug
       costs and that retires pay the remaining 10%.  However,
       the out-of-pocket maximum that retirees have to pay is
       reduced from $5,000 per family and $2,500 per individual
       down to $2,000 for the entire family.

   (e) Class Members who have dropped out of the retiree health
       care plan since 2003 will have a right to re-enroll
       within a specified period of time.

   (f) If the Settlement is not approved, the reduced
       deductibles applicable to Class Members is effective Jan.
       1, 2007.  To the extent the Class Members have already
       paid more in deductibles than they would under the new
       program, they will be reimbursed when an order approving    
       the Settlement and the new collective bargaining
       agreement becomes final.

   (g) The new premiums are effective March 1, 2007.

   (h) If the Settlement is not approved by March 1, 2007, the
       new benefits, other than the deductibles and premiums,
       will not be implemented until approval is granted.  Class
       Members will be reimbursed for the difference in benefit
       levels on the approval.

The Parties contend that settlement of the Arizona Litigation
will eliminate potential costs of litigating the complex and
time-consuming issues, the likely appeals of any rulings, and
the complicating factor of the bankruptcy proceeding, as well as
any uncertainties as to the outcome of the bankruptcy
proceeding.

Judge Schmidt directs creditors and other parties-in-interest to
file their objections to the approval of the Settlement no later
than Feb. 12, 2007.

Class Members will have until Feb. 26, 2007, to file objections,
if any, to the approval of the Settlement.

A fairness hearing on the approval of the Settlement is
scheduled on Feb. 28, 2007.

                        About ASARCO LLC

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

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

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

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

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 37; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)

The Honorable Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi had
extended the Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan of
reorganization until April 6, 2007, and their exclusive period
to solicit acceptances of that plan until June 6, 2007.


CALCOT LTD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged "Enron-like" Schemes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton exporter Calcot Ltd. is facing a lawsuit in Kern County,
California Superior Court, filed on behalf of several hundred
growers from Bakersfield to Merced, KGET 17 reports.

The complaint claims the Bakersfield-based cotton cooperative
bilked its own growers out of millions of dollars to secretly
finance a speculative commercial real estate deal in Fresno.  
The class action alleges Calcot members unknowingly paid roughly
$23 million in interest payments on Calcot's Palm Bluffs project
over the last two decades.

It alleges that for 20 years, Calcot charged growers with hidden
fees to pay the interest on money the company borrowed to
finance its Palm Bluffs project.  The suit further alleges that
these hidden fees were added to the normal marketing and
handling fees growers pay Calcot to get their cotton to market.

The lawsuit claims Palm Bluffs was a financial disaster.

"Had the growers been left with their money and put it in the
bank and let it earn interest with compound, they would have
earned between 50 and $100 million," growers' attorney Ralph
Wegis said, according to the report.

Mr. Wegis said his class of plaintiffs will include at least 200
growers from Bakersfield to Merced, who want Calcot to make them
whole.

He is also seeking punitive damages under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statute that could
raise total damages well beyond the $100 million-mark if the
growers prevail in court.

Calcot attorney Robert Dowd said the lawsuit is without
foundation; that growers have known for years about the Palm
Bluffs development for years.  He denied the existence of a
secret financing scheme.

Calcot attorney Robert M. Dowd is with Griswold, LaSalle, Cobb,
Dowd & Gin, L.L.P., 311 North Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230,
Phone: (559) 584-6656, Fax: (559) 582-3106.

Cotton growers are represented by Ralph B. Wegis, 10000
Stockdale Highway, Suite 390, Bakersfield, CA 93311-3607.


CAREER EDUCATION: Admissions Advisors Join Ill. FLSA Suit Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted plaintiffs' motion in a class action against Career
Education Corp., American InterContinental University, Inc. (AIU
Online) and the president of the company's Online Education
Group to include temporary admissions advisors in the class.  

The suit, "Paul Vander Vennet, et al. v. American
InterContinental University, Inc., et al.," was filed on Aug.
24, 2005 by former admissions advisors of AIU, alleging that the
defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.  The defendants allegedly failed to pay the plaintiffs for
all of the overtime hours they allegedly worked.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the
FLSA and, on Aug. 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice.  On
Dec. 22, 2005, and April 7, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motions to send FLSA Notice, and plaintiffs' counsel has
distributed such notice to certain current and former admissions
advisors.

On April 7, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
expand the class to include temporary admissions advisors.  The
deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to this lawsuit was
June 23, 2006.  Less than 10 percent of the persons to whom
notice of the suit was sent, including current and former
admissions advisors, have joined the litigation.

Defendants deny all of the material allegations in the complaint
and are vigorously defending the claims and opposing class
certification.

The suit is "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental
University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge William T. Hart.

Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B. Potter of Robin Potter &
Associates P.C., 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: (312) 861-1800, E-mail: robinpotter@igc.org.

Representing the defendants is James M. Gecker of Katten Muchin
Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL
60661, Phone: 312-902-5200, E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com.


CAREER EDUCATION: Fla. Court Stays Unfair Trade Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hillsborough County Superior Court in Florida stayed the
class action "Benoit, et al., v. Career Education Corp., et
al.," pending arbitration.  Aside from the company, the suit
also names as defendants one of the company's subsidiaries,
Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
have been enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program
(MBC program) at the Tampa campus of Ultrasound Technical in the
last four years.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached enrollment contracts with the plaintiffs and other
class members and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by:

     -- failing to properly train students;

     -- offer and require sufficient hours of course work,
        provide properly trained instructors, provide
        appropriate curriculum consistent with the represented
        degree, award the represented degree, provide adequate
        career placement services; and

     -- by misrepresenting that they would provide such
        services.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants "padded" the MBC
program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in
violation of the FDUTPA.  Plaintiffs seek actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be stayed
pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
agreement contained within each of the plaintiffs' enrollment
individual agreements.  The plaintiffs have not yet filed a
demand to initiate the arbitration proceedings, according to the
company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.


CAREER EDUCATION: Plaintiffs in "Viles" Agree to Transfer Venue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Viles v. Ultrasound Technical
Services, Inc., et al.," have agreed to transfer the case to
Miami-Dade County, Florida.  

On Oct. 13, 2004, a purported class action was filed in Broward
County, Florida against Career Education Corp. and Ultrasound
Technical Services, Inc.

The action was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
attended Ultrasound Technical's Diagnostic Medical Sonography
Program or Cardiovascular Technology Program in the state of
Florida at any time during the period of Oct. 12, 2000 to the
present.

The complaint alleges that Ultrasound Technical violated the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by
misrepresenting placement rates, potential salaries, and
accreditation, falsifying clinical training records, failing to
properly supervise students, failing to provide competent
faculty and proper equipment, and admitting more students than
Ultrasound Technical had space to properly educate.

The plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other
relief.  On April 7, 2005, defendants filed motions to compel
arbitration and transfer venue to Miami-Dade County, Florida.  
On April 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a response in which
plaintiffs agreed to the motion to transfer venue, but indicated
an intention to contest arbitration, according to the company's
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.


CHEVRON USA: La. Plant Explosion Triggers Personal Injuries Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana filed a class claim
for personal injuries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana over a Jan. 30 explosion in Chevron USA,
Inc.'s Oak Point Plant that released toxic levels of maleic
anhydride and other dangerous chemicals, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Plaintiffs claim the explosion caused blistering, burning and
respiratory problems for hundreds of neighbors of the plant in
Belle Chasse.  A mixing unit overheated, causing the lubricant
additives to explode, the suit states.

Plaintiffs further claim the chemical release was proximately
caused by the acts and omissions of defendants, Chevron Oronite
Co. LLC and/or Chevron USA Inc., through their collective
agents, employees, or others acting on their behalf, for the
following reasons, to wit:

     (a) breach of a legally imposed duty of reasonable care;

     (b) failure to maintain its Oak Point Plant;

     (c) failing to operate its Oak Point Plant in a safe  
         manner; and

     (d) failure to follow its own procedures to prohibit a
         release of maleic anhydride and/or other toxic
         substances.

Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of all residents or
individuals who were in the area of the Oak Point Plant on Jan.
30, 2007 within the area adversely affected by the release of
maleic anhydride and other toxic substances from the Chevron
Oronite plant.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (1) whether Chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA are liable
         to the Plaquemines Parish residents and individuals in
         the class area for negligently allowing the release of
         substantial quantities of maleic anhydride and other
         toxic substances into the atmosphere and area
         surrounding its Oak Point Plant in the class area;

     (2) whether Chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA are liable
         to those claimants for failure to contain the release;

     (3) whether chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA are liable,
         pursuant to Louisiana Code Article 2317, for the
         personal injuries and damage to the property of the
         residents and businesses of Plaquemines Parish;

     (4) whether Chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA's negligence
         caused them to be confined to the contaminated area or
         not allowing them to safely return to their property;

     (5) the extent of damages caused by the defendants'
         negligence;

     (6) whether Chevron Oronite and/or making works upon its
         property that are injurious to neighboring estates;

     (7) whether Chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA are liable
         pursuant to Louisiana Code Article 2322 for ruin, vice
         or defect in its mixing unit or other appurtenances
         that presented an unreasonable risk of harm;

     (8) whether Chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA are liable
         for nuisance and trespass; and

     (9) whether Chevron Oronite and/or Chevron USA are liable
         for punitive damages.

As a result of the release of maleic anhydride and other harmful
substances from the Oak Point Plant, plaintiffs, individually
and on behalf of the putative class, claim compensation for:

     (i) inconvenience and trespass;

    (ii) remediation and/or replacement of all affected personal
         and real property;

   (iii) diminution of property value;

    (iv) loss of use;

     (v) mental anguish caused by property damage;

    (vi) business interruption;

   (vii) damages for delayed return and/or access and/or for
         being required to shelter in place;

  (viii) damages to trees, shrubs, soil and crops;

    (ix) personal injuries;

     (x) punitive damages; and/or

    (xi) any other damages to which plaintiffs may be entitled.

Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of all persons
similarly situated, pray that defendants be duly cited and
served with this complaint, be required to appear and answer the
same, and after due proceedings had, that there be judgment
rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and against defendants, as:

     -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and
        appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- for damages as set forth in the complaint;

     -- for pre-judgment interest as allowed by law;

     -- for attorney fees as allowed by law;

     -- for all costs of these proceedings;

     -- for notice to be sent to the class in a form and manner
        approved by the court; and

     -- for all general and equitable relief.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1955

The suit is "Chauvin et al. v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00547-HGB-DEK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Helen G.
Berrigan with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott R. Bickford, Brock Darren Dupre', John Robert
         Martzell and Christopher H. Sherwood, all of Martzell &
         Bickford, 338 Lafayette St., New Orleans, LA 70130,
         Phone: (504) 581-9065, E-mail: usdcedla@mbfirm.com;

     (2) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the 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;

     (3) Joseph M. Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, 855 Baronne St., New
         Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 525-1335, E-mail:
         jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com;

     (4) Hugh Palmer Lambert and Linda Jane Nelson both of
         Lambert & Nelson, 701 Magazine St., New Orleans, LA
         70130, Phone: 504-581-1750, E-mail:
         hlambert@lambertandnelson.com or
         lnelson@lambertandnelson.com; and

     (5) Ronnie Glynn Penton of the Law Offices of Ronnie G.
         Penton (Slidell), 2250 Gause Blvd. East, Suite 310
         Slidell, LA 70458, Phone: 985-643-1747, E-mail:
         fedcourtmail@rgplaw.com.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Plaintiffs Propose Advance(R) Opt-Out Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Dentsply
International Inc. originally in Alameda County, California,
filed an appeal to convert claims in a class action over the
company's manufacture and sale of Advance(R) cement to an opt-
out claim from its current status as an opt-in claim.  

Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on
allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case,
on behalf of laboratories, and denture patients in 17 states who
purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court in
Wilmington, Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages in
an unspecified amount.  The Court has granted the company's
motion on the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient
class actions to pursue damage claims.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to
the 3rd Circuit and the court upheld the decision of the
District Court in dismissing the plaintiffs' damages claims,
with the exception of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage
claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance agreements
between the company and its tooth dealers.

The plaintiffs have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme
Court asking it to review this decision of the 3rd Circuit.
Also, private party class actions on behalf of indirect
purchasers were filed in California and Florida state courts.
The California and Florida cases have been dismissed by the
plaintiffs following the decision by the Federal District Court
Judge issued in August 2003.

                   Advance(R) Cement Lawsuit

On March 27, 2002, a complaint was filed in Alameda County,
California (which was transferred to Los Angeles County) by
Bruce Glover, D.D.S. alleging, inter alia, breach of express and
implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent
misrepresentation in the company's manufacture and sale of
Advance(R) cement.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for costs
incurred in repairing dental work in which the Advance(R)
product allegedly failed.  The Judge has entered an Order
granting class certification, as an Opt-in class.

In general, the class is defined as California dentists who
purchased and used Advance(R) cement and were required, because
of failures of the cement, to repair or reperform dental
procedures for which they were not paid.  The Notice of the
class action was sent on Feb. 23, 2005 to the approximately
29,000 dentists licensed to practice in California during the
relevant period and a total of 166 dentists have opted into the
class action.

As the result of a recent decision by a California Appellate
Court, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal to convert the claim
to an opt-out claim from its current status as an opt-in claim.  

The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000
and total sales in the U.S. during that period were
approximately $5.2 million.  The company's primary level
insurance carrier has confirmed coverage for the breach of
warranty claims in this matter up to their policy limits.


DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Priest Abuse Victims Get $12M Windfall
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Diocese of Charleston in South Carolina will make a
$12 million payout to settle a class action filed by four men
alleging sexual molestation by priests, The Catholic Miscellany
reports.

The case was settled before a mediator.  Under the deal, the
diocese is to set up a $12 million fund, which includes a $5
million amount by a Letter of Credit and an additional $7
million if the credit amount is drawn down to $1 million (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2006).

The Diocese also agreed to pay a total of $460,000 to the four
plaintiffs.  One of the plaintiffs, John Morris, who joined the
other plaintiffs in the case two years ago, received $160,000.

The settlement allows compensation for sexual abuse victims born
before Aug. 30, 1980.  Lawrence Richter, an attorney for the
victims explains that the 1980 date was negotiated between them
and the diocese to assure the settlement would cover victims who
are barred to sue by the statue of limitations in South Carolina
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2006).

Bishop Robert J. Baker announced the settlement in a letter to
South Carolina Catholics in The Catholic Miscellany Jan. 25.  He
held a press conference Jan. 26.  

Judge Diane S. Goodstein of Dorchester County Court of Common
Pleas has preliminarily approved the settlement with a final
fairness hearing being set for March 9.

The settlement provides for the formation of two classes of
claimants against the diocese.  The first class includes all
individuals born on or before Aug. 30, 1980, who were sexually
abused as minors by agents of the Diocese of Charleston.  The
second class includes spouses and parents of those victims.

The monetary range -- to be determined by a neural arbitrator --
is $10,000 to $200,000 for the first class settlements, and a
set amount of $20,000 per claimant for the second class.  

Any potential victims who do not participate may be unable to
make future legal claims against the diocese.

In Jan. 26 press conference, John Barker, chief financial
officer for the diocese, said that the money for the settlement
will come from insurance, interest on investments and, if
needed, the sale of property.  He said that property sale would
be the last option.

For more details, contact Lawrence E. Richter of Richter &
Haller, LLC, 622 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Mount Pleasant, SC
29464-3013, Phone: (843) 849-6000, Fax: (843) 881-1400.


EL NORTENO: Recalls Corn Cookies Over Undeclared Egg Content
------------------------------------------------------------
El Norteno Distributors of Miami, Florida, is recalling its 6-
ounce packages of "Brown Corn Cookies (Rosquete De Maiz)" food
treats because they may contain undeclared eggs.

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

The recalled "Brown Corn Cookies (Rosquete De Maiz)" were
distributed nationwide in retail stores and through mail orders.

The product comes in a 6-ounce, clear plastic bag with no lot
codes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the eggs-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of eggs.

The problem has been corrected already.

Consumers who have purchased 6 ounces packages of "Brown Corn
Cookies (Rosquete De Maiz)" with the old label that does not
declare eggs are urged to return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 305 597 4454.


FOCAL COMMS: March 23 Hearing Set for $13M Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on March 23, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed $13,000,000 settlement in the suit by the Los
Angeles County Employees Retirement Association against:

     -- Citigroup, Inc.;
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith
        Barney); and
     -- Jack B. Grubman, telecommunications research analyst at
        Salomon Smith.

The hearing will be held before Judge Gerard E. Lynch at the
U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 6B, New York, New
York 10007.

Deadline for the submission of proof of claim is on May 1, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Focal Communications Corp. common stock
between July 27, 1999 and Oct. 1, 2002.

                        Case Background

Defendant Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup) is the indirect parent to
defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI), which was
formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

Salomon Smith provided a range of investment services to its
clients, including the preparation of private research reports
and ratings concerning publicly traded companies.

During the class period, defendant Jack B. Grubman was a
telecommunications research analyst at Salomon Smith.  In this
capacity, Mr. Grubman was responsible for issuing research
analyst reports on companies operating in the telecommunications
sector, including Focal.

In April 2002, the New York State Attorney General nnounced that
it was investigating defendants' preparation and issuance of
research analysts' reports and ratings during the period 1999
through early 2002 (NYSAG investigation).  The investigation
focused on defendants' reports regarding numerous companies,
including Focal.

Following an extensive investigation, including the review of
documents made available by the NYSAG and defendants, lead
plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on July
28, 2004, naming as defendants Citigroup, CGMI (successor in
interest to Salomon Smith), and Mr. Grubman.

The original complaint asserted securities fraud claims against
defendants under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The original complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased shares of Focal Common Stock during
the period from July 29, 1999, through Aug. 13, 2001.

By order dated Aug. 30, 2004, the court transferred this case to
Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  On Sept. 24, 2004, plaintiff Los Angeles
County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to 21D(a)(3)(B) of the
Exchange Act.

By Order dated Jan. 7, 2005, the Court:

      -- appointed LACERA as lead plaintiff; and

      -- appointed Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, as lead counsel.

On March 15, 2005, lead plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Focal Common Stock during the period July 27, 1999 through Oct.
1, 2002, alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,by publishing false and
misleading analyst reports concerning Focal and by engaging in
market manipulation.

The amended complaint alleged that defendants engaged in
securities fraud by causing fraudulent Salomon Smith research
reports concerning Focal and authored by Mr. Grubman to be
issued, and by artificially inflating the price of a portion of
the telecommunications equities market.

It also alleged that the reports were fraudulent because, at
least since June 2000, defendants believed that Focal Common
Stock truly warranted a "Sell" rating even though Salomon Smith
rated it a "Buy."  Moreover, since at least July 29, 1999,
defendants had failed to disclose their true opinion regarding
Focal.

According to the amended complaint, the fraudulent Focal reports
were part of a quid-pro-quo arrangement between defendants and
Focal, whereby Salomon Smith rated Focal positively, in return
for which Focal retained Salomon Smith as an underwriter.

The amended complaint further alleged that Mr. Grubman's
subsequent critical statements about Focal, and his ultimate
downgrade of the stock, caused Focal's stock price to decline,
and resulted in significant losses for lead plaintiff and the
class.

On April 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the amended complaint.   On July 1, 2005, lead
plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

In addition to the review of several hundred thousand pages of
documents produced by defendants in connection with the NYSAG
investigation, lead counsel engaged consultants who prepared a
comprehensive analysis of loss causation and damage issues prior
to the initiation of settlement discussions in late spring 2005.

This required an extensive review of information gleaned from
analyst reports regarding Focal, as well as analysis of factors
impacting Focal stock on key dates.

Beginning in late spring of 2005, the settling parties and
defendants engaged in numerous telephone calls and face-to-face
meetings concerning the possibility of settlement.  

During these preliminary meetings, documents were exchanged and
the strengths/weaknesses of the claims were discussed and
debated.

Throughout the settlement negotiations, various consultants and
experts, including individuals with expertise in estimating
potential damages in cases involving allegations of securities
fraud, advised the settling parties.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Focal Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Lawsuits in Ill. Over Defective Speed Switches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. is named defendant in six federal class actions
claiming that certain of its vehicles are defective and unsafe
because of problems in their speed control deactivation switch
(SCD Switch), The St. Clair Record reports.

Attorney Jeffrey Lowe of St. Louis filed the suits -- all
assigned to Judge David Herndon of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois -- beginning Jan. 29.  

Mr. Lowe is claiming that the vehicles in question are defective
and unsafe because:

      -- the SCD Switch is located in a circuit that is always
         energized with electricity even when the vehicle is off
         and in the parked position;

      -- the circuitry for the SCD switch does not contain a
         fused wiring harness that will interrupt the power to
         the switch if it starts to overheat because of a short
         to the ground;

      -- the SCD switch has two compartments, the hydraulic
         department which contains brake fluid and the
         electrical department which contains always-energized
         electric components;

      -- vacuum pressure generated by the brake system caused
         the Kapton orientation to invert and ultimately fatigue
         and wear out much sooner; and

      -- the SCD switch, which is typically mounted on the brake
         proportioning valve, is mounted in the master cylinder
         in a vertically angled up and down so that metallic
         corrosion products can settle in a way that dendrite
         growth can develop.

Generally, the suits claim that the positioning of the SCD
Switch creates a significant fire risk not only to the Ford
vehicles but also to other properties where these vehicles are
parked (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2007).

It is further alleged that Ford knew of these problems, but
continues to use similar designs in its vehicles.

According to Mr. Lowe, the putative class members have suffered
damages and monetary losses of the use of their Ford vehicles
while these are on repair and additional damages for the
destruction of theses vehicles by fire.

Thus, plaintiffs' are seeking an amount to be determined at
trial, plus punitive damages in an amount be proven at trial.

Mr. Lowe represents:

      -- Paul Sharwell of Wanship, Utah, who claims his 2000
         Ford F-150 Truck caught fire in a parking lot in Salt
         Lake City on Jan. 1, 2004, leaving his truck
         Unsalvageable;

      -- Destry Watson of Sterrett, Alabama who claims that on
         July 30, 2004, his 2000 Ford F-150 XLT caught fire
         while on the parking lot at the Urban Center.  By the
         time the fire was put out it had spread to another car
         on the parking lot;

      -- Linwood Hall claims his 2000 Ford Expedition caught
         fire in the garage of his Hookertown, N.C. home on Feb.
         20, 2005.  The fire spread to his house causing both
         fire and smoke damage;

      -- Joel Radford of Plainville, Indiana claims his Ford F-
         150 caught fire in his driveway on Oct. 16, 2005.  He
         claims the contents in his vehicle and the siding on
         his home was damaged;

      -- Richard Massaro of Bushkill, Pennsylvania claims his
         1996 Ford F-150 sustained damages after an explosion to
         his truck; and

      -- Jimmie Shelby of Flint, Michigan claims his 1998 Ford
         Expedition was totaled after a fire on Jan. 1, 2004.

For more details, contact Jeffrey J. Lowe of Jeffrey J. Lowe,
P.C., Generally Admitted, 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100, St. Louis,
MO 63105, 314-678-3400, Phone: 314-678-3401, Fax:
jeff@jefflowepc.com.


GENTA INC: Mediation in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Fails
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against Genta Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

In 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain
of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the
company's shareholders who purchased its securities during
several class periods.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and allege
that the company and certain of its principal officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment of
malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.  The shareholder
class action complaint in the various actions seeks monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs'
costs and attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.  The
court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the defendants engaged in
a scheme or artifice to defraud plaintiffs, but allowed
plaintiffs' claims to proceed with respect to their allegations
that defendants issued false and misleading public statements
about Genasenser.

Non-binding mediation in March 2006 did not produce a settlement
and the case proceeded to discovery.  

The suit is "In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with
referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Melvyn I. Weiss Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-
         5300;

     (2) Marc L. Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala
         Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610)
         667-6200, E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com;

     (3) Andrew Robert Jacobs of Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com;

     (4) Jean-Marc Zimmerman of Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky,
         LLP, 226 St. Paul Street, Westfield, NJ 07090, Phone:
         (908) 654-8000, E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com;

     (5) Jennifer A. Sullivan of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Ave., P.O. Box 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962,
         Phone: 973-775-8996, Fax: 973-994-1744, E-mail:
         jsullivan@lawssb.com; and

     (6) Olimpio Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 26
         South Maple Avenue, Suite 202, Marlton, NJ 08053,
         Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612, E-mail:
         lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024,
         Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com; and

    (ii) Thomas A. Cunniff of Fox Rothschild, LLP, Princeton
         Pike, Corporate Center, 997 Lenox Drive, Building 3,
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311, Phone: (609) 896-3600, E-
         mail: tcunniff@foxrothschild.com.


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

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

Deadline for the submission of proof of claim and filing of
objections is Jan. 12, 2007.

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

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

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


H.A. BERKHEIMER: May 22 Hearing Set for Pa. Taxpayers Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania will
hold a fairness hearing on May 22, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., for the
proposed $2 million settlement in the matter, "Cheeseman v. H.A.
Berkheimer, Inc., Civil Action. No. 2002-06020-29-5."

The hearing will be held before Judge C. Theodore Fritsch, Jr.
in the Bucks County Courthouse, 55 E. Court Street, Doylestown,
Pennsylvania l890l.

Deadline for the submission of proof of claim is April 13, 2007.

Eligible to the settlement are:

     -- Taxpayers who could receive up to $48.50, without
        interest, for any given tax year that they paid the
        collection costs.  If they can prove a claim in excess
        of that amount, they may be able to recoup more.

     -- The Philadelphia law firm of Bernard M. Gross, which
        filed the suit, could seek up to 26.25 percent of the
        settlement amount, or $525,000, and legal costs up to
        $15,000.

     -- The Cheesemans, as class representatives, who could
        receive up to $7,500.

                        Case Background

In 2002, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of Bucks County initiated
a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer after being slapped with two
bills totaling $57 for "collection costs" that they believed to
be unfair.

The suit alleges that H.A. Berkheimer violated the Pennsylvania
Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6901 et. seq., by
assessing and collecting unauthorized costs, other than interest
and penalties, from taxpayers delinquent in payment of their
local Earned Income Tax for tax years 1995 through 2001.

Plaintiffs allege that Berkheimer, who contracts with numerous
political subdivisions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
the collection of the local Earned Income Tax, is not authorized
to assess or collect any costs of collection on unpaid taxes
unless and until a suit is brought against the delinquent
taxpayer for such collection.

They further allege that H.A. Berkheimer retained all the monies
it assessed and collected in unauthorized costs from delinquent
taxpayers.

A Bucks County judge certified the suit as a class action in
2005 after ruling the company's fees for "collection costs" were
illegal and served no purpose other than to add to the company's
profits.  

After H.A. Berkheimer admitted that its costs are improper,
Judge Mellon ruled that all taxpayers who paid collection costs
to H.A. Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001 are members of the
class.

For more details, contact Bernard M. Gross, Suite 450, John
Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA
19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600 or (866) 561-3600, Fax: (215) 561-
3000.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Degenshein" Pavilion Notebook Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara Superior Court certified a consumer lawsuit to
proceed as a class action against Hewlett-Packard Co.

The lawsuit involves certain HP Pavilion models of notebook
computers that Plaintiff I Braun Degenshein alleges contain
defective inverters.

An inverter is the component that regulates voltage to light the
display screen.  When an inverter fails, the screen becomes
extremely dim or flickers, rendering the computer useless.  An
inverter costs less than $20, but Hewlett-Packard quoted
consumers $650 to fix the problem, which Mr. Degenshein claims
Hewlett-Packard knew about before it sold the computers.

The court authorized Mr. Degenshein, who is represented by Green
Welling LLP of San Francisco, California, and Kershaw, Cutter &
Ratinoff LLP of Sacramento, California, to proceed with claims
under California's unfair business practices act and for breach
of the written warranty that accompanied the computers on behalf
of all consumers who purchased the computers in California.

For more information, contact Jenelle Welling of Green Welling
LLP, Phone: 415-477-6700, Website: http://www.classcounsel.com.


HOLMES GROUP: Recalls Oscillating Tower Fans with Faulty Wiring
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Holmes Group of Milford, Massachusetts, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
300,000 units of Holmes Oscillating Tower Fans.

The company said electrical arcing in the fan's wiring can cause
a fire hazard.

The Holmes Group has received 16 reports of property damage,
including one reported injury involving minor burns and smoke
inhalation.

The recall involves the Holmes HT30 Oscillating Tower Fan.  The
model number can be found on the silver label on the back of the
unit.  The tower fans are white. "Holmes" is printed on the
front of the base.

These recalled oscillating tower fans were manufactured in China
and are being sold at Target, Bed Bath & Beyond and additional
department and specialty stores nationwide from July 2002
through June 2005 for about $30.

Picture of the recalled oscillating tower fans:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07086.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the fans and
contact The Holmes Group for instructions on receiving a free
replacement unit.

For additional information, call The Holmes Group at (800) 524-
9204 anytime or visit http://www.holmesfanrecall.com.


HONG TENG: Recalls Electric Oil Lamps with Defective Power Cord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hong Teng Trading (USA) Inc., of Orlando, Florida, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 3,900 electric oil lamps.

The company said the power cord is not polarized and is
undersized.  The power cord is not correctly secured and there
is no strain relief on the switch housing.  Additionally, the
switch housing is not flame-retardant.  As a result of these
issues, the lamps pose shock and fire hazards.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves all electric oil lamps sold by Hong Teng
Trading.  The packaging contains "LJY" and "Made in China."  The
white switch on the cord has writing on the back that reads,
"TIAO GUANG" and HENG CHANG."  They were sold in four styles and
various colors.

These recalled electric oil lamps were manufactured in China and
are being sold through Dollar stores nationwide from October
2006 through December 2006 for about $1.

Picture of recalled electric oil lamps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07093.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the oil burners
and contact Hong Teng Trading for details on how to receive a
refund.

For additional information, call Hong Teng Trading toll free at
(866) 435-3915 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. is named as a defendant in a purported class
action alleging generally that the spin-off of the company from
Abbott Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned: "Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories
and Hospira, Inc."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By Order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as:

     * "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
        Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
        was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
        2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
        Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
        were eligible for retirement under the Abbott
        Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations."  

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

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.
    
Representing the plaintiffs is Paul William Mollica of Meites,
Mulder, Burger & Mollica, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272.

Representing the company is James F. Hurst, Winston & Strawn
LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
(312) 558-5230 or E-mail: jhurst@winston.com.


IKEA HOME: Recalls PARODI Glass Floor Vases Prone to Breakage
-------------------------------------------------------------
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 110,000 PARODI glass floor vases nationwide and
about 767,000 more worldwide.

The company said the base of these vases can break off
unexpectedly, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

IKEA has received 18 reports of these vases breaking, resulting
in seven reports of injury.  In the U.S. a single incident has
been reported.  The consumer sustained a cut to her foot.

Additionally, six reports involving injury have been received
from outside of the U.S., with five consumers sustaining cuts to
the hand requiring hospital treatment.

The recalled vases have thick black, white or clear glass walls.  
They stand about 28 inches high and weigh about 11 pounds.  The
base diameter is about 6 inches and the top diameter is about 9
inches.  The IKEA logo and one of three article numbers are
printed on the underside of the base.  The article numbers are
201-102-34 (black), 501-121-99 (white) and 000-795-45 (clear).

These recalled glass floor vases were manufactured in Poland and
are being sold at IKEA stores exclusively nationwide from April
2004 through December 2006 for about $40.

Picture of recalled glass floor vases:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07095.jpg

Consumers are advised to return the vase to their local IKEA
store for a full refund.  To avoid the risk of breakage and
possible injury, handle the vase with care.

For additional information, contact IKEA at (888) 966-4532
anytime, or visit http://www.ikea-usa.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Subsidiary Faces IPO Antitrust Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in "Pfeiffer v. Credit Suisse First Boston, No. 01
Civ. 2014," including a Janus Capital Group Inc. subsidiary, are
appealing a court of appeal's decision vacating a dismissal of
the suit.

In 2001, a Janus subsidiary was named as a defendant in a class
action alleging that certain underwriting firms and
institutional investors violated antitrust laws in connection
with initial public offerings.  The suit is "Pfeiffer v. Credit
Suisse First Boston, No. 01 Civ. 2014," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The U.S. District Court dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust
claims in November 2003; however, in 2005, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated that decision and
remanded it for further proceedings.

In March 2006, the defendants, including the Janus subsidiary,
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeal's decision.

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.


KINDER MORGAN: Appeals Court Denies Leukemia Cluster Suit Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion by plaintiffs
in the Leukemia Cluster Litigation, which names Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. as defendant, for an en banc review of the
dismissal of the case.

Kinder Morgan is a party to several lawsuits in Nevada that
allege that the plaintiffs have developed leukemia as a result
of exposure to harmful substances.  The cases are:

     -- "Marie Snyder, et al. v. City of Fallon, United States
         Department of the Navy, Exxon Mobil Corp., Kinder
         Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Speedway Gas Station and
         John Does I-X, No. cv-N-02-0251-ECR-RAM," filed in the
         U.S. District Court, District of Nevada;

     -- "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al. v. United States of America,
         City of Fallon, Exxon Mobil Corp., Kinder Morgan
         Energy Partners, L.P., Berry Hinckley, Inc., and John
         Does I-X, No. cv-N-02-0630-DWH-RAM," filed in the U.S.
         District Court, District of Nevada (Galaz I);

     -- "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al. v. City of Fallon, Exxon
         Mobil Corp., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.,
         Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Las Vegas, LLC,
         Kinder Morgan Operating Limited Partnership "D", Kinder
         Morgan Services LLC, Berry Hinkley and Does I-X, No.
         CV03-03613, filed in the Second Judicial District
         Court, State of Nevada, County of Washoe (Galaz II);
         and

     -- "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al. v. The United States of
         America, the City of Fallon, Exxon Mobil Corp.,
         Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Kinder Morgan
         G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Las Vegas, LLC, Kinder Morgan
         Operating Limited Partnership "D", Kinder Morgan
         Services LLC, Berry Hinkley and Does I-X, No.CVN03-
         0298-DWH-VPC filed in the U.S. District Court, District
         of Nevada (Galaz III).

On July 9, 2002, the company was served with a purported
complaint for class action in the Snyder case, in which the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, assert that a leukemia cluster has developed in the
City of Fallon, Nevada.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have been exposed to
unspecified "environmental carcinogens" at unspecified times in
an unspecified manner and are therefore "suffering a
significantly increased fear of serious disease."  The
plaintiffs seek a certification of a class of all persons in
Nevada who have lived for at least three months of their first
ten years of life in the City of Fallon between the years 1992
and the present who have not been diagnosed with leukemia.

The complaint purports to assert causes of action for nuisance
and "knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of material
facts" against all defendants, and seeks relief in the form of
"a court-supervised trust fund, paid for by defendants, jointly
and severally, to finance a medical monitoring program to
deliver services to members of the purported class that include,
but are not limited to, testing, preventative screening and
surveillance for conditions resulting from, or which can
potentially result from exposure to environmental carcinogens,"
incidental damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants responded to the complaint by filing motions to
dismiss on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  On Nov. 7, 2002, the U.S. District Court
granted the motion to dismiss filed by the U.S., and further
dismissed all claims against the remaining defendants for lack
of Federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and leave to
amend, which was denied by the court on Dec. 30, 2002.  
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit.  On March 15, 2004, the 9th Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of this case.

On Dec. 3, 2002, plaintiffs filed an additional complaint for
class action in the Galaz I matter asserting the same claims in
the same court on behalf of the same purported class against
virtually the same defendants, including Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P.  On Feb. 10, 2003, the defendants filed motions
to dismiss the Galaz I Complaint on the grounds that it also
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

This motion to dismiss was granted as to all defendants on April
3, 2003.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  On Nov. 17, 2003, the 9th
Circuit dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's
dismissal of the case.

On June 20, 2003, plaintiffs filed an additional complaint for
class action (the Galaz II matter) asserting the same claims in
Nevada State trial court on behalf of the same purported class
against virtually the same defendants, including the company,
and excluding the U.S. Department of the Navy.

On Sept. 30, 2003, the Kinder Morgan defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the Galaz II Complaint along with a motion for
sanctions.  On April 13, 2004, plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily
stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of the entire case in
State Court.  The court has accepted the stipulation and the
case was dismissed on April 27, 2004.

Also on June 20, 2003, the plaintiffs in the previously filed
Galaz matters (now dismissed) filed yet another complaint for
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada (the Galaz III matter) asserting the same claims in U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of the same
purported class against virtually the same defendants, including
us.

The Kinder Morgan defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Galaz
III matter on Aug. 15, 2003.  On Oct. 3, 2003, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for withdrawal of class action, which voluntarily
drops the class action allegations from the matter and seeks to
have the case proceed on behalf of the Galaz family only.

On Dec. 5, 2003, the District Court granted the Kinder Morgan
defendants' motion to dismiss, but granted plaintiff leave to
file a second amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint on Dec. 13, 2003, and a third amended
complaint on Jan. 5, 2004.  The Kinder Morgan defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on Jan. 13, 2004.  
The motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on April 30,
2004.

On May 7, 2004, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  On March 31, 2006, the
9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case.  
On April 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an en banc
review of this decision by the full 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.  This motion was denied by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals on May 25, 2006.


LEAR CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corp. remains a defendant in a purported consolidated class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan over allegations of Employment Retirement Income
Security Act violations.

In April 2006, a former employee of the company filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against the company, members of its
board of directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee
and certain members of its human resources personnel.

The suit alleges violations of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act with respect to the company's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which
contained similar allegations against the company, members of
its Board of Directors, members of its Employee Benefits
Committee and certain members of its senior management and its
human resources personnel.

At the end of the second quarter, the court entered an order
consolidating these four lawsuits.  During the third quarter,
plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, which alleges
breaches of fiduciary duties substantially similar to those
alleged in the four individually filed lawsuits.

The consolidated complaint continues to name certain current and
former members of the Board of Directors and the Employee
Benefits Committee and certain members of senior management and
adds certain current and former members of the Employee Benefits
Committee.  The consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plan
participants in connection with the administration of the
company's retirement savings plans for salaried and hourly
employees.

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the company's common stock.  
The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to
recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans.

The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought.  No
determination has been made that a class action can be
maintained, and there have been no decisions on the merits of
the cases, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge John Corbett O'Meara with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.   

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen F. Wasinger of Stephen F.  
Wasinger, PLC, (Royal Oak), 32121 Woodward Avenue, 300 Balmoral  
Centre, Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999, Phone: 248-554-6306, E-mail:  
sfw@sfwlaw.com.  

Representing the defendant is Thomas G. McNeill of Dickinson  
Wright, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI 48226-3425,  
Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail: TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com.


MAYTAG CORP: Recalls Dishwashers to Fix Liquid Dispenser Setup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maytag Corp., of Newton, Iowa, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2.3
million Maytag and Jenn-Air brand dishwashers.

The company said liquid rinse-aid can leak from its dispenser
and come into contact with the dishwasher's internal wiring
which can short-circuit and ignite, posing a fire hazard.

Maytag has received 135 reports of dishwasher fires, resulting
in product and/or property damage.  Four injuries have been
reported, including three reports of smoke inhalation and one
serious hand laceration when operating a fire extinguisher to
put out a fire in the dishwasher.

The recall involves Maytag and Jenn-Air under counter or
portable plastic tub dishwashers.  The dishwashers have black,
white, almond, bisque and stainless steel front panels.  The
following model and serial numbers are printed on a label
located on the dishwasher's plastic frame on top of or to the
left of the door opening.  Consumers should contact Maytag to
determine if their dishwasher is included in this recall.

Brand    Model numbers MUST       AND serial numbers MUST
         begin with.              end with.

Maytag   DB3, MDB4, MDB5,        SM, SQ, SS, SU, SW, SY, SZ, UB,
         MDB6, MDB7, MDB8,       UD, UF, UH, UK, UM, UQ, US, UU,
         MDB9, MDBD, MDC3,       UW, UY, UZ, WB, WD, WF, WH, WK,
         MDC4, MDC5, DWU9        WM, WQ, WS, WU, WW, WY, WZ, YB,
                                 YD, YF, YH, YK, YM, YQ, YS, YU,
                                 YW, YY, YZ

Jenn-    JDB3, JDB4, JDB5,       UB, UD, UF, UH, UK, UM, UQ, US,
Air      JDB6,JDB7               UU, UW, UY, UZ, WB, WD, WF, WH,  
                                 WK, WM, WQ, WS, WU, WW, WY, WZ,
                                 YB, YD, YF, YH, YK, YM, YQ, YS,
                                 YU, YW, YY, YZ  

These recalled dishwashers were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at department and appliance stores and by
homebuilders nationwide from July 1997 through June 2001 for
between $370 and $800.

Pictures of recalled dishwashers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07094a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07094a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07094a.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these
dishwashers, disconnect the electric supply by shutting off the
fuse or circuit breaker controlling it and inform all users of
the dishwasher about the risk of fire.  

Contact Maytag for either a free in-home repair, or a $75 cash
back reimbursement following the purchase of a new Maytag, Jenn-
Air, Whirlpool or KitchenAid dishwasher.  Consumers should not
return the dishwasher to the retailer where it was purchased, as
retailers are not prepared to take units back.

For more information, contact Maytag Corp. at (800) 675-0535
anytime, or visit http://www.repair.maytag.com.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: DHHS Faces Suit Over Medicaid Disability Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner John Stephen of the New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) faces a purported federal class
action filed by local residents who accuse the agency of failing
to make timely decisions to provide them Medicaid disability
benefits, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire on Jan. 30 by three plaintiffs that are backed
in the case by the New Hampshire Legal Assistance and the
Disabilities Rights Center.  The three plaintiffs are:

      -- Stacey Durgin,
      -- Toni Cellucci, and
      -- Wayne Carter

The plaintiffs allege that the department is supposed to make
decisions about a person's eligibility for disabilities benefits
within 90 days.

They have each waited, 273 days, 188 days and 170 days,
respectively for a decision from DHHS on their initial
applications, according to the suit.

Ben Mortell, an attorney for New Hampshire Legal Assistance,
explains that the ultimate goal of the class action is to ensure
that DHHS will make more timely decisions about benefits for
disabled residents of the state so that much of the pain and
difficulty they are currently experiencing is decreased.

He said that a timely decision will allow people to receive
necessary medical treatment and enable them to meet their basic
needs, so that they can continue to live their lives with
dignity.

Currently, the department hasn't received a copy of the lawsuit,
thus it could not comment on it, according to Mary Castelli,
senior division director at DHHS.

The suit is "Carter et al. v. NH Department of Health and Human
Services, Commissioner, Case No. 1:07-fp-00023," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christine D. Lavallee of NH Legal Assistance, 1361 Elm
         St., Ste. 307, Manchester, NH 03101, Phone: 603-668-
         2900, E-mail: clavallee@nhla.org; and

     (2) Catharine A. Mallinson of Disabilities Rights Center
         Inc., 18 Low Ave., Concord, NH 03301-4971, Phone: 603-
         228-0432, E-mail: adriennem@drcnh.org.


NORTH DAKOTA: Fargo City Faces Lawsuit Over Traffic Fines
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sauby filed a lawsuit, seeking class-action status, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota against
the City of Fargo over its traffic fines, claiming the city's
ticket prices exceed those allowed under North Dakota law, The
Fargo Forum reports.

The lawsuit claims Fargo's traffic fees are "arbitrary,
unreasonable and irrational and bears no substantial
relationship or close correspondence to the public health,
safety or welfare."

The 12-page complaint, filed on behalf of anyone receiving a
ticket by Fargo police since Aug. 30, 2001, cites three rulings
by district judges saying the city's fines can't exceed the
amount set by state lawmakers.

"The city of Fargo continues to establish and collect fees for
non-criminal traffic violation," the lawsuit states.

Stacey Tjon, an attorney for Fargo, said officials were
reviewing the paperwork and plan to respond within 60 days.

The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-
RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota under Judge Rodney S. Webb, with referral to Judge
Karen K. Klein.

Representing plaintiffs are Mark A. Friese and Robert B. Stock
both of the Vogel Law Firm, 218 NP Avenue, PO BOX 1389, Fargo,
ND 58107-1389, Phone: 701-237-6983, E-mail: jbye@vogellaw.com;
and Timothy Q. Purdon and Monte Lane Rogneby both of the Vogel
Law Firm, PO BOX 2097, 200 N 3 St Ste 201, Bismarck, ND 58502-
2097, Phone: 701-258-7899, Fax: 701-258-9705, E-mail:
tpurdon@vogellaw.com and mrogneby@vogellaw.com.

Representing Fargo is Stacey Elizabeth Tjon of Solberg, Stewart,
Miller & Johnson, PO Box 1897, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, Fargo,
ND 58107-1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166 or (877) 237-3166 (Toll
free), Fax: (701) 237-4627, Web site: http://www.solberglaw.com.


PIONEER COS: Continues to Face Mercury Emission Suit in La.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied plaintiff's
appeal in relation to the removal from state to federal court of
the purported class action filed against Pioneer Cos., Inc. over
damages caused by mercury released from the company's St.
Gabriel chlor-alkali facility in 2004.

The suit -- now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana -- was filed in October 2005 by 18
named plaintiffs in a Louisiana state court as, "Claude Frazier,
et al. v. Pioneer Americas, LLC and State of Louisiana through
the Department of Environmental Quality."  

Plaintiffs claim that they and a proposed class of approximately
500 people who live near the St. Gabriel facility were exposed
to mercury released from the facility for a two and one-half
month period as a result of the 2004 mercury vapor emissions
release.

The plaintiffs request compensatory damages for numerous medical
conditions that are alleged to have occurred or are likely to
occur as a result of the alleged mercury exposure.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the suit was removed to the U.S. District
Court in the Middle District of Louisiana, although the
plaintiffs have appealed this action.

The plaintiffs appealed this removal, but the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and the lawsuit will
proceed in federal court.  

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

The suit is "Frazier v. Pioneer Americas, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-01338-JJB-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with
referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph Charles Possa of Tyler &
Possa, APLC, 3225 Broussard, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225-
343-8313, Fax: 344-8353, E-mail: jpossa@tylerpossa.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bradley Charles Myers of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge,
         LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133,
         E-mail: brad.myers@keanmiller.com; and

     (2) William M. Hudson, III and Patrick Bayard McIntire of
         Oats & Hudson - Lafayette, 100 East Vermilion, Suite
         400, Lafayette, LA 70501, Phone: 337-233-1100, Fax:
         337-233-1178, E-mail: pmcintire@oatshudson.com.


SPX CORP: April 10 Hearing Set for N.C. ERISA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina will hold a fairness on April 10, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re SPX Corporation
ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:04-CV-192."

The hearing will be held at 401 West Trade Street, Courtroom 1,
Charlotte, North Carolina.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before March
27, 2007.

The settlement affects all persons who were participants or
beneficiaries of the SPX Corp. Retirement Savings and Stock
Ownership Plan, as amended and restated effective Dec. 31, 1999,
sponsored by the SPX Corp., whose retirement savings in the plan
included interests in the SPX Stock Fund during the period from
July 28, 2003 to the present.

                        Case Background

On April 23, 2004, a class-action complaint, seeking unspecified
monetary damages was filed on behalf of participants in the
company's employee benefit plans.  It alleged breaches of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On June 10, 2005 a first amended complaint was filed in the
ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current and former
directors and Administrative Committee members.  

The first amended complaint generally tracks the factual
allegations in the securities class action.

On July 25, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended ERISA complaint in its entirety.  That motion is fully
briefed for ruling by the District Court.  

On Sept. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs moved the court to certify the
proposed class in the ERISA suit.  The company opposed that
motion and it is fully briefed for ruling by the District Court.

On Oct. 9, 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle  
to settle the ERISA action.

The suit is "Reichert v. SPX Corp., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00192," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc L. Ackerman, Jason L. Brodsky and Brodsky & Smith,
         LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,  
         Phone: 610/667-6200;

     (2) Todd Collins and Sheryl S. Levy of Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365,
         Phone: 215/875-3040; and

     (3) Geraldine Sumter of Ferguson, Stein, Chambers, Adkins,
         Gresham & Sumter, P.A., P.O. Box 36486, Charlottte, NC
         28236-6486, Phone: 704-375 8461, Fax: 704-334 5654, E-
         mail: gsumter@fergusonstein.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Ross B. Bricker, Ronald L. Marmer and Anton R. Valukas
         of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-
         3608, Phone: 312/923-4524; and

    (ii) David Calep Wright, III and Julian Hugh Wright, Jr. of
         Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., 101 N. Tryon Street,
         Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246, Phone: 704-377-8322
         and 704-377-8352, Fax: 704-373-3922 and 704-373-3952,
         E-mail: dwright@rbh.com and jwright@rbh.com.

For more details, contact In Re SPX Corp. ERISA Litigation c/o
Claims Administrator, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., P.O.
Box 130, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0130, Phone: 1-800-252-5745, Web
site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministra.com.


ST. PAUL: Mar. 20 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold
a fairness hearing on March 20, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. for the
proposed $4,450,000 settlement in the matter, "Spiziri v. The
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-5096
JRT/FLN."

The settlement covers any plan participant whose portion of
his/her plan account was invested in company stock at any time
during the period April 2, 2004 through and including Sept. 1,
2005.

                        Case Background

Initially, an alleged beneficiary of the company's 401(k)
savings plan commenced a putative class action against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

On Jun. 1, 2005, the company and the other defendants in
"Spiziri" moved to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 4, 2006, the
parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.  

The suit is "Spiziri v. St Paul Travelers Companies Inc., et
al., Case No. 0:04-cv-05096-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
         & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 1-800-903-7130, E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com, Web
         site: http://www.whafh.com;and

     (1) Karl L. Cambronne and Jack L. Chestnut of Chestnut &
         Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls, MN 55402,
         Phone: 612-339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail:
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com and
         jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com; and

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David H. LaRocca, Michael J. Chepiga and Michael J.
         Garvey of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425
         Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-
         455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358, E-mail:
         dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
         mgarvey@stblaw.com; and   

    (ii) Peter W. Carter and Richard B. Solum of Dorsey &
         Whitney - Mpls., 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Mpls., MN
         55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-
         mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
         solum.rick@dorsey.com.


TASER INT'L: March 12 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona will hold a
fairness on March 12, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. for the proposed $20
million settlement in the matter, "In re Taser International
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV 05-115-PHX-SRB."

The hearing will be held before Judge Susan R. Bolton at the
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington St.,
Phoenix, Ariz.

Deadline for the submission of proof of claim is on April 16,
2007.  Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement
must be made on or before March 5, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that were
purchasers of the company's stock between May 29, 2003 and Jan.
11, 2005.

                        Case Background

Beginning on or about Jan. 10, 2005, numerous securities class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  

The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.  Four actions were filed in
New York and one Michigan, which were later transferred to the
District of Arizona.   

Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class actions and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were selected.   

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which became
the operative complaint for all of the class actions, on Aug.
29, 2005.  The operative class period is May 29, 2003 to Jan.
11, 2005.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
which has been fully briefed for the court but has not yet been
decided.  

It suit alleged, among other things, violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief against all defendants.   

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the
company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of
the company's products and the company's ability to meet its
sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales
order with the company's distributor, Davidson's, in the fourth
quarter of 2004.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that
product defects were leading to excessive product returns by
customers.

On July 25, 2006, lead plaintiff, lead counsel, defendants and
defendants' counsel engaged in a mediation conference, and in
subsequent discussions, in an attempt to settle the consolidated
securities class actions.  

On Aug. 9, 2006, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement
stating, among other things, that the parties had reached an
agreement in principal setting all consolidated actions, subject
to documentation, notice and court approval.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the court issued an order staying the class
action for 60 days to allow the parties to complete and submit
settlement documents, and further denying as moot the
defendants' pending motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2006, the parties filed a joint stipulation of
settlement and related documents, and plaintiff filed a motion
in support of the proposed order preliminarily approving the
settlement, to which motion the defendants consented.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the court, upon the joint stipulation of the
parties to the action, entered an order continuing the stay of
the action through Nov. 6, 2006 to complete and submit
settlement documents.

The stipulation of settlement and related documents filed on
Oct. 11, 2006 set forth terms of settlement including, among
other things, full releases of any and all related known or
unknown claims among the plaintiff, plaintiff class and the
defendants, and payment of $20 million from TASER for the
benefit of the plaintiff class to be comprised of:

     -- $12 million in cash (approximately $4.1 million to be
        provided from the Directors' and Officers' Liability
        Insurance policy); and

     -- $8 million in company common stock valued as of the date
        at which the stock is transferred (1,103,448 shares
        based on a closing market price of $7.25 at September
        29, 2006).

The suit is "In re Taser International Securities Litigation,  
Master File No. CV 05-115-PHX-SRB," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy J. MacFall of Berstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, Phone: 212-779-1414 and 877-779-1414,
Fax: 212-779-3218, E-mail: macfall@bernlieb.com, Web site:
http://www.bernlieb.com.  

Representing the defendants is Keith E. Eggleton of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304, Phone: (650) 849-3011, Fax: (650) 493-6811, E-mail:
KEggleton@wsgr.com.


UNITED STATES BAKERY: Recalls Donuts for Undeclared Milk Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bakery, Seattle Division, is voluntarily
recalling all 12-ounce packages of Betsy Ross Brand Chocolate
Donuts and Old Fashioned Donuts, because the whey listed on the
label does not declare it is a derivative of milk.

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

The recalled Old Fashioned Donuts and Chocolate Donuts are sold
in convenience stores in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Wyoming.

The donuts are packaged in red, white and blue boxes and state a
package code prior to and including SELL BY FEB 9 FS.  There are
6 donuts per package with a net weight of 12 ounces.  Individual
product containers are identified with UPC#72220-22080 and
UPC#72220-22081.

No complaints have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated after it was discovered that the whey
is a listed ingredient in the product, but was not properly
disclosed as a milk product.

Consumers who have purchased Betsy Ross 12-ounce boxes of donuts
are urged to return them to the store of purchase for a full
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 206-322-0931
or 1-888-307-2867.


U.S. FOODSERVICE: Conn. Court Allows RICO Lawsuit to Go Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Smith of the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut has denied an appeal by Royal Ahold N.V.
to suspend a class action against U.S. Foodservice, the Dutch
food retailer's distribution business, the Financial Times
reports.

The judge, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the
substantial damages alleged, ruled that USF had "failed to
establish good cause" to delay the case.  He noted that a
postponement at a time when Ahold was selling the unit "would
increase the risk that relevant documents would be lost or
destroyed".

The decision came a day before lawyers acting for USF filed a
court motion to dismiss the class action, alleging the claim was
"patently incorrect", according to documents seen by the
Financial Times.

USF lawyers accused class-action plaintiffs of employing a
"mischaracterization of fictitious agreements" to support
allegations of breach of contract and racketeering.

However, in his ruling before that motion was submitted, Judge
Smith refused to accept assertions by USF lawyers that the
"motion to dismiss will likely resolve some or all of the
claims".

The Waterbury Hospital filed the suit on Oct. 19, 2006 accusing
the company of an illegal kickback scheme that inflated the
prices that the hospital and other clients pay for food (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2006).

The suit claims that the scheme accounted for 16 to 20 percent
of the company's total sales between 2000 and 2003.

According to the suit, the Maryland-based company instructed
suppliers to artificially increase their prices and then passed
along those inflated prices to customers.  The suit states that
the company demanded kickbacks from companies from which it
purchased the food at inflated prices.

In addition to the hospital, the suit also lists Cason Inc., an
Illinois-based company that runs an Italian restaurant and Erick
M. Sandler as a plaintiff.  

The suit accuses U.S. Foodservice of breach of contract and
racketeering, but it does not seek a specific amount of damages.

In December, plaintiffs filed an amended class action detailing
a scheme in which the distributor is alleged to have marked up
the price of goods through the use of "value-added service
providers (VASPs)" (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).

According to a lawsuit testimony, the VASPs simply served to
mark up the cost of goods upon which U.S. Foodservice based its
pricing to its customers.

According to Ahold's defense document, USF was never required to
charge customers on the basis of "actual costs", as the
plaintiffs suggested, and that Ahold had made public in official
filings "the existence and pricing mechanisms used with respect
to the VASPS".

It said there were no contracts between the plaintiffs and USF
in the manner suggested by the class-action suit, and the
claimants had failed to produce evidence of contracts, records,
invoices or conversations to support claims of fraud or
racketeering.

The suit is "Waterbury Hospital et al. v. US Food Svc Inc., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01657-CFD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.

Representing the plaintiffs is James E. Hartley, Jr. of Drubner,
Hartley & O'Connor, L.L.C., 500 Chase Pkwy, Waterbury, CT 06708,
Phone: 203-753-9291, Fax: 203-753-6373, E-mail:
diane@dholaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael P. Shea of Day, Berry &
Howard-Htfd-CT, Cityplace I, 185 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103-
3499, Phone: 860-275-0146, Fax: 860-275-0343, E-mail:
mpshea@dbh.com.


WILLBROS GROUP: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for $10.5M Stock Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. for the
proposed $10.5 million settlement in the matter, "In Re Willbros
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-1778."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk
Avenue, Houston, Texas.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Willbros Group, securities between May 6,
2002 and May 16, 2005.

Deadline for filing objection or exclusion to and from the
settlement is on Feb. 1, 2007.  Claim forms must be submitted by
Feb. 28, 2007.

                         Case Background

On May 18, 2005 a securities class action, "Legion Partners, LLP
v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against the company and
certain of its present and former officers and directors.

Thereafter, three nearly identical lawsuits were filed.  
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class composed of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Willbros Group, Inc. common
stock and/or other securities between May 6, 2002 and May 16,
2005, inclusive.

These complaints generally allege violations by the defendants
of Section 10(b) of U.S. the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and allege,
among other things, that defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact about the company's financial
statements.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On Oct. 17, 2005, the court ordered these actions consolidated
and appointed ADAR Investments, LLC as lead plaintiff and
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz of New York as lead plaintiff's
counsel.  As ordered by the court, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 9, 2006.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Re Willbros
Group and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, including Michael Curran, Warren Williams, and J.
Kenneth Tillery, violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 through a series of false and misleading statements and a
"scheme to defraud."

The alleged misrepresentations and scheme to defraud relate to
the activities of Mr. Tillery in Nigeria and Bolivia, certain
alleged accounting errors, the restatement of past financial
results, and alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Re Willbros Group common stock during the
purported class period.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The
         Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, PO Box
         9000 #6476, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1(866) 533-
         0151, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;and     

     (2) Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard &
         Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY  
         10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Web site:
         http://www.bernlieb.com.


WILLIS GROUP: Suit Filed in Massachusetts State Court Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a suit filed against Willis Group Holdings Ltd.
in Massachusetts state court has voluntarily dismissed its
complaint with prejudice.  

Since August 2004, various plaintiffs have filed purported class
actions in:

     * the U.S. District Court for the Southern
       District of New York;
     * the Northern District of Illinois;
     * the Northern District of California;
     * the New Jersey District court, and
     * the Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial Circuit in and
       for Seminole County, Florida Civil Division,

under a variety of legal theories, including state tort,
contract, fiduciary duty and statutory theories, and federal
antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Acttheories.

Other than a federal suit in Illinois that was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in May 2005, all of the federal
actions have been consolidated into two actions in federal court
in New Jersey.

One of the consolidated actions addresses employee benefits,
while the other consolidated action addresses all other lines of
insurance.  In addition to the two federal actions, the company
was also named as a defendant in purported class actions in the
18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida Civil
Division and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court
Department of the Trial Court.

In June 2006, the plaintiff in the Massachusetts state action
voluntarily dismissed its complaint with prejudice.  Both the
consolidated federal actions and the Florida state action name
various insurance carriers and insurance brokerage firms,
including the company, as defendants.

The complaints seek monetary damages and equitable relief and
make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that has
been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general
and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the
brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering
into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and entered into
other improper activities.

The complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
the insurance carriers and brokers and the federal court
complaints allege violations of the federal RICO statute.  


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Jars of Tapenade Containing Glass Shards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is voluntarily recalling 6,000 jars of a
32,000-jar lot of its 365 Everyday Value Kalamata Olive Tapenade
because the product may contain glass fragments, which may cause
injury if ingested.

The code for the product is found on the top of the lid and the
number is: B.B. 14/09/2009 L 257/06 with time stamps ranging
from 14:00 through 16:00.  Jars with time stamps within this
range should be discarded and not consumed.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to Whole Foods
Market stores.  It comes in an 8.12-ounce jar with a purple and
brown label.  The barcode number (UPC) for the product is
0009948241757.  The decision for the recall came after the
company received two reports in Texas of glass being found in
the product.

Customers can return the affected product to their local store
for a full refund.

Any questions or concerns may be directed to Whole Foods Market,
Phone: 512/542-0656, E-mail:
PrivateLabel.CustomerService@WholeFoods.com.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: KGS Files Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Southern
Division, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Powerwave Technologies,
Inc. between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006.

Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Powerwave materially misrepresented
and failed to disclose numerous conditions that adversely
affected the company, permitting defendants to:

     (1) deceive shareholders concerning the business,
         operations, management and the intrinsic value of
         Powerwave common stock;

     (2) artificially inflate the price of the company's shares,
         ultimately purchased by misled shareholders;

     (3) register for sale with the SEC millions of shares of
         stock that were sold to the public or used to acquire
         assets of other unwitting companies;

     (4) make it possible for company insiders to sell millions
         of dollars of their privately held shares while in
         possession of material adverse non-public information.

On Oct. 9, 2006, investors learned that Powerwave's 2006 third
quarter results would be only $155 million, significantly lower
than the $230-$250 million previously forecast.

This sudden and shocking disclosure, in the face of repeated
company reports of "record" setting growth and profitability,
had an immediate impact on the price of Powerwave stock, which
declined almost 20% in the single trading day -- marking a
decline of almost $10 per share from the Class Period high
reached only several months earlier.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
Feb. 1, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn
Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 106 (Toll
Free), E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website:
http://www.kgscounsel.com.


                            *********


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  * * *