CAR_Public/070207.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 27

                            Headlines


AMERIGROUP CORP: $5M Stock Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
ARIZONA: City to Pay ASRS Case Fees While Suit is Under Appeal
ARK #1: Plaintiffs Among Unsecured Creditors in Bankruptcy Case
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Farmers File New Suit Over Rice Contamination
CANADA: Egg Marketing Board Has Jurisdiction Over Organic Eggs

CANADA: CA$17.3M Payout in Vitamin Price Fixing Suit Allocated
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Securities Suit Dismissal on Appeal
DIGITAL INSIGHT: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Securities Suit
DRAM LITIGATION: Samsung Settles Bid-Rigging Lawsuit for $90M
ELI LILLY: Rights Group Seeks Access to Sealed Company Documents

ENRON CORP: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for N.Y. ERISA Suit Settlements
FIRST HORIZON: Court Reverses Class Certification in "McKenna"
GENZYME CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Class, Sub-Class in "Riggs"
LOUISIANA: District School Faces Suit Over Student Wait-Listing
LOUISIANA: Judge Allows Residents to Sue Army Corps of Engineers

MONTANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Personal Property Clampdown
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Workers Plan Suit Against Troubled Home Lender
MUSICLAND HOLDING: Store Managers' Certification Motion Opposed
NEW MEXICO: Judge Denies Claims in Suit Over Red Light Cameras
OWENS CORNING: Del. Bankruptcy Court Okays MiraVista Suit Deal

PARMALAT SPA: Permanent Injunction Hearing Moved to Feb. 27
PHILIP SERVICES: March 19 Hearing Set for $79M Stock Suit Deal
PNC FINANCIAL: April 12 Hearing Set for $9.075M E&Y Settlement
QFL INC: Recalls Major Egg Product Over Undeclared Dairy Content
RETAILERS: Face Lawsuits Over Alleged Credit Card Law Violation

ROYAL INT'L: Recalls Atlantic Herring on Possible Contamination
SEASHORE RESORTS: Fla. Suit Planned Over House Building Deals
SOUTH CAROLINA: Towns Face Lawsuit Over Tax Classifications
SRAM MANUFACTURERS: Face SRAM Price-Fixing Lawsuit in Maine
TELSTRA: Opposes Plaintiffs' Move to Contact Possible Claimants

TITAN CORP: Court Junks Claims in Iraq Prison Mistreatment Suit
UNILEVER: Recalls Bouillon Cubes for Undeclared Fish Content
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Court Affirms Certified "Dukes" Class
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ga.
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ken.

WINSTAR COMMS: March 19 Hearing Set for $18.125M Stock Suit Deal


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Okla.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit
QUANTA HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
TOP TANKERS: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Feb. 9


                            *********


AMERIGROUP CORP: $5M Stock Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Coke Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia approved a $5 million settlement of
the class action "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
Amerigroup Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," The
Virginian-Pilot reports.

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

The judge agreed with an analysis by plaintiffs' attorneys that
they probably lacked sufficient evidence to win a securities-
fraud suit against Amerigroup.

The settlement provides a $5 million pool for distribution among
shareholders who lost money on Amerigroup shares bought between
mid-February and late September 2005.  The settlement also calls
for the immediate dismissal of all claims against the company
and other defendants in the suit.

The court also approved the attorneys' request for $500,000 in
reimbursement of their litigation expenses, which is 10 percent
of the settlement.  The attorneys said their work on the case
amounted to $6.7 million in legal fees but didn't ask for
coverage of fees.

Judge Morgan, however, had not yet decided on an Amerigroup
motion seeking a summary judgment.

Andrew J. Entwistle, attorney for the Illinois investment board,
told the court that a claims administrator has mailed more than
33,000 claims packets, but that no objections have yet been
filed against the settlement and that no members sought to be
excluded from participating.

                         Case Background

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

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

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

On Dec. 2006, Amerigroup Corp. reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the class action where, the company's insurance
carrier to end all claims against the company will create a
settlement fund of $5,000,000.  In addition, all claims asserted
against the individuals named in the lawsuit will be immediately
dismissed (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2006).

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500   
         World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446-  
         8600;  

     (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento,   
         PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA   
         23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000; and  

     (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580   
         E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757)   
         625-6787.  

Representing the defendants are:   

     (i) Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman & Canoles, PC, 150 W.   
         Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone:   
         (757) 624-3000; and   

    (ii) Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,  
         LLP & Affiliates, Four Times Square, New York, NY   
         10036, Phone: (212) 735-2628, Fax: (917) 777-2628, E-  
         mail: jkasner@skadden.com.


ARIZONA: City to Pay ASRS Case Fees While Suit is Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Scottsdale City Council is expected to finish paying off
legal fees for a class action related to the old Arizona State
Retirement System (ASRS), The Arizona Republic reports.

The suit stemmed from a 1980 state law that required all members
of the old ASRS to transfer to the state's current retirement
system.  The city was one of 34 agencies and municipalities
involved in the case.

The city paid $613,264 to the retirement system in 2000 for its
portion of a 1999 settlement of the case.

However, even as the appeals process drags on, plaintiff's legal
fees are still pending, and interest is accruing daily.

Officials though have recommended that the city pays its $89,970
share of that bill and seek repayment later if the appeals are
successful.


ARK #1: Plaintiffs Among Unsecured Creditors in Bankruptcy Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 20 largest unsecured creditors of Ark #1, LLC, which filed a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. District of Nevada
(Reno) on Jan. 23, 2007, include class action plaintiffs.

Debtor's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

   Entity                     Nature of Claim       Claim Amount
   ------                     ---------------       ------------
Counsel of Co-owners          Co-owner dues           $2,201,472
Lakeshore Resort & Yacht Club
c/o Stephen B. Niswanger, Esq.
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72211

Frederick L. Ludden &         Class action               $31,625
Patricia A. Ludden            plaintiff
c/o Jay Bequette, Esq.
Bequette & Billingsley, P.A.
425 West Capitol Ave., #3200
Little Rock, AR 72201-3556

Jacob J. Schreuder &          Class action               $30,895
Cornelia A. Schreuder         plaintiff
c/o Jay Bequette, Esq.
Bequette & Billingsley, P.A.
425 West Capitol Ave., #3200
Little Rock, AR 72201-3590

Stanley M. Compton &          Class action               $30,171
Carla G. Compton              plaintiff
c/o Jay Bequette, Esq.
Bequette & Billingsley, P.A.
425 West Capitol Ave., #3200
Little Rock, AR 72201-3493

Friedman, Gerald L. & A.C.    Class action               $28,859
                              plaintiff

Michael W. Barker &           Class action               $28,799
Sharon K. Barker              plaintiff

Kennith Buchanan &            Class action               $28,846
Mary Alice Buchanan           plaintiff

Larry Wallace &               Class action               $28,019
Maria Wallace                 plaintiff

Jon Tappan                    Class action               $27,968
                              plaintiff

Booby Joe Wade &              Class action               $27,931
Mary Jo Wade                  plaintiff

Daniel W. Hawkins, Jr. &      Class action               $27,874
Glenda W. Hawkins             plaintiff

Walter R. Oglesby, M.D. &     Class action               $27,544
Kelley Kyte Oglesby           plaintiff

Robert J. Pennington &        Class action               $26,405
Virginia M. Pennington        plaintiff

Robert A. Bahr &              Class action               $26,348
Deborah A. Bahr               plaintiff

W. John Gammage &             Class action               $26,345
Jan V. Gammage                plaintiff

B.R. (Pete) Kennemer &        Class action               $26,286
Mary E. Kennemer              plaintiff

Gary L. Howe &                Class action               $26,252
Sylvia B. Howe                plaintiff

John M. Gathings &            Class action               $25,825
Wanda G. Gathings             plaintiff

Eddie J. Nicholson Jr. &      Class action               $25,750
Sharon H. Nicholson           plaintiff

James C. Henry &              Class action               $25,486
Catherine W. Henry            plaintiff

The company is based in 5440 Morehouse Drive, #4000 San Diego,
California 92121.  Its bankruptcy case is numbered 07-50058.  
(Troubled Company Reporter Vol. 11, No. 24; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
240/629-3300).


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Farmers File New Suit Over Rice Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer CropScience is named defendant in a new lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by
Michael B. Capps and Holla L. Capps of Prairie County, Today's
THV reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Bayer CropScience A.G., a subsidiary of Bayer A.G.; and
     -- Aventis CropScience USA Inc., also a Bayer subsidiary.

The suit, similar to suits filed previously in Arkansas and
several other states, is seeking class-action status against
Bayer for negligently contaminating the U.S. long-grain rice
supply with genetically engineered rice that is not approved for
human consumption.

In January 2006, Bayer's illegal GE LL601 rice was detected in
rice intended for export from the U.S.  This variety has not
been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world.  It
has only been grown in field trials that ended in 2001, and yet
in September 2006, a testing commissioned by Greenpeace and then
by various European government agencies showed a broad variety
of products on supermarket shelves in Europe had been
contaminated by Bayer's illegal GE rice (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 10, 2006).

In July, Bayer confirmed the presence of its herbicide-resistant
trait and reported its findings to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2006).

The USDA began its investigation, thereafter.

Lawsuits follow after USDA's August announcement that
genetically modified rice, developed and tested by Bayer, had
been found in samples taken from commercial long grain rice
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2006).

In December, a federal panel consolidated more than a dozen
lawsuits involving genetically contaminated rice, creating a
single legal action.

Aside from Arkansas, lawsuits have also been filed on behalf of
rice farmers in Missouri and Louisiana (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 29, 2006).

The current suit is "Capps et al. v. Bayer CropScience U.S. et
al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00069-GH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge George
Howard, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard Lee Quintus and Michael L. Roberts, both of
         Roberts Law Firm, P.A., Post Office Box 241790 Little
         Rock, AR 72223-1790, Phone: (501) 821-5575, E-mail:
         rlquintus@yahoo.com or robertslawfirm@aristotle.net;

     (2) Daniel E. Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 608 2nd
         Avenue South, Suite 650, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
         612-333-8844; and

     (3) Dianne M. Nast of Roda & Nast, P.C., 801 Estelle Drive,
         Lancaster, PA 17601, Phone: 717-892-3000, Fax: 717-892-
         1200.


CANADA: Egg Marketing Board Has Jurisdiction Over Organic Eggs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madame Justice Heather Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled
against organic egg producers in a class action over whether the
province's egg marketing board abused its public office and
harmed the economic interests of organic egg producers, the
Globe and Mail reports.

The judge ruled that although the egg board had conducted some
improper activities, that conduct did not result in an abuse of
public office, which the organic producers had claimed.

An Abbotsford organic egg producer initiated the suit, seeking
to remove organic egg producers from the domain of the marketing
board, arguing the egg board had no jurisdiction over organic
eggs.

Alfred Reid claimed that the marketing board had no jurisdiction
to impose regulations and quotas against them.

He further alleged that from the beginning of organic egg
production in B.C. in the late 1990s, the egg board maintained
that organic egg producers must conform to a regulatory scheme
designed for non-organic production.

The organic producers alleged that while the provincial
government encouraged the egg board to accommodate organic
production, the marketing board instead abused its powers in
order to damage the reputation of certain organic egg producers.

"The allegation that the egg board made false or misleading
statements about organic producers, particularly Mr. Reid, and
organic production is well supported by the evidence," the
justice wrote in a ruling released late last week.

In her ruling, Judge Holmes wrote that the elements required to
find that the board abused its public role and intentionally
interfered with the organic producers' economic interests had
not been proved.


CANADA: CA$17.3M Payout in Vitamin Price Fixing Suit Allocated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nine Canadian universities and veterinary colleges involved in
vitamins and food education and research are sharing a CA$17.3
million payout as part of the pan-Canadian class action
settlement, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports.

The windfall is part of a CA$132 million settlement of a lawsuit
against vitamin manufacturers over a purported price fixing.

In 1999, Hoffmann-Laroche, BASF, Rhone-Poulenc and Lonza were
found guilty of hiking the price of vitamins and various
products including milk, cereals, shampoo and creams.

The suit was brought on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect
purchasers and consumers of vitamins and vitamin products.

Hoffmann-Laroche and BASF paid a combined CA$725 million to
settle the charges laid by the U.S. Department of Justice
related to the worldwide price-fixing scam.

In 2005, four of the world's leading vitamin manufacturers
settled a CA$130 million lawsuit by Quebec consumers group over
vitamin price-fixing (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2005).

The money from the settlement was divided between local non-
profit organizations and companies that bought the vitamins for
their products.

The head of federal agency at the time described the case as
"the most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy
ever uncovered."

In 2006, the law firms of Sutts Strosberg LLP (Windsor,
Ontario), Siskinds (London, Ontario) and Camp Fiorante Matthews
(Vancouver, British Columbia) announced that an additional CA$20
million will be disbursed to universities and other
organizations involved in vitamins and food education and
research as part of a pan-Canadian class action settlement
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).

As the settlement amount cannot be economically distributed to
individual consumers or farmers across Canada who purchased
vitamins between 1986 and 1999 in light of their sheer numbers
and the likely small dollar amount per claim, the courts
approved the distribution of monies to:

University of British Columbia        CA$3,458,837.66

University of Alberta                 CA$2,536,480.95

University of Manitoba                CA$922,356.71

University of Saskatchewan,
Western College of Veterinary
Medicine                              CA$768,630.59

University of Toronto                 CA$2,435,265.24

University of Guelph                  CA$2,435,265.24

University of Guelph,
Ontario Veterinary College            CA$2,435,265.24

Ontario Agri-Food Education           CA$2,435,265.24

Dalhousie University                  CA$963,959.16

Memorial University                   CA$ 963,959.16

The universities, all with doctoral programs in nutrition or
food science, are considered proxies for individual consumers
because, the court ruled, it would be impractical to compensate
individuals for purchases of vitamins.

The institutions must use the money for food and nutrition
research and education.


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Securities Suit Dismissal on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., which was acquired by Dot Hill
Systems Corp., has yet to report that the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California has ruled on an appeal
against a dismissal of a purported securities class action filed
against the company.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal
securities laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during
a defined period prior to Dot Hill's acquisition of the company.   
In May 2005, the second amended complaint was dismissed with
leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which the court
again dismissed with leave to amend in November 2005 as to the
company and certain other defendants.  Plaintiffs declined to
amend within the proscribed period, and final judgment was
entered in February 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a notice appeal in the U.S. District Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, though they have not filed their
opening papers.

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 Robert T. Harvey Securities Litigation, 8:04-
cv-00876-DOC-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Brian Barry, Jill Levine Betts of Brian Barry Law
         Offices, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-0831, E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com or jilllevine1@yahoo.com;

     (2) Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Jim T. Tice, Catanzarite Law
         Offices, 2331 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim, CA 92801, Phone:
         714-520-5544, E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or
         jtice@catanzarite.com;

     (3) Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm, 350 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jtice@catanzarite.com  

Representing the company is Eric H. Macmichael and Meghan Oryan
Spieker of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA
92121, Phone: 858-550-6000, E-mail: mspieker@cooley.com.


DIGITAL INSIGHT: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Insight Corp. is awaiting final court approval of the
settlement in a securities fraud class action filed against it
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
over its initial public offering.

On Dec. 6, 2001, the company and two of its former officers and
directors and one current director were named as defendants in a
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The lawsuit is "In Re Digital Insight
Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV
11231."

The claims, which were also asserted against the managing
underwriters of the company's previous public offerings, are
based on allegations that the underwriter defendants solicited
and received from certain investors, in exchange for allocating
Digital Insight shares to the investors in connection with the
previous public offerings, additional, excessive and undisclosed
commissions and undisclosed commitments to purchase additional
Digital Insight shares in the aftermarket.

Other actions have been filed in New York making similar
allegations regarding the public offerings of more than 300
other companies.  Along with these companies and the individual
defendants, but not the underwriter defendants, the company has
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to
settle the claims.  

As part of the settlement, once the settlement documents become
effective, the plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice the
settling companies and individual defendants.  On Aug. 31, 2005,
the court issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement.  In April 2006, the court held a fairness hearing
for final approval of the proposed settlement and listened to
arguments from counsel.

The company is awaiting the court's final ruling on the
settlement proposal.


DRAM LITIGATION: Samsung Settles Bid-Rigging Lawsuit for $90M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics Co. agreed to pay $90 million to settle a
lawsuit over global conspiracy to fix Dynamic Random Access
Memory prices, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a
WOOD TV 8 Grand Rapids report.

According to Mr. Cuomo, about $80 million of the settlement will
go to consumers nationwide while $10 million will cover losses
suffered by states and local governments.

The settlement, which also includes numerous private class
actions, is subject to approval in federal court in San
Francisco.

In June 2006, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California certified a class
action filed against manufacturers of DRAM.  The suit claims
that several computer memory manufacturers illegally conspired
to fix the price of computer memory.

The suit was filed in 2002 by 11 technology companies against
defendants:

     -- Micron Technology, Inc.,
     -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
     -- Crucial Technology, Inc.,
     -- Infineon Technologies AG,
     -- Infineon Technologies North America Corp.,
     -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
     -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
     -- Mosel Vitelic Corporation,
     -- Mosel Vitelic Corporation (USA),
     -- Nanya Technology Corporation,
     -- Nanya Technology Corporation USA,
     -- Winbond Electronics Corporation,
     -- Winbond Electronics Corporation America,
     -- Elpida Memory, Inc.,
     -- Elpida Memory (USA), Inc.,
     -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.  

The defendants in the case controlled a vast majority of DRAM
production at the time of filing, an industry with revenue
estimated at $20 billion.

According to the complaint, beginning in 1999 the price for DRAM
began falling dramatically, dipping below the cost of
production.  Then, in September 2001, DRAM prices spiked and by
February 2002 reached as high as $4.50, the complaint states.
In mid-2002, media reports cited statements by DRAM manufacturer
Mosel Vitelic's vice president Thomas Chang that the company
held price-fixing meetings with other manufacturers where they
agreed to reduce production to boost prices.

The original lawsuit claims antitrust violations under The
Sherman Act.  The cases were consolidated and moved to U.S.
District Court in San Francisco.
  
The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction to
end the price-fixing activities, and award the plaintiffs and
members of the class damages, which are trebled under antitrust
laws.

The certified class includes anyone who purchased DRAM directly
from the defendants between April 1, 1999 and June 22, 2002.

On Oct. 2006, the Department of Justice announced that a federal
grand jury in San Francisco returned an indictment against two
executives from Samsung Electronics Ltd. and one executive from
Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. for their participation in a
global conspiracy to fix DRAM prices (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 23, 2006).

The indictment, filed in the U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, charged that Il Ung Kim, Young Bae Rha and Gary
Swanson participated with co-conspirators in the conspiracy from
on or about April 1, 2001, until on or about June 15, 2002.

In December, Young Hwan Park -- president of Samsung
Semiconductor Inc., the company's San Jose-based U.S. subsidiary
-- agreed to plead guilty and serve 10 months in prison for his
role in the global price-fixing scheme.  

Mr. Cuomo said the case is continuing against Infineon, Elpida
and Hynix as well as Micron Technology Inc., Mosel-Vitelic
Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. and NEC Electronics America Inc.

DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product,
providing high-speed storage and retrieval of electronic
information for a wide variety of computer, telecommunication
and consumer electronic products.  DRAM is used in personal
computers, laptops, workstations, servers, printers, hard disk
drives, personal digital assistants, modems, mobile phones,
telecommunication hubs and routers, digital cameras, video
recorders and TVs, digital set-top boxes, game consoles and
digital music players.  There were approximately $7.7 billion in
DRAM sales in the U.S. alone in 2004.

The class suit is "In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. M:02-cv-01486-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Spero.


ELI LILLY: Rights Group Seeks Access to Sealed Company Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance for Human Research Protection filed a brief with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of New
York seeking to unseal documents kept secret by a court order in
class actions against drug manufacturer Eli Lilly & Co., Susan
Palmer of The Register-Guard reports.

The documents apparently suggest the pharmaceutical company knew
that its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa had serious health side
effects and tried to conceal the extent of the problems from
doctors and patients.

They also appear to indicate that the company improperly
marketed the drug for uses the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
had not approved.

The rights group, the second to have filed such a brief with the
court, argued that dissemination of the information the
documents contain is of critical interest to the public.

Previously, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit
agency protecting Internet free-speech rights, was the first to
file such a brief.  It is claiming that the court had no power
to restrict material already widely available on the Internet.

The New York Times first published stories in December revealing
contents of the documents, which were obtained from an Alaskan
lawyer who had subpoenaed for them.  

The information contained in the documents, which were leaked by
the attorney to the newspaper and to mental health activists,
was originally compiled and given to plaintiffs' attorneys in
class actions that were eventually settled out of court.

The documents were posted online until Eli Lilly complained, and
Judge Jack Weinstein ordered them taken down, and the links to
them removed in a temporary injunction.  The judge is expected
to rule soon on whether to make the injunction permanent or not.

Though all of the official links appear to have been severed,
anyone with enough disk space and capable of downloading could
still access them.


ENRON CORP: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for N.Y. ERISA Suit Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 23, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the
partial settlements reached in the class action, "In re Enron
Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. 01-3913."

The settlement affects these classes:

      -- Enron Savings Plan Class - The Enron Corp. Savings
         Plan, and all participants and beneficiaries who held
         beneficial interest in Enron stock purchased or held by
         the Savings Pan during the period Jan. 20 1998 through
         Dec. 2, 2001.

      -- ESOP Class - The Enron Corp. Employee Stock Ownership
         Plan (ESOP) and all participants and beneficiaries who
         held interest in Enron stock held by ESOP who are or
         were beneficiaries of the ESOP during the period from
         Jan. 20 1998 through Dec. 2, 2001.

The settlements settle a purported class action brought by
plaintiffs on behalf of The Enron Corp. Savings Plan, and ESOP
against Enron, others for breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  

They will provide amounts up to $12 million and $2.5 million to
the classes, and will settle claims against of Jeffrey K.
Skilling, and the Estate of Kenneth L. lay.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Lynn Lincoln Sarko and Britt L. Tinglum of Keller
         Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
         Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 206-224-7552 and 206-
         224-7572, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com and
         btinglum@kellerrohrback.com, Web site:
         http://www.kellerrohrback.com;

     (2) Steve W. Berman and Clyde A. Platt of Hagens Berman
         Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
         Seattle, Washington 98101, (King Co.), Phone: 206-623-
         7292, (206) 268-9324 and (206) 268-9320, Fax: 206-623-
         0594, Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com;and  

     (3) In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Independent
         Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91116, Seattle, WA
         98111-9216, Phone: 1-866-560-4043, Web sites:
         http://www.enronerisa.comand  
         http://www.erisafraud.com.


FIRST HORIZON: Court Reverses Class Certification in "McKenna"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit reversed the class
certification of a federal case involving homeowners in
Massachusetts and First Horizon Home Loan Corp., The Courthouse
News Service reports.

In March 2004, the plaintiffs, Ralph G. McKenna, Glenroy and
Ilene Deane, and Christopher and Laurie Lillie, all
Massachusetts homeowners, filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that the First
Horizon Home had violated both the federal Truth in Lending Act
(TILA) its local counterpart, the Massachusetts Consumer Credit
Cost Disclosure Act (MCCCDA) in the course of various
Massachusetts home-refinancing transactions.

Plaintiffs contended that First Horizon had inaccurately
disclosed information pertaining to consumers' statutory
rescission rights and, subsequently, had failed to respond
appropriately to requests for the rescission of residential
refinancings.

They specifically claim that First Horizon failed to tell them
about their right to rescind their mortgages during a three-day
cooling-off period.  

If the grace period is not properly disclosed, that rescission
period is extended for up to three years under both TILA and
MCCDA.  

Plaintiffs claim that these violations of TILA and the MCCCDA
entitled them to rescission of their loans and statutory
damages.

In the course of the case, certain of the plaintiffs (McKenna
and Laurie Lillie) moved for class certification, which First
Horizon opposed.  

The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge,
who after some legal wrangling over the definition of the class,
recommended, in a clarifying report, that a class be certified
as follows:



"All natural persons who obtained non-purchase money loans from
First Horizon . . . on or after April 1, 2003 and who received a
Notice of Right to Cancel in [a described] form ... where:

      -- the loans were secured by the borrower's Massachusetts
         residence;

      -- the loan was for purposes other than the initial
         construction or acquisition of the residence; and

      -- all or part of the loan proceeds were used to refinance
         a loan made by someone other than First Horizon..."

The company objected to class certification and thus sought
interlocutory review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st
Circuit.

The 1st Circuit, deciding whether class certification is
available for rescission claims, held that Congress did not
intend to "open the door for vast recoveries" because it had
capped the liability to $500,000 for class actions for damages.

The court basically concluded that "given the unavailability of
class-action treatment for rescission claims (including
declaratory rescission claims) under the TILA and, thus, under
the MCCCDA, we reverse the district court's class certification
decision, vacate its class certification order, and remand the
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The suit is "McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., Case No.
1:04-cv-10370-RCL," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs is Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman,
Combs & Latturner, 120 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: 312-739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail:
courtecl@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendants is U. Gwyn Williams of Goodwin
Procter, LLP, Exchange Place, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-
1158, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: gwilliams@goodwinprocter.com.


GENZYME CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Class, Sub-Class in "Riggs"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued orders certifying a class and a sub-class in the
purported class action, "Riggs, et al. v. Termeer, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-04014-LLS."

In an order issued on Sept. 6, 2006, the court certified a class
comprised of all persons or entities who held shares of the
Genzyme Corp. Biosurgery Division common stock (GZBX) on May
8,2003 immediately before the announcement by Genzyme Corp. that
it would exchange all GZBX stock for Genzyme General Division
common stock (GENZ) common stock on June 30, 2003 (Exchange);
and exchanged GZBX stock for GENZ stock in the Exchange.

Later in an order issued on Oct. 2, 2006, the court certified a
sub-class that includes all persons or entities that held shares
of the Genzyme Corp. Biosurgery Division common stock
(Biosurgery stock) on May 8,2003 immediately before the
announcement by Genzyme Corp. that it would exchange all
Biosurgery stock for Genzyme General Division common stock
(GENZ) common stock on June 30, 2003 (Exchange); and opted out
of the Exchange by selling their Biosurgery stock on the open
market.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed by former shareholders of Genzyme Corp.'s
Biosurgery Division.

In the 1990s, Genzyme set up tracking stocks for its Genzyme
Biosurgery and Genzyme Molecular Oncology divisions.  Tracking
stocks are securities created to reflect the performance of a
division within a larger company, and may be folded back into
the parent company according to a predetermined procedure.

In May 2000, chief executive Henri Termeer and Genzyme said they
exercised the right to fold back the shares and set the terms
for the exchange based on the average closing price of the
divisions' and parent company's shares from March 26 through
April 23, 2003.  That gave shareholders about 1/20th of a share
of Genzyme for each share of the Biosurgery division.

Subsequently, shareholders of the biosurgery division accused
the company of intentionally manipulating the price of
Biosurgery shares so it could trade them for Genzyme shares at
an advantageous rate.  

Shareholders also claim several failures of the company to
disclose important transactions, including a planned sale of a
cardiothoracic device business; as well as significant
developments about the division's arthritis drug, Synvisc,
positive news about recent Synvisc sales, and buyout interests
for it.

The suit is "Riggs, et al. v. Termeer, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
04014-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Frank C. Moore, III and Philippe Z. Selendy both of
         Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570 Lexington Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 446-2383 or (212) 446-
         2300, Fax: (212) 446-2350, E-mail: fmoore@bsfllp.com;
         and

     (2) Vineet Bhatia of Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone:
         (713) 651-9366.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William I. Sussman of Ropes & Gray, LLP (Rockefeller),
         45 Rockefeller Centre, New York, NY 10111, Phone: (212)
         8415700, Fax: (212) 841-5725, E-mail:
         wsussman@ropesgray.com; and

    (ii) John D. Donovan, Jr. of Ropes & Gray LLP (Boston, MA),
         One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: (617)
         951-7000, Fax: (617) 951-7050, E-mail:
         jdonovan@ropesgray.com.


LOUISIANA: District School Faces Suit Over Student Wait-Listing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery School District, the only open-enrollment public school
system operating in New Orleans, is facing a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The suit is brought on behalf of all parents and children of
school age eligible for enrollment in schools operated by the
Recovery School District (RSD), Orleans Parish School Board
(OPSB), or schools that have been granted charters by RSD, OPSB,
or Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, who have been or
will be wait-listed or otherwise denied educational services in
Orleans Parish.

Named defendants include:

     -- Cecil Picard, superintendent of the Louisiana Department
        of Education;

     -- Robin Jarvis, superintendent of the Recovery School
        District;

     -- the Recovery School District;

     -- Phyllis Landrieu, president of the Orleans Parish School
        Board;

     -- Orleans Parish School Board; and

     -- Linda Johnson, President of the Louisiana Board of
        Elementary and Secondary Education.

The complaint alleges that the public school system has refused
to admit students seeking to enroll in public schools, denying
them any and all educational services, and placing students
seeking to enroll on a "wait list."

The complaint further alleges that by Jan. 24, the school
district has placed more than 300 children on a "wait list",
refused enrollment, and denied any and educational services at
public schools in Orleans Parish.

Superintendent Robin Jarvis justified that "There is no law that
addresses wait-listing students."

But the suit contends that quite the contrary, the consistent
pattern and practice of denying any and all educational services
to students eligible for public schooling is a clear violation
of federal and state laws.

On Jan. 30, plaintiff's counsel sent a "demand letter" to
defendants requesting that they immediately and publicly commit
to:

     (i) immediately enroll, or make adequate provisions
         (specified in writing) for students who have been
         placed on the wait list or have been refused enrollment
         to receive educational services commencing at the start
         of the second semester of the current school year; and

    (ii) certify in writing that all additional students
         eligible for public education in Orleans Parish and who
         may hereafter seek to enroll in Orleans Parish will not
         be placed on a wait list, refused enrollment or denied
         educational services.

Plaintiffs claim that in response to media attention, Ms. Jarvis
agreed to admit all wait-listed students, but gave no promise to
admit the hundreds or thousands of students who will return to
the hurricane-ravaged city in the months to come.

Plaintiffs pray for the court to:

     (1) issue a judgment declaring that children may not be
         refused enrollment, denied any and all educational
         services, and/or placed on wait lists for public
         schools, under applicable Louisiana laws, and under
         federal and state constitutional provisions; and that
         children who qualify as homeless must be immediately
         enrolled in school and may not be denied any and all
         educational services and/or placed on wait lists for
         public schools;

     (2) for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
         ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution,
         Louisiana state constitution and applicable federal and
         Louisiana state laws;

     (3) issue an order requiring the preparation of a plan,
         with court approval and consideration of any objections
         by plaintiffs, to avoid the refusal of enrollment,
         placement on wait lists and the denial of any and all
         educational services whose families may relocate to
         Orleans Parish;

     (4) for costs of suit and attorneys' fees; and

     (5) for such other and further relief as the court may deem
         just, proper and appropriate.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1978

The suit is "Boisseau et al. v. Picard et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00565-MVL-ALC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon, with
referral to Judge Alma L. Chasez.

Representing plaintiffs are Ike Spears of Spears & Spears, 1631
Elysian Fields Ave., New Orleans, LA 70117, Phone: 504-593-9500;
and Pedro F. Galeas of Pedro F. Galeas, LLC, 3632 Canal St., New
Orleans, LA 70119, Phone: 504-914-6973.


LOUISIANA: Judge Allows Residents to Sue Army Corps of Engineers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge in Louisiana declined to dismiss a purported class
action filed against the Army Corps of Engineers over Hurricane
Katrina-related claims in relation to the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet, The WDSU.com reports.

The Army Corps has argued ever since that they were immune from
claims that the MRGO caused catastrophic damage to thousands of
homes.  But the judge said that immunity did not apply to the
Army Corps in this instance.

According to attorney Joe Bruno, the construction of MRGO caused
saltwater infusion, which killed marsh, which killed trees,
which promoted water surge.

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


MONTANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Personal Property Clampdown
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eighty-nine Montana State Prison inmates filed a purported class
action over changes in policies governing the amount and variety
of personal property that prisoners are allowed to keep under
Montana's prison system, The Missoula Independent reports.

Inmate John Middlemiss filed the pro se class action, arguing
that the policy changes violate inmates' constitutional rights.

However, the Department of Corrections has sought denial of such
claims, contending that the changes, which have been brewing for
nearly three years, are necessary and justified.

According to state Warden Mike Mahoney, the changes aim to
standardize inmate rules at the state's six secure facilities:

      -- Montana State Prison,
      -- Montana Women's Prison,
      -- a regional prison in Missoula,
      -- a regional prison in Great Falls,
      -- a regional prison in Glendive, and
      -- Shelby's private prison

Under the new policy, personal towels, typewriters, musical
instruments, hotpots and recreational equipment like baseball
gloves will be declared contraband inside inmates cells by Feb.
1, and replaced by institutional equivalents inmates can check
out.  

Inmate TVs, which some facilities banned and others permitted at
a 13-inch size, will now be allowed only at a 7-inch size, but
existing TVs will be "grandfathered" in until 2008.

Mr. Mahoney said that the changes are necessary both to create
equity among the prisons and to enhance safety by making it
easier to track and inspect inmate property.  


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Workers Plan Suit Against Troubled Home Lender
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage Lenders Network faces the prospect of class actions
from salespeople who have not been paid commissions for November
and December, the Hartford Courant reports.

Sales personnel are accusing the company of failing to pay
commissions earned at the end of last year and compensation
amounting to tens of thousands of dollars for many of them.  
Some employees say they have not received incentive pay already
earned and have been told by the company not to expect it.

One former sales employee has already filed a lawsuit in
Connecticut, and a group of former employees in Illinois is
preparing to file a lawsuit seeking class-action status.

Mortgage Lenders angered former salespeople after the company
closed its largest lending business on Dec. 29.  It has since
laid off half of the 950 workers it employed in Connecticut.  
Last week, those workers, including 200 in Connecticut, were
permanently laid off.

A layoff e-mail notice, said the company could not secure an
investor to salvage the closed lending division in time to avoid
layoffs.  It was, however, in talks with a potential investor,
according to the e-mail.

Mortgage Lenders has been struggling to find an investor to
infuse the company with sorely needed capital.

Recently, Mortgage Lenders filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.


MUSICLAND HOLDING: Store Managers' Certification Motion Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark T. Power, Esq., at Hahn & Hessen LLP, in New York, asserts
that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York, which presides over the bankruptcy proceedings of
Musicland Holding Corp., should decline to exercise its
discretion in applying Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and deny Musicland store managers' motion for class
certification.

                        Case Background

On Sept. 9, 2005, Tracy Kirkman and Taggert Strickland, both
Musicland store managers, filed an action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated against Musicland
Group, Inc., in Alameda County Superior Court.  The plaintiffs
alleged that they, and all others similarly situated, are not
exempt from California overtime law and that the company owe
them, along with the class claimants, nearly $15,000,000 in
overtime pay.

Matthew R. Bainer, Esq., at Scott Cole & Associates, APC, in
Oakland, California, relates that the plaintiffs filed claims on
their own behalf for $106,346 and $95,508, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, for $14,534 and $594.

The plaintiffs allege that $1,262,418 of the Class Claim is
entitled to priority.

Mr. Bainer asserts that by filing the Class proof of claim, the
plaintiffs initiated a contested matter under Rule 9014 of the
Federal Rules on Bankruptcy Procedure.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of all affected store managers, ask
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
to certify two classes:

   1. Sam Good Class -- All persons who are or were employed in
      a store manager position by The Musicland Group, Inc., in
      oneor more of The Musicland Group, Inc.'s California "Sam
      Goody" stores and who were classified as overtime-exempt
      employees at any time between Sept. 9, 2001, and the
      present.

   2. Suncoast Motion Pictures Class -- All persons who are or
      were employed in a store manager position by The Musicland
      Group in one ore more of The Musicland Group's California
      "Suncoast Motion Picture" stores and who were classified
      as overtime-exempt employees at any time between September
      9, 2001, and the present.

Mr. Bainer notes that the unscheduled class member creditors are
estimated to number in the hundreds, but they have not received
official notice of the filing of Musicland Holding Corp. and its
debtor-affiliates' cases or notice of the Claims Bar Date.

Thus, class claimants would be denied due process of law if they
were not given the opportunity to participate in the
distribution of the company's assets.

In addition, Mr. Bainer points out, the value of the claims is
extremely high and the failure to raise the matter in Court
would result in manifest injustice.

Accordingly, Mr. Bainer asserts, class certification should be
granted to:

   -- facilitate creditor compensation,
   -- achieve equitable distribution of the estate,
   -- allow the efficient management of numerous pending claims,
   -- simplify the asset distribution for the Court.

Mr. Bainer argues that the court needs only determine if the
Representative plaintiffs has proffered evidence to meet the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure.

       Class Certification is Appropriate Under Rule 23

Mr. Bainer asserts that the requirements under Rule 23(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class certification have
been met:

   (a) The Proposed Classes are sufficiently numerous, estimated
       into the hundreds of individuals, that joinder of all
       members is impracticable.

   (b) There exists a common question of law and fact among
       class members.  Resolving the common questions of the
       Debtors' liability, vis-.-vis a determination of the
       exempt/non-exempt character of the class members' job     
       duties, is the dominant issue in the case.

   (c) The Proposed Class Representatives' claim is typical of
       that of the Classes.  Both plaintiffs are members of the
       putative class and possesses the same interests, suffered
       the same injury and alleges identical violations to other
       class members.

   (d) The Proposed Class Representatives will fairly and
       adequately protect class interests.  The Plaintiff
       Representatives and their counsel are willing to pursue
       the action vigorously on behalf of the classes, and have
       thoroughly investigated the claims of the classes.

"[A] failure to bring the unnamed class members before this
Court, prior to a distribution of Musicland's assets, would
likely rob these individuals of their opportunity to see any
recovery for their claims," Mr. Bainer contends.  "There could
be no greater 'unfair adjudication' than to unjustly enrich some
of Musicland's creditors at the expense of others."

Mr. Bainer notes that additional common issues among the classes
are:

   -- whether the Debtors acted in "good faith in classifying
      class members as exempt workers;

   -- whether California Labor Code Section 558 "underpayment"
      penalties apply;

   -- whether punitive damages are recoverable;

   -- the applicable statute of limitations of California Labor
      Code Section 226.7 and 512; and

   -- whether the exemption of class members from overtime pay
      constitutes an "unfair business practice" under California
      Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.

The plaintiffs seek class certification based on the company's
policy of categorically treating all class members as exempt
based on job title or other criteria which do not demand an
individual analysis of class members' circumstances, Mr. Bainer
clarifies.  "Consideration of the amount of time particular
employees spend on work tasks is not a relevant concern at the
class certification stage yet."

Individual issues of the amount of time spent on work task will
exist whether or not the classes are certified, Mr. Bainer says.
A multitude of "innovative tools" are available to manage any
individual issues, and those tools need be devised and utilized
just once of the action proceeds on a class basis, Mr. Bainer
emphasizes.

A class action is the superior method of adjudicating the
Plaintiffs' claims, Mr. Bainer maintains.  "The only
alternatives to certifying this class are to force hundreds of
[the Debtors'] Store Managers to abandon their legal rights
altogether."  (Musicland Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 25;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)

         Request to Deny Motion for Class Certification

Mr. Power asserts that the court should decline to exercise its
discretion in applying Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and deny Mr. Kirkman's Motion for Class Certification
for these reasons:

   (a) Tracy Kirkman and Taggert Strickland have been dilatory
       by not filing the Motion until over 10 months since the ]
       Petition Date and more than seven months after they filed
       the Class Claim.

   (b) The company's Second Amended Plan of Liquidation was
       approved prior to the filing of the Certification Motion
       and confirmation is pending.

   (c) All potential class action members received constructive
       notice of the bankruptcy and the Bar Date Notice, and yet
       chose not to file a proof of claim.

   (d) Any benefits of the proposed class action are outweighed
       by the costs to the estate and the prejudice to the
       holders of timely-filed claims.

   (e) The proposed class action lacks commonality in its
       proposed members.

   (f) The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a class action
       is superior to other available methods for the fair and
       efficient adjudication of the controversy.

"The Certification Motion should be denied because the granting
of the Certification Motion and the allowance of the Class Claim
would unduly delay the administration of the Debtors' estates
and may in fact mean the death of the Plan," Mr. Power avers.

Mr. Power adds that allowing the Motion would amount to
extension of the Bar Date for a select group of creditors who
had either actual or constructive notice of the Bar Date but
failed to exercise vigilance in timely filing its claims.

Accordingly, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors asks
the Court to disallow the Class Certification Motion.

The Debtors join in the Committee's opposition to the Motion.

Headquartered in New York, New York, Musicland Holding Corp., is
a specialty retailer of music, movies and entertainment-related
products.  The Debtor and 14 of its affiliates filed for chapter
11 protection on Jan. 12, 2006 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No.
06-10064).  James H.M. Sprayregen, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis,
represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.   Mark T.
Power, Esq., at Hahn & Hessen LLP, represents the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  When the Debtors filed for
protection from their creditors, they estimated more than $100
million in assets and debts.  (Musicland Bankruptcy News, Issue
Number 27; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215-945-7000).  


NEW MEXICO: Judge Denies Claims in Suit Over Red Light Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Geraldine Rivera of New Mexico District Court ruled
against claims that the red light cameras erected at high
traffic intersections in Albuquerque violate the state
constitution, The Albuquerque Journal reports.

In November 2006, three plaintiffs filed a class action alleging
that the program violates due process and trial by jury, among
other protections.  Plaintiffs include a social worker and a
single mother that were both cited under the red light camera
program.

Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Sandoval sought the court order to
halt the program until legal issues are settled.

In 2004, traffic cameras first appeared in Albuquerque under a
pilot program that grew into the present system.  Under the
program, violators are declared a "nuisance" and thus subject to
civil penalty.

However, the lawsuit contends the city is overreaching.  It
pointed out that a vehicle might not be declared a nuisance
based on a single traffic violation without knowledge or
evidence of the actual driver in the vehicle.

Under the system, owners of vehicles photographed while running
red lights or speeding are fined under a civil administrative
system overseen by City Hall.  

A request for a temporary injunction was denied because the city
has no way of tracking which vehicles are subject to seizures,
has never seized a vehicle before and therefore Mr. Sandoval's
clients are not in any danger of having their vehicles seized,
the report said.

The Metropolitan Court, which generally handles traffic
citations issued by law officers, is not involved with the
traffic cameras.

An administrative hearing run by the city is afforded to
motorists who deny wrongdoing, and fines are considered a civil
-- not criminal -- matter.

For more details, contact Richard A. Sandoval, 2025 Rio Grande
Blvd., NW Albuquerque, NM 87104, Phone: (505) 243-3500 or (800)
562-3456 or 1-800-828-4LAW, Fax: (505) 243-3534, Web site:
http://www.branchlawfirm.com/.


OWENS CORNING: Del. Bankruptcy Court Okays MiraVista Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald of the District of
Delaware approved the "Owens Corning Chapter 11 Case No. 00-3837
(JKF): MiraVista Settlement."  

Judge Fitzgerald dismisses, with prejudice, the MiraVista
Claims.

The Class Counsel will be receive $2,905,411 for attorneys'
fees, $378,357 for disbursements and expenses, and a pro rata
share of the interest earned on the Settlement Fund.

Class Representatives Anne Rudin, Dewayne Hall, and Allison
Morse Wilson will receive $10,000 each.  Class Representatives
John and Kathleen Stratton and Robert and Linda Lopez will also
receive $10,000 per couple.

The Class Counsel may retain and, subject to Court review, pay
reasonable compensation to a Class Litigation Administration
Support Services, as Claims Administrator pursuant to the Plan
of Distribution.

The Class Counsel can also retain tax counsel and accountants on
a reasonable basis and pay for their costs in connection with
the determination of any tax liability of the Settlement Fund.

MiraVista is a composite roofing product made from fiberglass,
resin and inorganic fillers.  It was manufactured by Owens
Corning, Inc., Molded Fiberglass Companies and Molded Fiberglass
Companies/West between 1996 and 2002.

Lawsuits over MiraVista claim that the product is defective and
causes damage for which property owners should be paid.

The first lawsuit was filed by a group of homeowners through the
submission of "Proofs of Claim" in the Bankruptcy Court where
Owens Corning filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition on Oct. 5,
2000.  The Proofs of Claim were submitted on behalf of a class
of people who purchased MiraVista before Owens Corning's Chapter
11 Bankruptcy petition was filed.

The second lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MiraVista by the same homeowners and others in
state court in California against Owens Corning and two other
companies that manufactured MiraVista, Molded Fiberglass
Companies and Molded Fiberglass Companies/West.

That suit was moved from the California Court to the Bankruptcy
Court, and is named, "Sherry McIlhargie, et al., plaintiffs v.
Molded Fiber Glass Co., et al., defendants, Adversary Proceeding
No. 05-50058."

The settlement class is defined as anyone who owns or used to
own a home or other building on which a MiraVista roof is or was
installed.  Also included are property owners who have replaced
MiraVista.

The court declared that there are two groups, or "subclasses,"
in the class.  Members of the "Pre-Petition Subclass" include
those purchased MiraVista roof before Oct. 5, 2000.  Members of
the "Post-Petition Subclass" include those purchased MiraVista
roof on or after Oct. 5, 2000.

For more details, call 1-800-947-4460 or visit:
http://www.miravistaclassaction.com.

(Adversary Proceeding -- Stratton, et al. v. Debtors; Owens
Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 150; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


PARMALAT SPA: Permanent Injunction Hearing Moved to Feb. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert D. Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York adjourned the hearing to
consider entry of a permanent injunction in the Foreign Debtors'
Section 304 cases until Feb. 27, 2007.

In the interim, the preliminary injunction is extended until
March 2, 2007.  All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the
U.S. court are enjoined and restrained from engaging in any
action against the Foreign Debtors without obtaining permission
from the Bankruptcy Court.

The Civil and Criminal Court of Parma, in Italy, will continue
to have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit,
action, claim or proceeding, other than an enforcement action
initiated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to
settle all disputes, which may arise out of

   -- the construction or interpretations of the Foreign
      Debtors' restructuring plan approved by the Italian Court;
      or

   -- any action taken or omitted to be taken by any person or
      entity in connection with the administration of the
      Italian Plan.

Five creditors and parties-in-interest filed with the U.S. Court
their objections to Dr. Enrico Bondi's request for a permanent
injunction order in Parmalat's ancillary proceedings.

Dr. Bondi is the authorized foreign representative of Parmalat
Finanziaria S.p.A. and certain of its affiliates.

In his request, Dr. Bondi filed with the Court a proposed
permanent injunction order pursuant to Section 304 of the
Bankruptcy Code.  Dr. Bondi also submitted with the Court a
memorandum of law supporting his permanent injunction request.

A full-text copy of the proposed Permanent Injunction Order is
available for free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e22

Creditors BankBoston, N.A., FleetBoston Financial, Bank of
America Corp., Bank of America National Trust & Savings
Association, Banc of America Securities, LLC, and Bank of
America, N.A., told the Court that the proposed Permanent
Injunction Order cannot be approved because it would constitute
an inappropriate anti-foreign suit injunction.

BofA, et al. also argued that the Foreign Debtors' request for
extra-territorial application of the Permanent Injunction would
unduly limit the ability of domestic and foreign creditors to
pursue all appropriate remedies outside of the U.S. in
accordance with applicable foreign law.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which provides termination
insurance for all of the Debtors' Pension Plans, said the
proposed Permanent Injunction Order contains illegal discharges,
releases, exculpations and injunctions.

The PBGC said it was willing to withdraw its objections if the
proposed Permanent Injunction Order clarifies that:

   -- no provisions of or proceeding within the Foreign Debtors'
      reorganization cases in Italy and the Section 304 cases
      before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court will in any way be
      construed as discharging, releasing, limiting or relieving
      the Foreign Debtors, or any other party from any liability
      with respect to the Pension Plans or any other defined
      benefit pension plan; and

   -- the PBGC and the Pension Plans will not be enjoined or
      precluded from enforcing liability resulting from any of
      the provisions of the Foreign Debtors' restructuring plan
      approved by the Italian court, or the entry of a Permanent
      Injunction Order.

Grant Thornton International does not want the Permanent
Injunction to apply to it in any manner in the conduct of:

   -- a securities fraud class action pending before the U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of New York;

   -- three actions initiated by Dr. Bondi against banks and
      accounting firms; and

   -- actions commenced by the trustees of the U.S. Debtors and
      two liquidators of Parmalat SpA's Cayman Islands
      affiliates.

Grant Thornton is a defendant in those actions.

On behalf of Israel Discount Bank of New York, Bruce S. Nathan,
Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler PC, in New York, argued that in
seeking entry of a permanent injunction order, the Foreign
Debtors must demonstrate that claimholders in the Italian
proceedings are receiving "just treatment" and not experiencing
"prejudice and inconvenience" in the claims administration
process.  The Foreign Debtors cannot meet this burden as to IDB,
Mr. Nathan says.

IDB's claims arise from promissory notes totaling US$6,000,000
in principal plus interest, guaranteed by Parmalat S.p.A.

Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe, Ltd.; Cattolica
Partecipazioni, S.p.A.; Capital & Finance Asset Management S.A.;
Societe Monderne des Terrassements Parisiens; and Solarat -- the
lead plaintiffs in a securities class action -- want the
proposed Permanent Injunction Order modified to clarify that it
does not impact their rights to pursue claims against
Reorganized Parmalat.

                          About Parmalat

Based in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A. --
http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products that  
can be stored at room temperature for months.  It also has 40-
some brand product line, which includes yogurt, cheese, butter,
cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable
sauces, soups and juices.

The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on
Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary
Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When the U.S. Debtors filed
for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than $200 million
in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from bankruptcy
on April 13, 2005.

Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate
petitions for Extraordinary Administration before the Italian
Ministry of Productive Activities and the Civil and Criminal
District Court of the City of Parma, Italy on Dec. 24, 2003. Dr.
Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary Commissioner in each of
the cases.  The Parma Court has declared the units insolvent.

On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No.
04-14268, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Parmalat has three financing arms: Parmalat Capital Finance
Ltd., Dairy Holdings, Ltd., and Food Holdings, Ltd.  Dairy
Holdings and Food Holdings are Cayman Island special-purpose
vehicles established by Parmalat S.p.A.

The Finance Companies are under separate winding up petitions
before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.  Gordon I. MacRae
and James Cleaver of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd. serve as Joint
Provisional Liquidators in the cases.

On Jan. 20, 2004, the Liquidators filed Sec. 304 petition, Case
No. 04-10362, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In May 2006, the Cayman Island Court
appointed Messrs. MacRae and Cleaver as Joint Official
Liquidators.  Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Richard I. Janvey, Esq., at Janvey,
Gordon, Herlands Randolph, represent the Finance Companies in
the Sec. 304 case.

The Honorable Robert D. Drain presides over the Parmalat
Debtors' U.S. cases.

(Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 84; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


PHILIP SERVICES: March 19 Hearing Set for $79M Stock Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on March 19, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $79,750,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Philip
Services Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 835 (AKH)."

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 14D of the U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before March 5.  Deadline for the submission of a
proof of claim must be made on or before May 18.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Philip Services during
the period Feb. 28, 1996 through May 7, 1998.

                         Case Background

Commencing in February 1998, several purported class actions
were filed in the U.S. against Philip, the individual defendants
(who were certain of its officers and directors), the
underwriter defendants and Deloitte, Philip's outside auditors.

Pursuant to an order of this court dated May 19, 2006, as
modified by the order, the consolidated actions pending in the
U.S. were certified as a class action consisting of a class of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Philip Services Corp. during the period Feb. 28,
1996 through May 7, 1998, and who are members of one or more of
the following sub-classes:

      -- All persons and entities who, during the class period,
         purchased the common stock of Philip on any U.S. stock
         exchange, and/or (b) purchased the common stock of
         Philip on any Canadian stock exchange and were
         residents or citizens of the U.S. at the time of said
         purchases (Open MarketSub-Class);

      -- All purchasers of Philip common stock issued in the
         secondary public offering by Philip on or about Nov. 6,
         1997 of approximately 23 million shares of stock,
         issued exclusively to U.S. residents (November 1997
         Offering), pursuant to the Form S-1 filed by Philip
         with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or
         about Nov. 6, 1997 (November 1997 Registration
         Statement) (November 1997 Registration Statement Sub-
         Class);

      -- All persons whose shares of Allwaste Inc. common stock
         were exchanged for Philip common stock (the exchange
         thereby accomplished is hereinafter referred to as the
         "Allwaste Offering"), pursuant to the Form F-4 filed by
         Philip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
         on or about June 24, 1997 relating to Philip's
         acquisition of Allwaste (Allwaste Registration
         Statement) (Allwaste Sub-Class); and

      -- All persons whose shares of Serv-Tech Inc. common stock
         were exchanged for Philip common stock (the exchange
         thereby accomplished is hereinafter referred to as the
         "Serv-Tech Offering"), pursuant to the Form F-4 filed
         by Philip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission on or about June 24, 1997 relating to
         Philip's acquisition of Serv-Tech (Serv-Tech
         Registration Statement) (Serv-Tech Sub-Class).

Lead Plaintiffs Gabriel DiRienzo, Robert Gans, Robert Gans IRA,
Gregory Mappus, and Michael and Sophia Isaacs were appointed as
the representatives of the Open Market Sub-Class; Lead
Plaintiffs Gregory Mappus, Charles Fasold, and Lee Pittman were
appointed as the representatives of the November 1997
Registration Statement Sub-Class; Lead Plaintiffs Richard
Hershey, Albert Solkov, and James Collins were appointed as the
representatives of the Allwaste Sub-Class; and Lead Plaintiffs
Michael and Sophia Isaacs and Robert McElroy were appointed as
representatives of the Serv-Tech Sub-Class.

Neil L. Selinger, Esq. of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger
P.C. and Jeffrey C. Block,Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt & Pucillo were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

In the consolidated and amended class action complaint,
plaintiffs asserted claims against the various defendants under
some or all of Sections 11,12(a), and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Philip Services Corp. Securities 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;

     (2) Neil L. Selinger, Esq. of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Selinger, P.C., One North Lexington Avenue, White
         Plains, NY 10601, Phone: (914) 997-0500, Fax: (914)
         997-0035, Web site: http://www.ldbs.com/;and

     (3) Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease
         Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 800-516-9926, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com,
         Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: April 12 Hearing Set for $9.075M E&Y Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $9,075,000 settlement by Ernst & Young LLP, (E&Y),
one of the defendants in the case, "In Re PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC."

The fairness hearing will be held at the U.S. Post Office and
Courthouse, Seventh Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15219.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before March 23.  Deadline for the submission of a
proof of claim must be made on or before May 11.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. common stock, who purchased call options on
PNC common stock, or who wrote (sold) put options on PNC common
stock, from July 19, 2001 through July 18, 2002 inclusive, and
the PNC Incentive Savings Plan on behalf of itself and its
present and former participants and beneficiaries who purchased
or otherwise acquired PNC common stock during the Class Period
through the PNC Incentive Savings Plan.

                        Case Background


Beginning on Feb. 1,2002, 12 putative class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the
court and were subsequently consolidated under the above
caption, and are hereinafter referred to as the "In Re PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The second consolidated and amended complaint dated March 31,
2005 alleges that the defendants misled investors by
intentionally overstating PNC's profits and the amounts that the
company expected to earn in the future.

It further alleges that E&Y participated in PNC's scheme to
defraud by rendering advice to PNC in connection with the
structuring of and accounting for three transactions with
special purpose entities sponsored by American International
Group, Inc. and/or its affiliates.

In 2004, lead plaintiffs, the defendants, AIG Financial Products
Corp. (AIG-FP), Arnold & Porter LLP, and Buchanan Ingersoll PC
began negotiating a settlement of all claims or potential claims
against those defendants and third-party entities that
ultimately resulted in the creation of a $36.6 million
settlement fund.

Lead Plaintiffs proceeded with their claims against E&Y.  E&Y
had previously filed a motion to dismiss an earlier complaint,
and its motion was pending at the time the PNC Settlement was
reached.  E&Y objected to certain aspects of the PNC Settlement.

Ultimately, on July 13, 2006, the court approved the PNC
settlement over E&Y's objections.  E&Y appealed from the court's
July 13, 2006 order approving the PNC Settlement.  

The E&Y Settlement was reached in the course of mediating E&Y's
appeal.

The suit is "In Re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under
Judge David S. Cercone.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Barry Weprin, Esq., Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Telephone:
         (212) 594-5300;

     (2) David Kessler, Esq., Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
         Kessler, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone:(610) 667-7706;

     (3) Jay P. Saltzman, Esq., Schoengold Sporn Laitman &
         Lometti, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York,
         NY 10038, Phone: (212) 964-0046; and

     (4) PNC Securities Litigation Settlement, Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 1607, Blue Bell, PA 19422,
         Phone: (800) 789-4720, Web site:
         http://www.claimsinformation.com.


QFL INC: Recalls Major Egg Product Over Undeclared Dairy Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
QFL, Inc., of Paterson, New Jersey, is voluntarily recalling all
Major Egg products in Vanilla, Chocolate and Strawberry flavors
because they contain undeclared dairy content.

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

The recalled Major Egg products were distributed in retail
stores.

Major Egg product was packed in one size 2.2 lbs. plastic
bottles.

It was found that the product contained dairy product.  The
label should have been changed to reflect that the product
contains milk.

For the next production of Major Egg, the label will be changed
to a new one, which declares product contains milk as allergen,
the company said.

Distributors, retailers, and consumers who have purchased Major
Egg products are urged to contact QFL, Phone: 973-977-8800, Fax:
973-977-8833, Email: qflcorp@optonline.net for further
instructions.


RETAILERS: Face Lawsuits Over Alleged Credit Card Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some top retailers in the U.S. are named defendants in lawsuits
over the disclosure of part of customers' credit card data in
point-of-sale systems print receipts, PC Magazine reports.

Defendants in the complaints include:

     -- Rite Aid,
     -- Harry & David,
     -- Ikea,
     -- KB Toys,
     -- Disney,
     -- Regal Cinemas, and
     -- AMC Theaters

The class actions accuse about 50 retail chains of violating a
provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act that
makes it illegal for a retailer to print more than the last five
digits of a credit/debit card number on a receipt as well as
printing the card's expiration data.

Many of the lawsuits were filed by Spiro Moss Barness Harrison &
Barge LLP, 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90064, Phone: (310) 235-2468, Fax: (310) 235-2456, E-
mail: ispiro@smbhblaw.com.


ROYAL INT'L: Recalls Atlantic Herring on Possible Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal International Trading, Inc. is recalling uneviscerated
"Russian Sea" Atlantic herring.

"Russian Sea" Atlantic herring was discovered by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors during a
routine inspection and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel confirmed that the fish had not been
eviscerated prior to processing.

This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum
spores, which can cause Botulism, a serious and potentially
fatal food-borne illness.

The sale of this type of fish is prohibited under New York State
Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium
botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated in the
viscera than any other portion of the fish.

Uneviscerated fish has been linked to outbreaks of botulism
poisoning, Symptoms of botulism include blurred or double
vision, general weakness, poor reflexes, difficulty swallowing
and respiratory paralysis.

The recalled "Russian Sea" Atlantic herring comes in 1300gr
metal cans with the following code embossed on can: 01/10/06
413N74 IP and were sold in Brooklyn.

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

Consumers who have purchased "Russian Sea" Atlantic herring are
advised not to eat it, but should return it to the place of
purchase.  Consumers with questions should contact the company
at 1-718-567-7770.


SEASHORE RESORTS: Fla. Suit Planned Over House Building Deals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Alan Tannenbaum is preparing to file a purported class
action against Seashore Resorts, LLC, and Construction
Compliance Inc. over the companies' area house building deals in
Florida, The Sun Herald reports.

The way Seashore Resorts, a South Carolina real estate business,
marketed the deals, as "flip" investments may become the crux of
a class action, according to Mr. Tannenbaum.

Mr. Tannenbaum pointed out that, if the deals amount to an
investment instrument rather than mere real estate speculation,
the investment company, may have violated federal securities
regulations.  

He said that regulations call for securities brokers to be
licensed by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission.  "I'm
working to establish a class action on what I call the
securities fraud issue," according to Mr. Tannenbaum.

However, Mr. Tannenbaum pointed out that even if the deals
amounted to real estate speculation, Seashore or other parties
in its deals may still face litigation citing real estate
statutes.

According to the report, Mr. Tannenbaum is one of at least two
local attorneys whose offices have become inundated with calls
from homebuyers who invested with Seashore and contracted with
Construction Compliance, a St. Petersburg-based general
contractor.

Construction Compliance contracted to build houses for Seashore
in the Rotonda Sands subdivision of Port Charlotte and in North
Port.  The company reportedly stopped paying its subcontractors
last fall.  Just recently, the company announced it has
suspended work on an unknown number of uncompleted houses.

For more details, contact Alan E. Tannenbaum of Levin Tannenbaum
Band and Gates, Century Bank Building, 1680 Fruitville Road,
Suite 102, Sarasota, FL 34236, Phone: (941) 308-3157, Fax: (941)
316-0515.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Towns Face Lawsuit Over Tax Classifications
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Blacksburg in South Carolina is one of several
municipalities that face a purported class action over the way
they classify businesses for tax purposes, Tara Jennings of The
Gaffney Ledger reports.  

The complaint was brought by the South Carolina Self Storage
Association and South Carolina Association of Personnel and
Staffing, individually and on behalf of all members and entities
similarly situated.

For more details, contact S.C. Self Storage Association, P.O.
Box #1, Rock Hill, SC 29731, Phone: (803) 366-3739, Fax: (803)
366-6858.


SRAM MANUFACTURERS: Face SRAM Price-Fixing Lawsuit in Maine
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cuddy & Lanham lawyer, Samuel W. Lanham, Jr., has filed a second
lawsuit against several Static Random Access Memory (SRAM)
manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine after the U.S. Justice Department last fall acknowledged
its price-fixing investigation had expanded from DRAM to SRAM,
the Bangor Daily News reports.

Named as defendants in the suit are:

      -- Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
      -- Fujitsu America, Inc.,
      -- Fujitsu Ltd.,
      -- Hitachi, Ltd.,
      -- Hitachi America, Ltd.,
      -- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,  
      -- Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.,  
      -- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.,
      -- Micron Technology, Inc.,  
      -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
      -- Mitsubishi Electric Corp.,  
      -- Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.,  
      -- NEC Electronics Corp.,  
      -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.,
      -- Renesas Technology Corp.,  
      -- Renesas Technology America, Inc.,  
      -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,  
      -- Samsung Semiconductor Inc.
      -- Semiconductor Co. Matsushita Electric Industrial
         Co., Ltd
      -- Sony Corp.,
      -- Sony Electronics, Inc.,  
      -- Sony Corp. of America
      -- Toshiba Corp.,
      -- Toshiba America Electronic Components, and
      -- Toshiba America Corp.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Bangor-resident Scott L. Clarke,
is seeking reimbursement on behalf of Mainers who were victims
of the alleged price-fixing scheme to raise the price of SRAM in
the late 1990s.

The case is expected to be combined with dozens of others from
around the country.  Lawsuits have been filed in federal courts
in Kansas, Wisconsin, Arizona and Portland, Maine.

According to court documents, the DRAM price fixing conspiracy
began in the fall of 2001, after the cost for 128 megabytes of
DRAM dropped to under $1. In November 2001, prices began to rise
dramatically and by March 2002, contract prices had risen as
high as $4.80.

The alleged SRAM conspiracy predates the DRAM price-fixing
scheme.  Prices for SRAM rose significantly, Mr. Lanham alleged
in the lawsuit, between 1998 and 2001, when the average selling
price of the chip rose from $3.93 to $5.24 - a gain of 33
percent.

The suit is "Clarke v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00008-JAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine under Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., with
referral to Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk.

Representing plaintiffs is Samuel W. Lanham, Jr. of Cuddy &
Lanham, 470 Evergreen Woods, Bangor, ME 04401, Phone: (207) 942-
2898, E-mail: slanham@cuddylanham.com.


TELSTRA: Opposes Plaintiffs' Move to Contact Possible Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telstra is set to reject a move by lawyers running a class
action against it to have the company contact 52,000
shareholders who might have a claim against it, The Australian
reports.

Telstra argues that law firm Slater & Gordon should bear the
cost of contacting the shareholders who might form part of the
claim to see if they want to "opt out".

Under the Federal Court rules, all shareholders who bought
shares in the relevant time are automatically included in the
case, unless they opt out, according to the report.

Telstra, however, said it will not oppose giving details of its
share registry for the purpose of the court case.

In 2006, Slater & Gordon launched a $300 million class action,
in Sydney's Federal Court, on behalf of Telstra shareholders
over a secret government briefing that triggered a warning from
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).

The suit claims that on Aug. 11, 2005, Telstra supplied the
government a document -- hours after its annual results briefing
-- that stated it had underinvested in its network.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
investigated the matter but decided against prosecuting Telstra.

Telstra had questioned the involvement of Slater & Gordon media
spokesman Andrew Taylor as a signatory to the action.

The case is not expected to be heard in full for several months,
according to the report.


TITAN CORP: Court Junks Claims in Iraq Prison Mistreatment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has partially dismissed claims in a suit filed against The Titan
Corp. over alleged mistreatment of prisoners by U.S. military
officials in certain prison facilities in Iraq.

Since June 9, 2004, two lawsuits have been filed alleging that
Titan and other defendants either participated in, approved of,
or condoned the mistreatment of prisoners by U.S. military
officials in certain prison facilities in Iraq in violation of
federal, state and international law.

The first of these cases:

     -- "Saleh v. Titan Corp., No. 04-CV-1143 R," was filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         California against:

         * The Titan Corp.;
         * CACI International, Inc., and its affiliates; and
         * three individuals (one formally employed by Titan and
           one by a Titan subcontractor).

Plaintiffs in Saleh seek class certification.

The second case:

     -- "Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., No. 04-CV-1248," was filed on
        July 27, 2004, on behalf of five individual plaintiffs
        against Titan, CACI and CACI affiliates, and contains
        allegations similar to those in Saleh.

Class certification has not been requested in Ibrahim.  The
defendants filed motions to dismiss in both cases, and the court
in each case granted these motions as to the Alien Torts Statute
claims, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
claim, false imprisonment claim, conversion claim and government
contract law claims.

The court denied the motions as to the remaining common law
claims and the defendants have filed summary judgment motions as
to those claims.

The company provided 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.


UNILEVER: Recalls Bouillon Cubes for Undeclared Fish Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Unilever of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, in cooperation with
the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, is voluntarily recalling
"Knorr Chicken flavor Bouillon" Cubes, UPC # 4800171162, Best if
Used by MAR 17 2007, because it contains fish flavored bouillon
cubes and therefore the presence of fish is undeclared.

The affected product is packaged in 2.5 oz. (72g.) cartons (6
cubes in each carton) marked with UPC # 4800171162 located on
the end flap of the carton and Best If Used By Date of MAR 17
2007 located on the end flap of the carton.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to fish run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The recall relates to one production code of "Knorr Chicken
flavor Bouillon" cubes and is limited to 400 cartons produced.  
No other Knorr bouillon product (including powders, packets or
cubes of any other product code) is being recalled.

The company is working in cooperation with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and is also issuing an alert through the
Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network.

The affected "Knorr Chicken flavor Bouillon" cubes were
distributed to a limited number of customers located in Florida,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode
Island.

Products may have reached consumers through retail stores in
these states and adjoining areas.  The affected product is being
recalled from consumers and retailer store shelves, back rooms
and warehouses.

No adverse reactions have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after the company received a complaint
from a retail store about the incorrect label and it was
determined that product containing fish was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of fish in the
ingredient list on the label.

Consumers who have purchased "Knorr Chicken flavor Bouillon"
cubes, UPC # 4800171162, Best If Used By MAR 17 2007 are urged
to discard it immediately and contact the company at 1-866-829-
9455 for a full refund.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Court Affirms Certified "Dukes" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the class
action status of the largest gender discrimination case against
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."

As Judge Andrew Kleinfeld stated in his dissent, this class
certification "deprives Wal-Mart of due process of law," and is
"unprecedented."  He added, "This class lacks commonality
because there are no questions of fact or law common to the
class."

The suit was filed in June 2001 on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the Company's retail stores
and wholesale clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training and job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.  

On June 21, 2004, following a hearing on class certification on
September 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class, which was certified by the District Court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or may
be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified included approximately 1.6 million
present and former female Associates (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 10, 2005).

In his ruling, Judge Jenkins said that a congressional act
passed during the civil rights movement in 1964 prohibits sex
discrimination and that giant corporations are not immune.  The
judge had also stated that the women put on enough anecdotal
evidence to warrant a class-action trial.

He ruled that the "plaintiffs present largely uncontested
descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart
stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay
disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap
widens over time, that women take longer to enter management
positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the
lower the percentage of women."  

Finally, Judge Jenkins found that the evidence so far "raises an
inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices in
compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a
common manner" (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2005).

On Feb. 6, 2007, in a 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit affirmed the class action status.  It
involves more than 2 million former and current female employees
of Wal-Mart.

The suit is "Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund,
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473
ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

Representing the company is Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles
California 90071, Phone: (213) 229-7000, Fax: (213) 229-7520, E-
mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action, "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 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, which alleges gender discrimination, was filed on Oct.
16, 2001 on behalf of female Wal-Mart Associates who were
participants in the Associates Health and Welfare Plan at any
time from March 8, 2001 to the present and who were using
prescription contraceptives.

Plaintiffs sought an amendment of the plan to include coverage
for prescription contraceptives, back pay for all members in the
form of reimbursement of the cost of prescription
contraceptives, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.
  
The complaint alleges that the company's Health Plan violates
Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination in that
the Health Plan's Reproductive Systems provision does not
provide coverage for prescription contraceptives.

The class was certified on Aug. 23, 2002.  On Sept. 30, 2003,
the court denied the company's motion to reconsider that ruling.

The suit is "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, case no. 1:01-cv-02755-
JEC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge Julie E. Carnes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk E. Chapman, Douglas J. Hoffman, Janine L. Pollack,
         Jennifer Templeton Schirmer, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York,
         NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300;

     (2) George Albert Stein, Office of George Albert Stein,
         1355 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 150, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: 404-881-6500; and

     (3) Sigmund Wissner-Gross, Heller Horowitz & Feit, 292
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-685-
         7600.

Representing the company are Mark A. Casciari, Allen William
Groves, Alissa Lipson and Antonia-Anna R. Palmer of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803,
Phone: 312-346-8000, E-mail: agroves@seyfarth.com or
apalmer@seyfarth.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ken.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The suit was brought on behalf of Janice Smith and all other
females who made application or transfer requests at the London,
Kentucky, Distribution Center from 1995 to the present, and who
were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for
which they applied.

Plaintiffs seek back pay for those females not selected for hire
or transfer during the relevant time period.  It also seeks
injunctive and prospective affirmative relief.  

The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on
gender are in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act as amended.  The EEOC can maintain this action as a class
without certification.

The suit is "EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, case no. 3:01-cv-
00065-JMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky under Judge Joseph M. Hood.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Michelle Eisele, E. Paige
Freitag, Gwendolyn Young Reams, and Laurie A. Young of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite
1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-4203, Phone: 317-226-7949, Fax:
317-226-5571.  

Representing the company is Kathryn A. Quesenberry of Woodward,
Hobson & Fulton, LLP, 101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City
Tower, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-581-8025, Fax: 502-581-
8111, E-mail: kquesenberry@whf-law.com.

The suit is "Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund,
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473
ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

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


WINSTAR COMMS: March 19 Hearing Set for $18.125M Stock Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on March 19, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for
the proposed $18,125,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re
Winstar Communications Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01
Civ. 3014 (GBD)."

The hearing will be held before Judge George B. Daniels, U.S
Courthouse, Courtroom 15D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York
10007.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Feb.
26.  Deadline for the submission of proof of claim must be made
on or before June 17.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly issued common stock or notes of
Winstar Communications, Inc. from March 10, 2000 through and
including April 2, 2001.

                        Case Background

Beginning in April of 2001, investors commenced a number of
putative class actions against Winstar, certain of its former
officers and directors and Winstar's former auditing firm, Grant
Thornton.  

In an order dated July 30, 2001, the court consolidated those
actions.  In addition, the court named: three of the class
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs for the class; the law firm of
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP as lead counsel for the Class; and the
firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and
Stull, Stull & Brody to an Executive Committee of firms
representing the Class.

The lead plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended
complaint and, thereafter, a second amended complaint.  In the
second amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs alleged claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act against the
individual defendants, defendant Grant Thornton, and Lucent
Technologies, Inc.  

Additionally, the lead plaintiffs alleged claims for violations
of the "control person" provisions of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants.  

Among other things, the lead plaintiffs alleged that the
individual defendants artificially inflated the financial
results reported by Winstar during the class period.

For more details, contact Lee S. Shalov, Esq., or Thomas G.
Ciarlone, Esq. of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue,
Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Web
site: http://www.lawssb.com/.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success
CM098
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma names as defendants:

     -- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.;

     -- MetLife Securities, Inc.; and
    
     -- MetLife Investment Advisors Co., LLC.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 206 of the
Advisors Act.

The class includes those individuals who invested in proprietary
mutual funds wholly owned by MetLife (including, but not limited
to, State Street Research and/or CDC Nvest Funds), and/or
clients who purchased MetLife proprietary term life insurance
products.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 6,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Website:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:PWAV) between May 2, 2005
and Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of the company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements concerning Powerwave's
operations and financial performance caused the company's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors.  Powerwave supplies wireless solutions for wireless
communications networks worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public and misrepresented or failed to disclose adverse facts,
including:

     (i) problems with the implementation of the company's
         Enterprise Resource Planning system;

    (ii) that defendants had overstated Powerwave's
         profitability and understated the company's expenses
         and acquisition and integration costs;

   (iii) that the company did not have an adequate system of
         internal operational or financial controls; and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing problems, among other
         things, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim
         that the company was operating according to plan or
         that Powerwave could achieve the guidance issued and/or
         endorsed by defendants.

As a result, defendants' Class Period statements concerning
Powerwave's operations, financial performance, and internal
controls were materially false and misleading.

On Oct. 9, 2006, Powerwave issued a press release announcing
preliminary financial results for third quarter 2006.  The press
release announced that the company expected revenue for the
quarter to be in the range of $155-$160 million -- approximately
$50 million below the company's previous revenue guidance for
the quarter.

This news shocked the market, causing shares of Powerwave to
plummet that same day by 17.7%, or $1.38 per share, to close on
Oct. 9, 2006 at $6.41 per share -- nearly $9.00 below the Class
Period high of $15.33, which was before disclosure of the
company's problems.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael
Goldberg, both of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA,
Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com, Website: http://www.glancylaw.com.


QUANTA HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. common
(QNTA) or preferred (QNTA.P) shares between Dec. 14, 2005 and
March 2, 2006.

The complaint charges that defendants Quanta, Quanta officers
and/or directors:

     -- James J. Ritchie,
     -- Jonathan J.R. Dodd,
     -- Robert Lippincott, III,
     -- Michael J. Murphy,
     -- Nigel W. Morris,
     -- W. Russell Ramsey,
     -- Wallace L. Timmeny, and
     -- underwriters Friedman, Billings & Ramsey, Ltd., and
     -- BB&T Capital Markets

made, or facilitated, misleading statements in two prospectuses
issued in connection with the Dec. 14, 2005 offering of
11,423,340 common shares at $4.75 per share and 3,000,000 10.25%
Series A preferred shares at $25 per share.

With 17 days to go in the fourth quarter, the Prospectuses
stated that Quanta's estimated net losses for 2005 were $68.5
million.

As revealed on March 2, 2006, the last day of the Class Period,
net losses were $78.7 million -- 15% higher.

As a result of this news, Quanta common stock plunged on
extremely heavy trading volume from $4.73 per share to $2.83 per
share, a decline of approximately 40%.  Preferred Quanta shares
are trading today around $18 per share -- a significant decline
from the $25 preferred offering price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Quanta common or preferred
shares during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 6,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Seth Ottensoser and Joseph R.
Seidman, Jr.  both of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York, Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414.


TOP TANKERS: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Feb. 9
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the Feb.
9, 2007, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of TOP Tankers, Inc. (Nasdaq:TOPT)
between June 28, 2005 and Nov. 28, 2006.

On Dec. 2006, the law firm filed the suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against TOP Tankers,
Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2006).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of TOP
Tankers securities.  

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.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  * * *