CAR_Public/071015.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 203

                            Headlines


CHEVRON CORP: Seeks Nixing of $6B Ecuadorian Environmental Suit
CITIZENS MORTGAGE: Sued in N.J. for Underpaying H1-B Holder
DANIER LEATHER: High Court Upholds Appellate Ruling on IPO Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Residents, Group File Discrimination Suit
FLORIDA: Pembroke Pines Man to Challenge Fire Protection Fee

FLORIDA: St. Lucie Growers Sue County Over Land Restrictions
FOXTONS INC: Faces WARN Act Violations Suit in N.J. Over Layoff
GENERAL MOTORS: Saturn Vue, Ion Sue Over Defective Transmissions
GLOBAL WEALTH: D.C. Court OKs $46M Gender Bias Suit Settlement
HELEN OF TROY: Discovery Underway in Tex. Securities Litigation

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Rate-Lock Agreement
LEVI STRAUSS: Court Sets Deadline for Amended Complaint Filing
LOS ALAMOS: Appeal in $16M Gender, Race Bias Suit Deal Withdrawn
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Ill. Court Junks Securities Complaint
PENNSYLVANIA: Dauphin County Faces Lawsuit Over Strip Searches

PREMIUM PACKING: Faces Immigrant Workers' Suit in California
ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Court Orders Release of Settlement Payouts
SEIPLE LITHOGRAPH: Court OKs $850T Settlement in “Dickerhoof”
SHAW GROUP: Fifth Circuit Mulls Appeal in La. Securities Lawsuit
SHAW GROUP: N.Y. Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel in Suit

STAPLES INC: Faces FLSA, MWA Violations Litigation in Mass.
UNITED STATES: Halt in Deportation Sedations Sought in “Diouf”
UTSTARCOM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
UTSTARCOM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Complaint
WAL-MART STORES: Non-Jury Trial Begins in “Braun” Labor Lawsuit

WAL-MART STORES: Court Mulls Class Certification in “Salvador”


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATLAS MINING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Id.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Finkelstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
LDK SOLAR: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
MRT LLC: Blum & Silver Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida


                            *********


CHEVRON CORP: Seeks Nixing of $6B Ecuadorian Environmental Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Corp. filed a petition asking an Ecuadorian court to dismiss an
environmental lawsuit against the company claiming judicial and attorney
misconduct and government interference, The Associated Press reports.

The class action accuses Chevron of dumping more than 18 billion gallons of
toxic waste into Ecuador's rain forest.  It was brought on behalf of 30,000
jungle settlers and Indians.  The suit asserts that the dumping threatened
five indigenous groups and has produced cancers and oil-related health
problems.  

Specifically, the suit alleges that Texaco Petroleum Co., which merged with
Chevron in 2001, failed to clean up billions of gallons of toxic wastewater
from the Ecuadorean jungle where it spent three decades extracting oil.  A
cleanup is estimated to cost at least at $6.1 billion.  

Chevron denies the allegations and says Texaco, which ended its Ecuador
operations in 1992, followed local law in funding a $40 million cleanup
approved by the government in 1998.

In recent developments, Chevron filed a petition to dismiss the suit, citing
several instances of "inappropriate interference in the civil proceeding" by
the judge, government officials, prosecutors and their staff.  It also
alleges that the court has not considered evidence that would aid Chevron's
case, and "demonstrated bias."

Also, Chevron told The Associated Presss that it has not received a fair
trial in the South American nation, where President Rafael Correa has openly
backed the plaintiffs.

One of Chevron's attorneys, Silvia Garrigo even told The Associated
Press, "Not only has this trial become a judicial farce, it has been
politicized."  She adds that “It will be very difficult for this judge to be
at all independent and objective.”

Plaintiffs' attorney Pablo Fajardo called the company "desperate" and
dismissed the petition as a "ruse to try to delegitimize the trial."


CITIZENS MORTGAGE: Sued in N.J. for Underpaying H1-B Holder
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Mortgage Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey that accuses it of illegally
underpaying an immigrant that worked for the company.

The suit was filed by Filipino native Almira Andaya, a computer engineer, on
Sept. 25, 2007.  Plaintiff alleges that she was shortchanged while working
for the company, in violation of the federal rules that govern her H-1B non-
immigrant work visa.

The visa may be issued to applicants seeking temporary work in a "specialty
occupation" which requires the skills of a professional.  "Specialty
Occupations" includes e.g. accounting, computer analysts, programmers,
database administrators, web designers, engineers, financial analysts,
doctors, nurses, scientists, architects and lawyers.  

Petitions for an H-1B visa are submitted by employers based on their need
for the non-U.S.-resident employee.  The applicant may possess a bachelor's
degree or requisite experience to make up for the lack of a master’s degree.

According to the suit, federal law requires employers to pay an H1-B holder
prevailing wage rates, which in Ms. Andaya's case was $41,000 a year.

However, the suit claims that from 2003 to 2006, she was paid between
$15,000 and $20,355 a year, a shortfall of more than $65,000.

Plaintiff accuses the company of breach of contract, breach of good faith
and fair dealing and violating New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law.  She thus
seeks compensation and punitive damages.

In addition, the suit the suit is seeking class action status to represent
other Citizens Mortgage employees, whom Ms. Andaya's attorney, Herbert J.
Tan, believes to be in the same situation as his client.

The suit is “Andaya v. Citizens Mortgage Corporation et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-04584-FSH-PS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Herbert J. Tan, Esq.
          744 Broad Street 16TH Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 735-2681
          Fax: (973) 735-2682
          E-mail: laborlitigator@yahoo.com


DANIER LEATHER: High Court Upholds Appellate Ruling on IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the 2005 Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling
in the class action "Kerr v. Danier" concerning Danier Leather Inc.’s (TSX:
DL) initial public offering in 1998.

The suit is brought against the company, certain of its directors and
officers in Ontario state court.  The statement of claim was made under the
Class Proceedings Act and relates to subordinate voting shares purchased at
the time of the company's initial public offering in May 1998.

Essentially, the suit seeks damages equal to the alleged diminution in value
of the shares after the public offering. The plaintiffs allege that Danier's
forecast in the fourth quarter of 1998 intentionally boosted expectations
for its annual results.  The suit got class-action status in October 2001.

In December 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the class action.  The
decision stated that the Danier Leather met its statutory disclosure
obligations during the IPO process.  It noted that the company's achievement
of its financial forecast was a relevant consideration.  

It also stated that greater deference should have been accorded the business
judgment of the company's senior management, judgment that turned out to be
correct (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).  As a result, the company
and its senior officers are not required to pay any of the damages, interest
or costs awarded by the trial judge.

"The Supreme Court decision removes any uncertainty and allows Danier to
continue to build and grow its business," said Danier CEO Jeffrey
Wortsman. "We're going to maintain our focus on improving profitability,
providing exciting merchandise and great service to our customers and
growing our international and direct sales business."

"This case was about a forecast contained in the IPO prospectus. At the time
of closing of the IPO, management's analysis showed that the forecast would
be achieved and it was in fact achieved," said Mr. Wortsman.

The Company currently has a provision of $18 million less future taxes of
approximately $4.6 million related to this action. As a result of the
Supreme Court decision, the provision will be reversed in the first quarter
of 2008 and shareholder's equity will increase by approximately $2 per
share. The Company was also awarded costs and such costs will be determined
at a later date.

Danier Leather Inc. (CA:DLSV) -- http://www.danier.com-- is an     
integrated designer, manufacturer, and retailer of high-quality  leather and
suede clothing and accessories.  

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey Wortsman, President and Chief Executive
          Officer
          Bryan Tatoff, Senior Vice-President and
          Chief Financial Officer
          Danier Leather Inc.
          Phone: (416) 762-8175 ext. 302 or ext. 328
          Fax: (416) 762-7408 or (416) 762-6072
          Email: leather@danier.com or bryan@danier.com



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Residents, Group File Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two deaf residents of the District of Columbia, and the Equal Rights Center,
a nonprofit civil rights group, sued the D.C. government for alleged
discrimination, WJLA/NewsChannel 8 reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
claiming that the D.C. government discriminates against the deaf and hard of
hearing by failing to provide reasonable accommodations, such as qualified
sign language interpreters or special telecommunications devices.

According to the suit, as a result, thousands of residents are routinely
denied access to D.C. government services, benefits, activities, and
programs.

The plaintiffs are Equal Rights Center, Jon Mitchner and Jean Boutcher.

The suit is "Equal Rights Center et al. v. District of Columbia, Case no
1:2007cv01838," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Royce C. Lamberth

For more details, contact:

          Equal Rights Center
          11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 866.719.4ERC, 202.234.3062 and 202.234.7590
          Fax: 202.234.3106
          E-mail: info@equalrightscenter.org


FLORIDA: Pembroke Pines Man to Challenge Fire Protection Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
A long-time Pembroke Pines resident plans to file a class action against the
city to stop it from collecting a newly increased fire protection fee, The
South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

Phil McConaghey filed a suit against the city’s $74.98 emergency medical
services fee (EMS) in 1996.  A Broward circuit judge ruled it
unconstitutional.  However, the city simply changed the purpose of the fee
from EMS to fire protection and has been collecting it since.  It has
provided about half the cost of providing fire protection.

In September, the City Commission doubled the fire fee to $153.48 to cover
95 percent of the cost of fire protection.  Mr. McConaghey had asked Judge
Cheryl Aleman to stop the city from collecting the fee.  

In recent developments, Mr. McConaghey said he will refile the 1996 lawsuit
as a class action on behalf of all residential property owners to ask for a
refund of the money they paid for the fee.  He plans to file the suit in the
Broward County Circuit Court in Florida.

Mr. McConaghey's planned challenge is based on state laws that require
special assessments such as those for fire protection to benefit every
property owner who pays it.  

No hearings have been scheduled and the city is being given time to respond.


FLORIDA: St. Lucie Growers Sue County Over Land Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lucie County faces a purported class action in Circuit Court over open
space requirements for agricultural property, Jim Reeder of The Palm Beach
Post reports.

The suit was filed by:

       -- Becker Holdings Corp.,
       -- Brown Ranch Inc.,
       -- Ru-Mar Inc.,
       -- Premier Citrus L.L.C,
       -- Wescott Groves, and
       -- Sandscrub L.L.C.

The plaintiffs are owners of agricultural property, who are claiming that
the county's land development rules for that area are unconstitutional
because they treat rural land owners differently from other property owners
in the county.

The suit also alleges that St. Lucie County in Florida treats some
agricultural land owners differently from others according to how much land
they own and how many residences they plan to build.

Landowners told The Palm Beach Post that there's no use talking further with
the county.  "The county has made it clear that it will not approve plans
for development that do not strictly comply with the comprehensive plan,"
according to the suit.

The suit claims landowners are treated differently because:

       -- Owners of agricultural property are required to seek
          rezoning to become a planned unit development while
          other property owners are not; and

       -- Landowners who own more than 160 acres and want to
          build more than eight units have to preserve 80
          percent of the land as open space while owners of less
          than 160 acres who plan to build eight units or less
          only have to preserve 50 percent open space.

Plaintiffs, represented by attorney Johnathan Ferguson, are seeking class-
action status so the decision in their suit will apply to all owners of
agricultural land.


FOXTONS INC: Faces WARN Act Violations Suit in N.J. Over Layoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foxtons, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

The suit was filed by former employees Marco Cimmino of Neptune and Abram
Covella on Oct. 4, 2007, claiming that the company violated the federal WARN
Act when it laid off 350 of its 380 workers in late September.  Under the
WARN Act, companies are required to give 60 days' notice before laying off
100 or more workers.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the company terminated them and other
employees on Sept. 26, 2007 as part of a mass layoff in which it failed to
give workers 60 days notice as required by state law.

Plaintiffs, who are represented by attorneys David and Lisa Krenkel, are
seeking damages for lost wages.

Mr. Krenkel estimated that the laid-off workers are owed a total of $4
million in wages and benefits.  He is seeking to have the suit treated as a
class action on behalf of all the laid-off workers.

The suit is “Cimmino et al. v. Foxtons, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-04797-JAP-
TJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge Joel A. Pisano with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David A. Krenkel
          Law Offices of David A. Krenkel
          1001 Deal Road
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 493-3000
          office@newjerseylawyer.info

               - and -

          Lisa C. Krenkel
          Schibell & Mennie, LLC
          1806 Highway 35 South
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 774-1000
          E-mail: margesmith@schibellandmennie.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Saturn Vue, Ion Sue Over Defective Transmissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California over alleged defective
transmissions in its Saturn Vue and Ion vehicles.

The suit, “Castillo et al. v. General Motors Corporation, Case No. 2:07-
00948,” was filed by Mark Brown and The Lakin Law Firm on behalf of their
clients.

It seeks to certify a class of Saturn Vue and Ion owners from the following
states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oklahoma.

Specifically, the suit concerns the 2002 to 2004 model years of Saturn Vue
and Ion vehicles that allegedly have defective transmissions, which resulted
in outright failures requiring complete replacement.

Plaintiffs believe that GM knew the Vti transmissions in the 2002 to 2004
Saturn Vue and Ion were inherently defective and likely to fail.

The suit includes claims for breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and unjust
enrichment.  According to GM's website for the 2002 to 2004 time period,
261,000 Vue's and 227,000 Ion's were sold.

Brad Lakin of The Lakin Law Firm said, "We believe GM knew the Vti
transmissions in the 2002 to 2004 Saturn Vue and Ion were inherently
defective and likely to fail.  Our investigation reveals that GM was aware
of defects before the vehicle line was released, and they even delayed the
initial product launch as a result, but apparently they chose not to fix the
problems."

Some of Mr. Lakin's clients have had more than one transmission
fail.  "Several of our clients have had multiple transmission breakdowns.  
There are many accounts of Vue or Ion transmissions malfunctioning within
the warranty, only to have GM temporarily repair them or replace them with
the very same defective transmission.  Unfortunately, many fail the first
time during the warranty period and then experience a subsequent failure
outside the warranty period.  In these cases, the owner is left paying the
freight on a transmission that has an average repair or replacement cost of
several thousand dollars."

For more details, contact:

          Lakin Law Firm PC
          300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095-0229
          Phone: (618) 254-1127 and (800) 851-5523
          Fax: (618) 254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com

    
GLOBAL WEALTH: D.C. Court OKs $46M Gender Bias Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval
to a $46 million class action settlement of a gender discrimination suit
filed against Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.'s Global Wealth Management Group.

The suit was filed by a group of women, who were generally alleging that
female financial advisers and trainees were discriminated against in
compensation, promotion, work assignments and other areas.

It was filed on June 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under the caption, "Joanne August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley
DW Inc.," (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006).

Plaintiffs, who sought damages in law and in equity, are:

      -- Cheryl Guistiniano,
      -- Debra Shaw,
      -- Joanne August-Johnson,
      -- Laurie Blackburn, and
      -- Nancy Reeves.

According to the complaint, the case arises out of the company's alleged
systematic discriminatory treatment of its female financial advisors in
violation of federal and applicable state civil rights laws (Class Action
Reporter, July 24, 2007).

The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 on behalf of all
female financial advisors at Morgan Stanley who were employed at any time
from Aug. 5, 2003 to the present.

Its filing was designed to protect the rights of the named plaintiffs, who
reside in four states, and the prospective class members nationwide.

Early this year, Global Wealth Management Group, one of the four main
business units of Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., settled for $46,000,000 (Class
Action Reporter, May 2, 2007).

                        Settlement Terms

The settlement covers female Financial Advisors and Registered Financial
Advisor Trainees employed by Morgan Stanley at any time between Aug. 5, 2003
through June 30, 2007.

It would require the company to make changes in various policies affecting
compensation and branch management promotion.  Under terms of the
settlement, Global Wealth will adopt new programs in such areas as account
redistribution, training and management development designed to enhance the
success of women financial advisors.

In addition, it establishes a process through which women financial advisors
who believe they were historically disadvantaged because of their gender may
submit monetary claims to a Special Master jointly appointed by the
parties.  

A $46 million pool has been established to pay such claims and related costs.

A fact sheet on the settlement is available upon request to
bwittschen@findjustice.com.

The suit is "August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01142-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge Richard W. Roberts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
         Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
         1300 19th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 822-5100
         E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
  
              - and -

         Steven M. Sprenger, Esq.
         Sprenger & Lang, PLLC
         1400 I Street, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 265-8010
         Fax: (202) 332-6652
         E-mail: ssprenger@sprengerlang.com


HELEN OF TROY: Discovery Underway in Tex. Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a securities fraud class action filed against Helen
of Troy, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Class actions have been filed and consolidated into one action against the
company, Gerald J. Rubin, the company's chairman of the board, president and
chief executive officer, and Thomas J. Benson, the company's chief financial
officer, on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of the
company.

The company understands that the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that the company and the two officers
engaged in a scheme to defraud the company's shareholders through the
issuance of positive earnings guidance intended to artificially inflate the
company's share price so that Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the
company's common shares at an inflated price.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, an
accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and injunctive relief, including
an accounting of and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset
freeze on the defendants' insider trading proceeds.  The class period stated
in the complaint was Oct. 12, 2004 through Oct. 10, 2005.

The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas and is still in the preliminary stages.  

On May 15, 2006 the company filed a motion to dismiss the aforementioned
lawsuit citing numerous deficiencies with the claims it asserted.  

On May 24, 2007, the motion to dismiss was denied.  The discovery phase of
the litigation is now underway.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Oct. 10, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-cv-00431-DB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas under Judge David Briones.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ariel Acevedo, Esq.
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, #600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: (561) 361-5000

              - and -

         Daniel R. Malone, Esq.
         The Malone Law Firm
         300 East Main, #1100
         El Paso, TX 79901
         Phone: (915) 533-5000
         Fax: 915/533-5009

Representing the defendants are:

         Nicholas Even, Esq.
         Noel M. Hensley, Esq.
         Haynes Boone, LLP
         901 Main St., Ste. 3100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3789
         Phone: (214) 651-5000
         Fax: 214/651-5940 and 214/200-0470
         E-mail: nick.even@haynesboone.com

              - and -

         H. Christopher Mott, Esq.
         Krafsur Gordon Mott, PC
         4695 North Mesa Street
         El Paso, TX 79912-6103
         Phone: (915) 545-1133
         Fax: 915/545-4433
         E-mail: cmott@gordonmottpc.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Rate-Lock Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, the banking unit of Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc., faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging that it violated a rate-lock
agreement for commercial mortgage-loan financing, The Associated Press
reports.

The suit was filed by Stor IT G.P. of Johnson City, Tenn., specifically
alleging that Lehman violated a rate-lock agreement reached in June in
connection with a $3.3 million loan on commercial property Stor owns in
Holiday, Fla.

According to the suit, Stor IT paid to lock in an interest rate on a
mortgage, but Lehman attempted to renegotiate the rate lock instead of
abiding by it.

Stor IT agreed, should its financing not close, to cover any loss Lehman
might incur from hedging to offset the effect of locking in the rate.  In
this case, Lehman said it suffered a $193,000 hedge loss, which the suit
calls "a fiction."

In September Lehman sued Stor IT in New York state court, claiming that the
company refused to pay money owed under the accord.

The complaint is seeking class-action status for anyone who has applied for
or received a commitment for a commercial mortgage with a rate-lock
agreement since June 12, and anyone who has had such loan agreements changed
or canceled.

The suit is "Stor It, GP v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, Case No. 1:2007-cv-
08717," filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.


LEVI STRAUSS: Court Sets Deadline for Amended Complaint Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave
plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Levi
Strauss & Co. until Jan. 18, 2008, to amend their complaint in the matter.

The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-
05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's April 6, 2001 and June 16,
2003 registered bond offerings.  It also names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead
counsel.  The action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's s
prospectuses dated March 8, 2001 or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the
company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10, 2001 to Oct. 9, 2003.

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws, including
Sections 11 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, relating to the
company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public
statements.  

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's financial
statements and other public statements during this period materially
overstated its net income and other financial results and were otherwise
false and misleading, and that the company's public disclosures omitted to
state that it made reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were
improper.  

Plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions caused the trading
price of the company's bonds to be artificially inflated.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages as well as other relief.

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.  The
matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and, after oral arguments had
concluded, the court took the matter under submission.

On Sept. 11, 2007, in the matter, “In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW,” pending before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court dismissed
the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of
the Section 11 and 15 claims.

The Court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and 15 claims
by eliminating from the class those bondholders who purchased the bonds in
private offerings and then exchanged them for registered bonds in the
subsequent exchange offer.

Plaintiffs were provided until Jan. 18, 2008, to amend their complaint with
respect to the tax-fraud claims, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Aug. 26, 2007.

The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-
cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Howard R.
Lloyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         E-mail: CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

         Robert Gans, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070
         E-mail: robert@blbglaw.com

              - and -

         Jill Manning, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200
         Novato, CA 94945
         Phone: (415) 898-8160
         E-mail: jmanning@kmslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Erin E. Schneider, Esq.
         Austin Van, Esq.
         Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         One Montgomery St., 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-393-8276 and 415-393-8210
         Fax: 415-374-8458
         E-mail: eschneider@gibsondunn.com
                 aschwing@gibsondunn.com


LOS ALAMOS: Appeal in $16M Gender, Race Bias Suit Deal Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Quon, an employee of Los Alamos National Laboratory, has withdrawn
her appeal against a $16 million settlement of a class action against the
lab and its former manager, the University of California.

The move clears the way for thousands of lab employees to receive payouts
from the more than $16 million settlement as soon as the end of the year,
according to a report by The Associated Press.  The suit had generally
alleged that the University of California discriminated against women and
Hispanics in pay, promotions and educational opportunities.

Ms. Quon had appealed the settlement last month, saying it would give
excessive payouts to women who initiated suit.  Court documents in the case
indicated that she withdrew the appeal after it was agreed that her
attorneys would be paid $75,000 in fees.

                        Case Background

On Dec. 10, 2003, Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber filed a complaint
alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and breach of contract in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, on their own behalf and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated employees at the
Laboratory.   

The suit was "Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber et al. v. Regents of
the University of California d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory, No. CIV-
03-1404 WJ/RLP."

On Jan. 6, 2004, a second lawsuit alleging violation of the EPA, breach of
contract and other claims was filed in Rio Arriba County District Court by
Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A. Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker,
Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico, and University Professional & Technical
Employees CWA 9119.  It was filed against the Regents of the University of
California d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory et al. (Case No. CIV-04-112
WJ/RLP).

The Garcia Action was removed and consolidated with the Barber Action to
become the consolidated action.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action claimed that the Regents, which
operates and manages the laboratory, discriminated against female and
Hispanic employees in terms of pay, promotion, educational opportunities,
and other terms and conditions of employment.

The consolidated action sought unspecified damages for lost earnings and
benefits, emotional distress damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to certain injunctive and
declaratory relief.

A proposed settlement reached between the class representatives on behalf of
themselves and the class and the Regents, entered on June 1, 2006, provided
that the Regents will pay $12 million, not including attorneys' fees and
costs to be determined, in settlement of the consolidated action (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006).  

Denying the allegations, university officials said they settled the case to
avoid the costly litigation, which would potentially take years.

The settlement covers nearly 5,500 current and previous laboratory employees
who have worked there since December 2000 up to the present and have
submitted valid claims.

Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico granted final approval to the $16.4 million settlement this year.  
The final agreement includes $4.4 million for lawyers' fees and other legal
costs (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2007).

The court-appointed Class Counsels are:

          Patrick D. Allen, Esq.
          Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick
          4908 Alameda Blvd. NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87113
          Phone: (505) 266-3995

               -  and  -

          John C. Bienvenu, Esq.
          Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,
          Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu
          P.O. Box 8180
          Santa Fe, NM 87504-8180
          Phone: (505) 988-8004


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Ill. Court Junks Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Northfield
Laboratories, Inc. without prejudice.

Between March 17, 2006 and May 15, 2006, ten separate complaints were filed,
each purporting to be on behalf of a class of company's stockholders,
against Northfield and Dr. Steven A. Gould, its chief executive officer, and
Richard DeWoskin, its former chief executive officer.

Those putative class actions have been consolidated in a case pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 2006,
and alleges, among other things, that during the period March 19, 2001
through March 20, 2006, the named defendants made or caused to be made a
series of materially false or misleading statements and omissions about
Northfield's elective surgery clinical trial and business prospects in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs allege that those allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions caused the purported class to purchase shares of the company's
common stock at artificially inflated prices.

As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
action be certified as a proper class action, unspecified compensatory
damages (including interest) and payment of costs and expenses (including
fees for legal counsel and experts).

The putative class action is at an early stage and it is not possible at
this time to predict the outcome of any of the matters or their potential
effect, if any, on Northfield or the clinical development or future
commercialization of PolyHeme.

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on Sept. 25, 2007, the court granted that motion, finding
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim.

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and the plaintiffs have
until Nov. 20, 2007 to file an amended complaint, according to the company's
Oct. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Topaz Realty Corp., et al. v. Northfield Laboratories, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-CV-1493," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge George M. Marovich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602-3908
         Phone: (312) 377-1181
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

              - and -

         Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
         Cafferty Faucher LLP
         30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60602
         E-mail: afata@caffertyfaucher.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Ronald L. Marmer, Esq.
         Jenner & Block LLP
         330 North Wabash
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Phone: (312) 222-9350
         E-mail: rmarmer@jenner.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Dauphin County Faces Lawsuit Over Strip Searches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dauphin County faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the strip searching of several out-
of-state partygoers at the county prison.

The suit is “Reynolds et al. v. The County of Dauphin, Case No. 1:07-cv-
01688-CCC,” filed by Elmer Robert Keach, III, an upstate New York attorney,
on Sept. 16, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Ashley McCormick,
       -- Devon Shepard,
       -- Herbert Carter, and
       -- Jennifer Reynolds.

More than 125 partygoers in the Labor Day weekend rave at McCormicks Island
were arrested.  At least 50 out-of-state residents who were unable to make
bail ended up in the Dauphin County Prison.

The federal class action against the county is alleging that those
detainees’ civil rights were violated when they were strip-searched at the
prison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC
          1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Phone: 518.434.1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          James P. DeAngelo, Esq.
          McNees Wallace & Nurick
          100 Pine St., PO Box 1166
          Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
          Phone: 717-232-8000
          E-mail: jdeangelo@mwn.com


PREMIUM PACKING: Faces Immigrant Workers' Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Packing Inc., Valley Pride Inc., and Sea Breeze Harvesting face a
purported class action in Monterey County Superior Court in California that
was filed on behalf of more than 100 immigrant workers who say they were
exploited because of their undocumented status, Victor Calderon of The
Salinas Californian reports.

Filed on Oct. 1, 2007, the lawsuit names as plaintiffs Pedro Diaz Bautista
and Jose Zenon Tenorio Moreno, who both worked on celery harvesting crews
for the companies.  Fritz Conle, representative for General Teamsters Union
Local 890, is representing the plaintiffs in the matter.

Plaintiffs contend that their employers failed to pay them earned overtime
wages and did not allow them to take meal and rest periods, among other
charges.

Additionally, they contend that the companies charged the men a fee to gain
employment and required kickbacks from them in order to keep their job, a
common practice for labor contractors.

The suit is seeking compensation for plaintiffs' unpaid wages and court fees.

For more details, contact:

          Fritz Conle, Esq.
          517 East Cooper Road
          Oxnard, California 93030
          Phone: (805) 487-0818


ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Court Orders Release of Settlement Payouts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, issued an
order on Oct. 3 authorizing Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator to
begin making Settlement payments to Class Members of the class action
against Royal Ahold N.V. in the U.S.

The Claims Administrator is working with a large financial institution in
the Netherlands to make payments to Dutch Class Members by electronic funds
transfer. Once these processes are completed, the settlement payments will
commence.

The financial institution in the Netherlands estimates that these processes
will be completed approximately four weeks. Contrary to a recent report in
the Dutch media, no delay is anticipated.

As Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator prepare to make payments to
Class Members, claimants, particularly those in the Netherlands, are
reminded that questions concerning the Settlement may be directed to the
Claims Administrator in the United States by email:
Questions@AholdSettlement.com or by telephone to the international call
center toll-free at 001-800-1020- 4060 or at 001-941-906-4864.

The best time for Dutch claimants to call is between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
CET. The Claims Adminstrator is prepared to answer your questions in Dutch
or in English.

The suit "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation" is before
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the company to
restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years. Most of the problems were
related to inflated earnings at the company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in
Columbia.  It alleged that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an
inaccurate financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock.

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA Holdings,
Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven, Michiel Meurs, Henny de
Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller, Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim
Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN
AMRO Rothschild, Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International,
ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based upon the
matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24.

The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the individual defendants and the underwriters.   

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all other
defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The settlement is global
in nature and is designed to provide a recovery to all persons who purchased
Ahold common stock and/or American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999
through Feb. 23, 2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased
their Ahold shares.

The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares from about
800 million qualifying shares.  The average payment is estimated to be $1.51
per Fund A share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to
court documents.  Claims are to be made about 12 months after the court's
final approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  The company denies
any wrongdoing in the settlement.


SEIPLE LITHOGRAPH: Court OKs $850T Settlement in “Dickerhoof”
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio approved an
$850,000 settlement of a purported labor class action filed against Seiple
Lithograph Co., a company that closed abruptly in August 2006.

The workers employed the law firm Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos & Raies law firm
to file a suit on their behalf in Stark County Common Pleas Court and U.S.
District Court, claiming breach of contract and common law fraud.  They
allege that former owners, brothers Mark Schumacher and Robert “Cy”
Schumacher, and the grandsons of founder Robert Seiple intermingled
corporate assets and income to defraud creditors, including the employees
and retirees.

                      Litigation Background

Specifically, the lawsuits allege that the Schumachers, who began managing
the company in 2001, took expensive vacations, bought new cars and used the
company jet "to further their own personal lifestyles" including shopping
trips to New York City even as the company was claiming declining profits
and higher costs (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

According to the lawsuits, company money was used to pay for  
personal moving expenses and for the long-term care of the  
Schumachers' grandmother, Jeanne Seiple.  The documents claim  
company money was used for other personal expenses as well.

The complaints said that in October 2005, Seiple employees were given,
without notice, a retroactive pay cut that cost some as much as a third of
their hourly wages.  

When the plant was closed on Aug. 3, 2006, employees were told their health
insurance would end on Aug. 11, 2006 even though they had paid premiums
through the end of the month, the lawsuits said.  Employees were also denied
accrued vacation pay and other benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuits ask that employees be reimbursed for back pay, an amount which
includes the amount of 60 days back pay, and expenses and also seek punitive
damages and legal fees from the company and the Schumachers.

The plaintiffs also seek:  

     -- the enforcement of benefit provisions of the plan up to  
        and including August 31, 2006, and for plaintiffs who  
        participated in the 2001 and 2003 Early Retirement  
        Proposals;

     -- judgment against defendants enforcing the benefit  
        provisions of the plan until each plaintiff reaches the  
        age of 65; and  

     -- for an order disregarding and piercing the corporate  
        entity and veil of defendant Seiple thus making the  
        Schumachers transferring company property or proceeds  
        from the sale of company property during the pendency of  
        this action.  

                 Federal Litigation & Settlement

The federal case in particular claimed that the company violated the WARN
Act, a federal law that requires 60 days notice of mass layoffs, and that
the company failed to maintain health-care benefits that had been promised
to retirees, as well as coverage for employees who had paid for benefits
through the end of August.

That case was moved to bankruptcy court when the company went into
liquidation.

The settlement includes repayment to employees and retirees for the health
care premiums they paid for August 2006, as well as coverage for any medical
expenses for that month.  Employees who were affected by a retroactive pay
cut will be reimbursed, and money due for accrued vacation will be paid.

The suit is “Dickerhoof et al. v. Seiple Lithograph Co., Case No. 06-06169-
rk,” filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio
under Judge Russ Kendig.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James M. McHugh, Esq.
          Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos & Raies
          220 Market Avenue, South, Eighth Floor
          Canton, OH 44702
          Phone: (330) 455-6112
          Fax: (330) 455-2108
          E-mail: jmchugh@lawlion.com

Representing the company is:

          Anthony J. DeGirolamo, Esq.
          116 Cleveland Ave., N.W. Suite 625
          Canton, OH 44702
          Phone: 330-588-9700
          Fax: 330-588-9713
          E-mail: ajdlaw@sbcglobal.net


SHAW GROUP: Fifth Circuit Mulls Appeal in La. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue a ruling on
an appeal in the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit, "Thompson et al. v.
Shaw Group, Inc."

On July 23, 2004 an investor filed a complaint against The Shaw Group, Inc.
claiming the company and three top officers misled the investing public
about its finances (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2007).

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Shaw Group common stock from Oct.
19, 2000, through and including June 10, 2004.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- Shaw Group;
     -- J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman and chief executive officer;
     -- Tim Barfield, Jr., president, chief operating officer,
        and director since 2003; and
     -- Robert L. Belk, chief financial officer and executive
        vice president.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Shaw Group issued
materially false and misleading information about its financial performance
to the investing public.  

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Shaw Group established excessive
or "general" contract reserves in conjunction with two acquisitions and then
tapped those "cookie jar" reserves to artificially boost its earnings when
needed.  

Defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in connection with its long-
term construction contracts, violating its own reported revenue recognition
policy.

These actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and resulted
in significantly overstated revenues and net income throughout the class
period, which in turn inflated Shaw Group's stock price.

The company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock price by
offering $479 million in shares of Shaw Group common stock to the public, as
well as millions of dollars of debt securities.  

Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by selling
approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw Group common stock during the
class period, for proceeds of roughly $80 million.

After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the company shocked the
investing public by announcing that Shaw Group was the subject of an
informal investigation by the SEC into the company's method of accounting
for acquisitions.

In response to these revelations, the price of Shaw Group's common stock
plummeted, falling 18% to $10.05 when trading resumed on June 14, 2004
(following a long weekend).

On Aug. 16, 2004, competing motions for the consolidation of all related
cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed
with the court.  On Aug. 31, 2004, all related cases were consolidated into
one class action lawsuit, "Thompson v. The Shaw Group Inc., No. 04-1685."

On Oct. 20, 2004, a hearing on the motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel was held and, after argument, Judge Helen G.
Berrigan took the motions under submission and ordered any supplemental
briefing be filed by Nov. 3, 2004.  

Further briefing was filed and on Dec. 13, 2004, Judge Berrigan signed an
Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint on Feb. 11,
2005 and names as an additional defendant, Richard F. Gill, who was until
2003, the company's executive vice president and chief operating officer.  

On June 16, 2005, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On Nov. 3, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.  

On Jan. 13, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on May 24,
2006 and the motion was denied.

On July 18, 2006, the judge granted defendant's motion for an immediate
appeal of the motion to dismiss to the fifth circuit court of appeals and
that the case be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.  

On Sept. 7, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed to
hear the appeal of the motion to dismiss.

The company's and individual defendants' appeal is fully briefed and was
argued on Oct. 2, 2007.  The Fifth Circuit Court has taken the appeal under
advisement and has not yet rendered a decision, according to the company's
Oct. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case  
No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Helen G. Berrigan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165  
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC
         650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-455-1400

Representing the defendants are:
      
         Steven W. Copley, Esq.
         Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan LLP
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000
         New Orleans, LA 70170-4000
         Phone: (504) 582-1111

              - and -

         J. J. (Jerry) McKernan, Esq.
         McKernan Law Firm
         8710 Jefferson Hwy.
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809
         Phone: 225-926-1234


SHAW GROUP: N.Y. Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has appointed
lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel in the matter, "City of Brockton
Retirement System v. The Shaw Group Inc, et al., Case No. 06CV8245,"
according to the company's Oct. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31,
2007.

The purported class action was filed against The Shaw Group, Inc. and
certain of its officers on Oct. 10, 2006, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  

It alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of purchasers of our common stock during the period from Jan. 6, 2006
to July 9, 2006.  

It also alleges, among other things, that:  

      -- the company falsely represented that internal controls  
         were adequate and effective in the second quarter of  
         fiscal 2006, and  

      -- in the second quarter of 2006, materially overstated  
         revenues and understated losses.  

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.  To date, the
action has not been certified as a class action by the Court.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the Court appointed as lead plaintiffs The City of Brockton
Retirement System and The Norfolk County Retirement System, and appointed as
lead counsel for plaintiffs the firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP.

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the plaintiffs have sixty-days, or
until Dec. 3, 2007, to file a superseding or amended complaint, and
defendants will then have sixty days to respond to the superseding or
amended complaint.

The suit is "City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08245-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C. Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Alan Ian Ellman, Esq.
         Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0877, 212-907-0853 and 212-907-0700
         Fax: (212) 883-7077 and (212) 883-7053
         E-mail: aellman@labaton.com
                 ckeller@labaton.com


STAPLES INC: Faces FLSA, MWA Violations Litigation in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts that alleges violations of Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The suit was filed on Oct. 1, 2007 by Kirsten McCandless, an employee who
wants the firm to pay her for overtime wages.  It does not specify the
amount of money she is seeking from Staples.

However, the suit is seeking class action status for so “all others
similarly situated” may be compensated for overtime wages.

Philip Gordon, a Boston attorney who represents McCandless told The
MetroWest Daily News, “We're seeking unpaid overtime for a group of
employees who worked more than 40 hours a week and weren't properly paid.”  
He claims Staples has “misclassified” the workers as being exempt from
overtime.

“The class period covers a three-year period of time, so it would be anyone
who worked in that position over the past three years,” Mr. Gordon
explains.  Mr. Gordon said the amount of overtime pay Ms. McCandless seeks
is yet undetermined.

Ms. McCandless, who works in the product solutions specialist group at the
office product company's headquarters office, started working at Staples in
September 2002 and is still employed by the company.

According to the lawsuit, Staples specialists answer telephone calls from
customers and help them with product purchases.  The suit states that Ms.
McCandless is paid at a fixed rate, plus commissions, no matter how many
hours she works, and she “regularly” worked more than 40 hours.

The suit is “McCandless v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-11850-RCL,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Gordon Law Group
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: 617-536-1800
          Fax: 617-536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com

          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          Gordon Law Group
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: 617-536-1800
          Fax: 617-536-1802
          E-mail: khurley@gordonllp.com


UNITED STATES: Halt in Deportation Sedations Sought in “Diouf”
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter, "Diouf et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al., Case No.
CV07-03977AHM," filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California urging for the stoppage of the forced sedation of
deportees at an immigration detention center.

                         Case Background

Two men who claim they were forcibly injected with drugs to make it easier
for the Department of Homeland Security to deport them have filed a class-
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against DHS Director Michael Chertoff (Class Action Reporter,
June 22, 2007).

The suit generally alleges that the practice may constitute torture and
violates both the Bill of Rights and federal law regarding the medical
treatment of detainees.

According to the suit, “Federal officials have publicly admitted that the
government has a policy of forcibly injecting immigrants with psychotropic
drugs in order to render them less ‘agitated’ for deportation.”

Named plaintiffs Amadou Diouf and Raymond Soeoth claim they were both
forcibly injected in anticipation of their deportation although both lacked
any history of mental illness or exhibited behavior that indicated they
would be mentally unstable during deportation.  In both cases, the men were
not examined by a doctor before being injected with potentially fatal anti-
psychotic drugs, the suit states.

“No federal statue authorizes forcible injection under these circumstances,
and the Constitution clearly forbids it,” the suit states.

Mr. Diouf, of Senegal, and Mr. Soeoth, of Indonesia, were allegedly injected
with haloperidol and cogentin, powerful drugs often administered to
psychotic people that stuns them and puts them to sleep.

They also sue Division of Immigration Health Services Interim Director Neil
Sampson, and several official at the San Pedro Service Processing Center
(immigration prison), where they were drugged.

The suit is "Diouf et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al., Case No. CV07-
03977AHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Ahilan T. Arulanantham
          Mark D. Rosenbaum
          ACLU Foundation of Southern California
          1616 Beverly Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752
          Phone: 213-977-9500
          Fax: 213-250-3919

               - and -

          Bradley S. Phillips
          Stephen M. Kristovich
          Fred A. Rowley, Jr.
          Fadia I. Raefedie
          Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Thirty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          Fax: 213-687-3702


UTSTARCOM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTSTARCOM, Inc. faces a securities fraud class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Sept. 4, 2007, a second shareholder class action complaint
captioned, “Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. C-07-4578 SI,” was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and some of the Company’s current and former directors
and officers.

The complaint alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
through undisclosed improper accounting practices concerning the Company’s
historical equity award grants.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock
between July 24, 2002 and Sept. 4, 2007.

The suit is “Peter Rudolph, et al. v. UTStarcom, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-
CV-04578,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California .

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Finkelstein Thompson LLP
         The Duvall Foundry, 1050 30th Street, N.W.
         Washington, DC, 20007
         Phone: 202.337.8000
         Fax: 202.337.8090
         E-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com


UTSTARCOM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
UTSTARCOM, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint
in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class actions alleging
federal securities violations were filed against the company and various
officers and directors.  The actions were later consolidated as "In re:
UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation."  

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint
on July 26, 2005.  The First Amended Complaint alleged violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and was brought on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April
16, 2003 and before Sept. 20, 2004.  

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding new allegations and extending the end of the class period to Oct. 6,
2005.  

In addition to the Company defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing
Softbank.  Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified
amount.

On June 2, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On March 21, 2007, the Court granted
defendants’ motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.   

The Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which
plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion
to dismiss and a motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint, according to
the company's Oct. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-
04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310/201-9150
         Fax: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Boris Feldman, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com

              - and -

         Scott Christensen Hall, Esq.
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600
         Fax: 650-461-5700
         E-mail: halls@sullcrom.com


WAL-MART STORES: Non-Jury Trial Begins in “Braun” Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A non-jury trial has begun in a class action filed against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. in the First Judicial District Court for Dakota County, Minnesota that
generally alleges violations of the state's labor laws.

The class action, “Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” was brought by four
women on behalf of 56,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club hourly employees.

Plaintiffs listed in the suit are:

       -- Nancy Braun, who worked at a Wal-Mart store in Apple
          Valley, Minnesota;

       -- Debbie Simonson and Cindy Severson, who worked in
          Brooklyn Park; and
    
       -- Pamela Reinert, who worked at stores in the
          Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

It specifically alleges that Wal-Mart managers, with severely understaffed
stores and under pressure to cut costs, inserted unused breaks on timecards
and asked employees to start work before clocking in and stay late after
clocking out.  It also alleges that the company tied bonuses for store
managers to store profitability.

Plaintiffs further claim that Wal-Mart allegedly committed more than 14
million violations of company policies and Minnesota wage and hour laws,
amounting to $27 million in unpaid wages.

They are seeking back pay to 1998 and as much as $1,000 each for millions of
missed breaks.  Punitive damages in the case will be allowed if the judge
finds against Wal-Mart, and thus damages could total billions of dollars.

A non-jury trial before Judge Robert King, Jr. began in the matter last
Sept. 25, 2007.  Judge King will rule on liability, damages and
willfulness.  If he finds against the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailed,
a jury will decide on damages.

The case is “Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-9790,” which was filed in the
District Court, Dakota County, First Judicial District, Minnesota (Hastings)
before Judge Robert King Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jonathan S. Parritz, Esq.
          Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP
          3300 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: 612.672.8334
          Fax: 612.642.8334
          E-mail: jon.parritz@maslon.com
          Web site: http://www.maslon.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Mulls Class Certification in “Salvador”   
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to
address the motion for class certification in the matter, “Salvador v.
SAM’S.”

In the suit, plaintiffs seek certification of a class of salaried managers
who challenge their exempt status under state and federal laws.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October  
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ATLAS MINING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ida.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action against Atlas Mining Company on
behalf of investors that purchased Atlas stock during the period from March
31, 2005 through and including October 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho.

The complaint charges that Atlas and certain of its officers and directors
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements filed with the
SEC during the Class Period by overstating the Company's revenue and assets.

On October 9, 2007, the Company announced that it would have to restate its
financial statements for each of the reporting periods from 2004 through the
current fiscal quarter as a result of improper revenue recognition practices
and other violations of generally accepted accounting principles. In
addition, Atlas announced it was suspending all activities at its Dragon
Mine pending a review. These announcements caused Atlas' stock price to
immediately drop by half -- causing investors substantial losses.

For more information, contact:

               Laurence Rosen, Esq.
               Phillip Kim, Esq.
               The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
               Tel:  (212) 686-1060
               Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
               Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
               Fax: (212) 202-3827
               Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Finkelstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk announced that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Countrywide Financial Corporation common stock
during the period between January 31, 2006 and August 9, 2007.

The complaint charges Countrywide and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a
result of defendants' false statements, Countrywide stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of
$44.94 per share. Certain of the defendants were able to sell over $440
million worth of their Countrywide shares at artificially inflated prices.

On July 24, 2007, defendants were forced to publicly disclose that
Countrywide was recording hundreds of millions of dollars of impaired losses
in addition to those recorded in the first quarter of 2007, causing its
stock to drop to $30.50 per share. Later on August 9, 2007, upon the filing
of the Company's Form 10Q for the second quarter of 2007, Countrywide's
stock dropped to $24.71 and then, as the market began to appreciate the
extent of Countrywide's problems, to below $20 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were:

     (a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

     (b) inflated appraisals of properties on loan applications
         would make Countrywide's losses much larger than
         current reserve levels once real estate values leveled,
         but the Company was failing to adjust its reserve
         levels to account for this known trend;

     (c) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its allowance for loan losses; and

     (d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to
         tighten its credit guidelines and implement additional
         lending restrictions, which would have a direct
         negative impact on its loan production.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Countrywide common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 15, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

               Mark Knutson
               Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
               Phone: 877-493-5366
               E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of E*TRADE Financial Corporation
between December 14, 2006 and September 25, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges E*TRADE and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

     (1) that the Company was experiencing increased
         delinquencies in its mortgage and home equity
         portfolios;

     (2) that the Company had failed to adequately reserve for
         loan losses;

     (3) as such, the Company would be forced to take $95
         million in charge-offs and provision expenses of $245
         million in the second half of 2007;

     (4) that the Company had failed to timely record
         impairments on certain securities, and as a result,
         such portfolios were materially overvalued; and

     (5) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its 2007 financial and operational
         results were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On September 17, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that
it was exiting the wholesale mortgage business, restructuring its
institutional brokerage business, and revising its previously issued 2007
guidance. The Company disclosed that it expected charge-offs of $95 million
dollars, provision expenses of $245 million in the second half of 2007 due
to an increased allowance for loan losses, and that it expected "severance,
restructuring and other exit charges" to be $32 million as a result of its
decision to exit and restructure the businesses.

Additionally, the Company stated that it was revising its earnings guidance
for 2007, and that it expected earnings per share ("EPS") of between $1.05
and $1.15 for the year, significantly lower than the Company's previously
issued guidance of between $1.53 to $1.67 EPS for the year. On this news,
the Company's shares fell $2.32 per share, or over 16.3 percent, over the
next six trading days, to close on September 25, 2007 at $11.89 per share,
on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

E*TRADE, through its subsidiaries, offers financial services to retail and
institutional customers worldwide, including retail investments and trading,
mortgage and home equity products, real estate loans, and various consumer
loans.

For more information, contact:

               Darren J. Check, Esq.
               Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
               Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
               280 King of Prussia Road
               Radnor, PA 19087
               Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
               E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
               Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com


LDK SOLAR: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of LDK Solar Co., Ltd. between June
1, 2007 and October 8, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges LDK and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

     (1) that the Company had significantly less feedstock
         inventory than it claimed to have; and

     (2) that only a fraction of the feedstock inventory that
         the Company did have was of sufficient quality for use
         in the manufacture of silicone wafers.

On October 3, 2007, Piper Jaffray stated in a research note that it
had "confirmed that the LDK financial controller recently left the company,"
and was "aware of the former controller's allegations of poor financial
controls and a 250-tonne inventory discrepancy." On this news, the Company's
shares declined $16.66 per share, or over 24 percent, to close on October 3,
2007 at $51.65 per share, on heavy trading volume.

On October 4, 2007, the Company stated that it had formed a committee to
investigate the allegations and conduct a physical inventory of LDK's
polysilicon materials. The Company indicated that it had found no "material
discrepancies" as compared to its financial statements, but that it had
solicited an accounting firm to conduct a separate engagement on its
inventory. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $3.35
per share, or 6.5 percent, to close on October 4, 2007 at $48.30, again on
heavy trading volume.

Then on October 8, 2007, Barron's reported that the Company "may be
overstating earnings and the value of its inventories." The report indicated
that the Company's inventories "may be overvalued by as much as $82
million," and that the quality of the Company's silicon ingots "is so low
that a recent production run produced tons of them that were too
contaminated for technicians to analyze." On this news, the Company's shares
declined an additional $13.45 per share, or over 26 percent, to close on
October 8, 2007 at $37.50 per share, also on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 10, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

LDK manufacturers and provides multicrystalline solar wafers to
manufacturers of photovoltaic products, including solar cells and solar
modules.

For more information, contact:

               Darren J. Check, Esq.
               Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
               Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
               280 King of Prussia Road
               Radnor, PA 19087
               Phone: 1-888-299-7706 r 1-610-667-7706
               E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
               Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com


MRT LLC: Blum & Silver Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Blum & Silver, LLP filed a class action on Oct. 10, 2007, on
behalf of all purchasers of investment contracts with MRT, LLC, from March
1, 2006 through to the present, and who were damaged thereby.

The action (Case No.07-CV-80931) was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The complaint alleges that MRT, and certain of its principals, violated the
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the class period, defendants allegedly made false statements to the
public, omitted material information about MRT's principals, and commingled
investors' funds.

The Company also failed to register itself, its selling agents or the
investment contracts it offered and sold to investors.

For more details, contact:

          Darren C. Blum, Esq.
          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          Blum & Silver, LLP
          Phone: 1-877-786-2552
          Web site: http://www.stockattorneys.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, and Janice Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication
in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and
photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the
publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of
the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For subscription
information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *