CAR_Public/070213.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 31

                            Headlines


ACE CASH: Tex. Shareholder Suit Settlement Hearing Set Mar. 29
ACXIOM CORP: No Appeal Made on Ark. Suit Over Security Breaches
APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Conn. Securities Fraud Litigation
ASHLAND INC: Faces Ohio Antitrust Suit by Foundry Owners
ASHLAND INC: Faces MTBE Products Liability Litigation in N.Y.

ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Extends Holocaust Suit Claims Deadline
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Suits
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Mass. Court Grants Motion for Consolidation
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Del.
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement

CAREMARK INC: "Dolan" ERISA Breach Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CENDANT CORP: N.J. Court Okays $22M ABI Stock Suits Settlement
CHICO'S FAS: Settlement of "Schaffer" Labor Suit Now Complete
CITGO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in Tex.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settles "Fielder" Consumer Suit for $12.5M

EGL INC: Continues to Face Suit by Pickup and Delivery Drivers
ENRON CORP: Banks Appeal Class Certification of Investors' Suit
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Suit in Calif.

GRAND PRIX: Formula 1 Fans Suit in Quebec Allowed to Go Ahead
HAWAII: Supreme Court Clears Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit
HOMEDICS INC: Recalls Heating Pads Posing Burn Injuries Hazard
HO'S TRADING: Recalls Dried Lily Bulbs Over Undeclared Sulfites
INDIAN TRUST: Discussions on Settlement of "Cobell" to Continue

MICROSOFT CORP: N.J. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement
MOLEX INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
PEANUT PROCESSORS: Recalls Peanut Paste Containing Metal Grains
POST APARTMENT: Ga. High Court Blocks Stock Suit Deal Challenge
RADNET INC: Still Faces DVI Securities Fraud Litigation in Pa.

RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Cuts Damage Estimate in "Scott" Suit
TJX COS: Faces New Suit in Mass. Over Client Information Leak
TYSON FOODS: Workers File Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ia.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Price-Fixing Suit Dismissal Challenged
VAXGEN INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation

VERITAS SOFTWARE: Del. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
VISA: Merchant Claims Still Accepted in Antitrust Suit Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GLOBALSTAR INC: KGS Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
LG. PHILIPS: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
LG. PHILIPS: Brualdi Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
LG. PHILIPS: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
NUVELO INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Files Calif. Securities Suit
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File Calif. Securities Suit
QUANTA CAPITAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Entwistle & Cappucci Files D.C. Securities Suit


                            *********


ACE CASH: Tex. Shareholder Suit Settlement Hearing Set Mar. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, will hold on March 29, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. a
fairness hearing in the proposed settlement of the class action
"The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust v. Ace Cash
Express Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01100."

The class consists of all public stockholders who held the
common stock of Ace Cash Express, Inc. (formerly traded over
NASDAQ under the symbol: AACE) from June 7, 2006 to Oct. 5,
2006, inclusive.

The terms of the settlement are subject to final court approval
and the dismissal of the action with prejudice and without cost,
except as otherwise provided.

Under the terms of the settlement, the parties agreed, in part,
as follows:

     (a) Plaintiff's counsel proposed certain changes to the
         disclosures contained in ACE's definitive proxy
         statement and schedule 13E-3 statement. After
         negotiations with counsel for plaintiff, the company
         made certain of those proposed changes in the proxy
         statement filed August 29, 2006 (as amended), and
         mailed on August 30, 2006, to all shareholders of
         record as of August 28, 2006.

     (b) Plaintiff's counsel will seek reimbursement for
         attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. Defendants will
         not oppose an application for attorneys' fees, costs
         and expenses not exceeding the amount of $295,000.

         Subject to Court approval of such application, and on
         behalf of the Defendants, ACE agrees to pay $115,000,
         and cause their insurers to pay $180,000, for the
         attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff's
         counsel within 10 business days of the issuance of the
         Order approving the Settlement, notwithstanding any
         timely objections. If the Order approving the
         Settlement is reversed on appeal, Plaintiff's counsel
         (or their successors) shall refund this payment to the
         Defendants.

     (c) ACE shall be responsible for, and shall pay, up to
         $7,000 for costs and expenses incident to provision of
         notice to the company's shareholders as the court
         determines is appropriate and necessary, if any.
         
         Subject to court approval, notice will consist of:

         (1) a mutually agreeable and Court-approved press
             release issued over "Business Wire;"

         (2) an announcement posted on ACE's website; and

         (3) notification mailed to shareholders describing the
             non-monetary settlement arising from the adoption
             of certain recommended disclosures.

         In the event that the court requires additional notice
         that would require ACE to incur more than the $7,000
         limit noted above, and the defendants are unwilling to
         pay for such additional notice, then either party has
         the right to terminate this agreement.

     (d) For purposes of settlement of the action only, the
         parties have petitioned the Court for provisional
         certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
         23(b)(2), consisting of all holders of ACE common
         shares between June 7, 2006 and October 5, 2006,
         inclusive (except defendants and any person, firm,
         trust, corporation or other entity related to or
         affiliated with any of the defendants), and their
         successors in interest.

     (e) The settlement is subject to final court approval and
         will not be binding upon any party until final court
         approval, permanent certification of the class, and the
         dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Deadline to file for objection is March 15, 2007.

                       Case Background

In 2006, ACE Cash Express, Inc. was named defendant in a
purported shareholder class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas in relation to a June 6
merger agreement with Ace Holdings I, LLC (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 4, 2006).

The company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Ace Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company formed by JLL
Partners Fund V, L.P., and Ranger Merger Sub, Inc., a Texas
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings
(Merger Sub), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with
and into the company.  The company will continue as the
surviving corporation and be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ace
Holdings.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time
of the merger, each outstanding share of the company's common
stock will be converted into the right to receive $30.00 in
cash.

On June 21, The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust
filed a purported class action on behalf of itself and all of
the company's other public shareholders against:

     -- the company,
     -- Ace Holdings I, LLC,
     -- Mr. Shipowitz,
     -- Robert P. Allyn,
     -- J. M. Haggar, III,
     -- Marshall B. Payne,
     -- Michael S. Rawlings,
     -- Charles Daniel Yost,
     -- Raymond C. Hemmig, and
     -- Edward W. Rose III

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, honesty and fair dealing to the shareholders
because the consideration payable to the shareholders under the
merger is at an unfair price and is a result of unfair dealing.

In its complaint, the plaintiff requested that the court certify
the class.  In addition, the plaintiff sought:

      -- to enjoin the company, Ace Holdings and the directors
         from proceeding with or consummating the merger;

      -- to invalidate and set aside the $15 million break-up
         fee;

      -- to rescind, set aside or award rescissory and/or
         compensatory damages to the class if the merger is
         consummated;

      -- punitive damages;

      -- costs and disbursements of the class action and
         reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and

      -- other relief as the court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?19c2

The suit is "The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust
v. Ace Cash Express Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01100," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge A. Joe Fish.

Representing the plaintiff are Roger L. Mandel and Martin
Woodward of Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite
750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4302 and 214/443-4304, E-
mail: rmandel@smi-law.com and mwoodward@smi-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld - Austin, 300 W Sixth St., Suite 2100,
Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512/499-6250, Fax: 512/499-6290, E-
mail: pbessette@akingump.com.


ACXIOM CORP: No Appeal Made on Ark. Suit Over Security Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
No timely appeal was made on a decision by Judge William R.
Wilson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas to dismiss a purported class action against Acxiom
Corp. over incidents that resulted in the loss of personal
information of several people.

According to the judge's dismissal ruling, even though a spammer
had downloaded more than one billion records from the company,
there was no evidence that Acxiom's purloined database had been
used to send junk e-mail or postal mail.

The case, "April Bell v. Acxiom Corp.," is a putative class
action filed on April 17, 2006.  It alleged that Acxiom had a
duty to notify consumers of the security breach incidents that
occurred in 2003.

Among other things, the complaint sought an order requiring
Acxiom to notify all class members in writing of the times their
private information was breached, how it was breached, by whom,
and what action Acxiom had taken to prevent further breaches of
security.

Plaintiff also sought an order requiring Acxiom to remove the
class members' private information from its computer systems and
enjoining Acxiom from obtaining such private information from
the class in the future.  

The complaint also sought compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the court granted Acxiom's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to
bring the case.  No timely appeal was taken, according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is "April Bell v. Acxiom Corp., Case No. 4:06-cv-00485-
WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John G. Emerson and Scott E. Poynter of Emerson  
         Poynter, LLP, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556,  
         E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com and  
         Scott@emersonpoynter.com; and  

     (2) George L. McWilliams, Sean Fletcher Rommel, James Clark  
         Wyly and Jack Thomas Patterson, II of Patton Roberts  
         McWilliams & Capshaw, Phone: (903) 334-7000 and 501-
         372-3480, E-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com,  
         srommel@pattonroberts.com and jwyly@pattonroberts.com.

Representing the defendant is Amy Lee Stewart of Rose Law Firm,  
120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock, AR 72201-2893, Phone: 501-
375-9131, E-mail: astewart@roselawfirm.com.


APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Conn. Securities Fraud Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and some of its officers continue to face a
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera
Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of
Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on Feb. 6, 2000.  

In the offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately
4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  

The suit was commenced with the filing of several complaints in
April and May 2000.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed
on Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to provide
patent protection to the company's genomic-based products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended
to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the
complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately
disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be
able to patent this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission,
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper.

On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class
action.


ASHLAND INC: Faces Ohio Antitrust Suit by Foundry Owners
--------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. is defendant in "In Re: Foundry Resins Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-md-01638-GLF-MRA" pending in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Ohio.

In response to an investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice that was closed in 2006 without criminal or civil
allegations being made by the government, several foundry owners
have filed lawsuits seeking class-action status for classes of
customers of foundry resins manufacturers such as Ashland.

These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio.  The suit was
filed before Judge Gregory L. Frost with referral to Mark R.
Abel.

Plaintiffs in the suit include: Tri-Cast Ltd. Partnership,
Atchison Casting Corp., Amite Foundry & Machine Inc., Lancaster
Foundry Supply Co., Port Shell Molding Co., Kore Mart, Ltd.,
Kulp Foundry Inc., State Line Foundries Inc., Tri-Cast Limited
Partnership, and Caterpillar Inc.

Defendants include:

   * Ashland Inc.,
   * Delta Ha Inc.,
   * Huttenes Albertus Chemische Werke Gmbh,
   * Borden Chemical Inc.,
   * Ashland Specialty Chemical Co.,
   * HA International LLC

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Eric Chappelear at Hahn
Loeser & Parks - 2, 65 E State Street, 14th Floor, Columbus, OH
43215-4224, Phone: 614-221-0240, Fax: 614-233-5148, E-mail:
sechappelear@hahnlaw.com.

Representing Ashland is Michael Karl Yarbrough at Frost Brown
Todd LLC, One Columbus, 10 W Broad Street, Suite 1000 Columbus,
OH 43215-3467, Phone: 614-464-1211, Fax: 614-559-7245, E-mail:
myarbrough@fbtlaw.com.


ASHLAND INC: Faces MTBE Products Liability Litigation in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., along with many other companies, is a defendant in
approximately 30 cases alleging methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) contamination in groundwater.  All of these cases have
been consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern
District of New York for preliminary proceedings.

The plaintiffs generally are water providers or governmental
authorities and they allege that refiners, manufacturers and
sellers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for manufacturing
a defective product and that owners and operators of retail
gasoline sites have allowed MTBE to be discharged into the
groundwater.

Ashland's potential liability relates to gasoline containing
MTBE allegedly produced and sold by Ashland, or one or more of
its subsidiaries, in the period prior to the formation of the
Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC.

Ashland only distributed MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE in a
limited number of states and has been dismissed in a number of
cases in which it was established that Ashland did not market
MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE in the state or region at
issue.  Many MTBE cases allege class-action status and seek
punitive damages or treble damages under a variety of statutes
and theories.  

The suit is "In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:00-cv-01898-SAS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing Ashland is Steven L. Leifer at Baker Botts LLP (DC)
1299 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Washington, DC 20004, Phone: (202)
639-7723.


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Extends Holocaust Suit Claims Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.a. has agreed to extend claims filing
deadline in the settlement of the class action "In re:
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, No
1374."

The original deadline was March 31.  It was extended by as much
as 18 months to allow heirs of Holocaust victims to try to find
new documentation on unpaid life insurance policies at a sealed
Nazi archive in Bad Arolsen, Germany, the International Herald
Tribune reports.

If the archives open in the first two-thirds of that period,
survivors will have six months to file claims.  Claims filing
will ultimately end by Aug. 31, 2008.

The issue of the archives was raised at a fairness hearing in
U.S. District Court in New York on Jan. 31 by Samuel Dubbin, a
lawyer in Miami who represents heirs of Holocaust victims and
who is against the settlement.

                   Summary of the Litigation

The class action alleges, among other things, that: (a) Generali
(and its related companies) withheld the value and/or proceeds
of insurance policies sold to the Holocaust era victims prior to
and during the Holocaust era; and (b) after the Holocaust,
Generali refused to pay on the policies, did not disclose the
nature and scope of its unpaid policies, and refused to identify
or disgorge the value or proceeds of such policies.

The Court decided that everyone who fits the following
description is a Class member:

All persons worldwide who:

     (1) were:
         -- Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and
         -- during the Class Period were:

        * named in or were parties to any Insurance Policies as
          defined infra, including, but not limited to, the
          insureds, beneficiaries and owners under such
          Insurance Policies; or

        * persons who succeeded to their rights by operation of
          law or otherwise, including but not limited to heirs,
          distributees, legatees, and the like; or

     (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any
         one or more of the foregoing persons (including but not
         limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the
         like), whether or not such claimants in this clause (2)
         are Holocaust Victims; provided however that "Generali
         Settlement Class" and "Releasors" shall not include
         persons:

         * who timely elect to be excluded from the "Generali
           Settlement Class"; or
        
         * who for any reason previously released any one or
           more of the Generali Group from liability in respect
           to the claims being compromised (whether such
           previous release was provided in connection with
           receiving compensation in respect of an Insurance
           Policy or for any other reason).

The Class Period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945.  A
"Holocaust Victim" means any person who was persecuted by the
Nazis (or their allies or by persons acting in concert with them
or pursuant to their direction) at any time on account of
religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or political
views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals,
and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Important terms of the proposed Settlement are:

     * Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under
       valuation and eligibility standards established by The
       International Commission On Holocaust Era Insurance
       Claims (ICHEIC), including all pending and unpaid claims         
       already received by ICHEIC;

     * Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court
       supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used
       in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the
       Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not identical)
       to the criteria used in processing and paying claims
       through ICHEIC.  Generali will bear the cost for
       reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court
       supervision;

     * Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula
       that takes into consideration amounts due on policies,
       currency conversion and interest, among other factors.  
       The minimum payment for any valid claim is $1,000;

     * Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era
       insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will be
       dismissed with prejudice;

     * Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four    
       Named Plaintiffs up to $5,000, as the Court may award;

     * Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the payment
       thereof will not diminish the compensation available to
       Class Members with valid Claim Forms.  


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. remains a co-defendant with Bayer
Corp., The Rugby Group, Inc., and others in several class action
complaints filed in state and federal courts by direct and
indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) from 1997 to the
present.

The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation
settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal
antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.  A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas
Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of state
Attorneys General was closed without further action in December
2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York
state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

On March 31, 2005, the court in the MDL Case granted summary
judgment in the company's favor and dismissed all of the federal
actions before it.  On June 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed notices of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The
Court of Appeals has stayed consideration of the merits pending
consideration of the company's motion to transfer the appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as well as
plaintiffs' request for the appeal to be considered en banc.

Merits briefing has not yet been completed because the
proceedings are stayed pending en banc consideration of a
similar case.

On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of
Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure
to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law.  On May 9,
2006, the Court of Appeals reinstated the complaint on state law
grounds for further proceedings in the trial court, but on July
25, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the defendants'
petition for further review.

On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
for New York County dismissed the consolidated New York state
class action for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

An intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, and
plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of
Appeals.  On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court of San Diego,
California ordered a stay of the California state class actions
until after the resolution of any appeal in the MDL Case.

On April 22, 2005, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas
similarly stayed the action before it, until after any appeal in
the MDL Case.  

The Florida state class action remains at a very early stage,
with no status hearings, dispositive motions, pre-trial
schedules, or a trial date set as of yet, according to the
company's 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
David G. Trager with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert S. Schachter and Joseph S. Tusa of Zwerling,
         Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd
         Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax:
         212-371-5969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com; and

     (2) Jennifer S. Abrams of Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco,
         425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francsico, Ca
         94104, Phone: (415) 433-3200.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joseph Serino, Jr. of Kirkland & Ellis, 153 East 53rd
         Street, New York, NY 10055, Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax:
         (212) 446-6460, E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com; and

    (ii) Fred H. Bartlit, Jr. of Bartlit, Beck, Herman,
         Palenchar & Scott, LLP, 54 West Hubbard Street, Suite
         300, Courthouse Place, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312)
         494-4400.


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Mass. Court Grants Motion for Consolidation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted a motion that sought to consolidate the securities class
actions, "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc.," and
"Charles E. G. Leech Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al."

                       Leech Class Action

On June 19, 2006, a putative class action, "Charles E. G. Leech
Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
defendants in this action are:

     -- the company;

     -- former chairman and chief executive Robert Therrien;

     -- Ellen Richstone, former chief financial officer;

     -- Roger D. Emerick, former director;

     -- Amin D. Khoury, former director;

     -- Robert W. Woodbury, Jr. chief financial officer; and

     -- Edward C. Grady, director, president and chief
        executive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the company and the
individual defendants; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the individual defendants; Section 11 of the Securities Act
against the company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury
and Therrien; Section 12 of the Securities Act against the
company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and
Therrien; and Section 15 of the Securities Act against Messrs.
Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien.

The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest,
and plaintiff's costs.  The defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the Leech complaint.

                       Shaw Class Action

On July 19, 2006, a putative class action, "James R. Shaw v.
Brooks Automation, Inc. et al., No. 06-11239-RWZ," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The defendants in the case are the company, Mr. Therrien, Ms
Richstone, Mr. Emerick, Mr. Khoury, Mr. Woodbury, and Mr. Grady.  
The company has not been served with the complaint at the time
the company prepared its report for the fiscal year ended Sept.
30.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all
individual defendants.  It thus, seeks, inter alia, damages,
including interest, and plaintiff's costs.

On Dec. 13, 2006, the court issued an order consolidating the
Shaw action with the Leech action described above and appointing
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

The lead plaintiff had until Feb. 12, 2007 to file a
consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's Feb.
7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks Automation, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a purported
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

On Aug. 22, 2006, an action, "Mark Levy v. Robert J. Therrien
and Brooks Automation, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware.  The suit seeks recovery on
behalf of the company, from Mr. Therrien under Section 16(b) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged "short-
swing" profits earned by Mr. Therrien due the loan and stock
option exercise in November 1999, and a sale by Mr. Therrien of
Brooks stock in March 2000.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of all profits earned by Mr.
Therrien on the transactions, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.  

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
New York has yet to grant final approval to a settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Capstone
Turbine Corp., two of its then officers and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from June 28, 2000 to  
Dec. 6, 2000.  An amended complaint was filed on April 19,  
2002.  

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's June 28, 2000 initial public
offering and Nov. 16, 2000 secondary offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for these two public
offerings were false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because they did not disclose these
arrangements.  

A committee of the company's Board of Directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide, among other things,
a release of the company and of the individual defendants for
the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the amended  
complaint.  

The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may
have against its underwriters.

Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the company's insurers.  The proposed
settlement is pending final approval by parties to the action
and the U.S. District Court Southern District of New  
York.

The court 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 Capstone Turbine Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, docket number 01-CV-11220,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.  
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:  
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,  
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,  
         Phone: 212.594.5300

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:  
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New  
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:  
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,  
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:  
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270  
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:  
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:  
        newyork@whafh.com.


CAREMARK INC: "Dolan" ERISA Breach Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
granted a motion in a case filed by Mary Dolan against Caremark
Inc. to voluntarily dismiss the suit alleging violations of
breach of fiduciary duties by the company under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

In April 2002, Caremark Rx was served with a putative private
class action that was filed by Roland Bickley, purportedly on
behalf of:

     * the Georgia Pacific Corp. Life, and
     * Health and Accident Plan,

in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
alleging that Caremark Rx and Caremark each act as a fiduciary
as that term is defined in ERISA and that Caremark Rx and
Caremark have breached certain purported fiduciary duties under
ERISA.

In August 2002, this case was ordered transferred to the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Alabama.  Caremark Rx
subsequently was served in May 2002 with a virtually identical
lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations, which was
filed by Mary Dolan, purportedly on behalf of Wells Fargo Health
Plan, and also filed in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.

In December 2002, this case also was ordered transferred to the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama.  Both of
these lawsuits were amended to name Caremark as a defendant, and
Caremark Rx was dismissed from the second case filed.

In December 2004, the court presiding over the Bickley matter
entered an order dismissing that case in its entirety with
prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing, had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that Caremark
was not a fiduciary under ERISA as to the plaintiff.

Mr. Bickley then filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the court's
order, which was denied by the court in February 2005.  In June
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed
the lower court's dismissal of the Bickley case based on the
plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies
(finding that this failure alone provided sufficient grounds for
affirmance, the court did not reach the remainder of the
district court's grounds for dismissal).

The Dolan matter had been stayed pending the 11th Circuit's
decision in Bickley.  Based on the 11th Circuit's ruling in
Bickley, the plaintiff in Dolan filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss her case, which was granted by the court, according to
the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al. Case No.
2:02-cv-02197-VEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.

Representing Roland Bickley are:

     (1) Peter C. Adams at Yearout & Traylor PC, 800 Shades
         Creek Parkway, Suite 500, Birmingham, AL 35209, Phone:
         205-414-8160, Fax: 205-414-8199, E-mail:
         USCourts@yearout.net; and

     (2) Richard L. Akel at Mary Alexander & Associates PC, 44
         Montgomery Street, Suite 1303, San Francisco, CA 94104-
         4612, Phone: 1-415-433-4440, Fax: 1-415-433-5440.

Representing Caremark Inc. are:

     (1) W. Michael Atchison at Starnes & Atchison LLP, P.O. Box
         598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512, Phone: 868-6000,
         Fax: 868-6098, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com; and

     (2) Daniel S. Floyd at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 South
         Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 1-213-
         229-7000, 1-213-229-7520.


CENDANT CORP: N.J. Court Okays $22M ABI Stock Suits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved
a proposed $22 million settlement of two purported securities
class actions filed against Cendant Corp.  The suit was filed on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased securities
of American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. between Jan. 27, 1998
and Oct. 13, 1998.

The proceedings:

     -- "Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., et al., Case No. 98-5384
        (D.N.J.)," and

     -- "P. Schoenfield Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp.,
        et al., Case No. 98-4734 (D.N.J.)" (ABI Actions),

were commenced in October and November of 1998, respectively.

Named as defendants were: the company, four former officers and
directors of CUC International, Inc., and Ernst & Young.

The complaints in the ABI actions, as amended on Feb. 8, 1999,
assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs allege that they purchased shares of ABI common stock
at prices artificially inflated by the accounting irregularities
after the company announced a cash tender offer for 51% of ABI's
outstanding shares of common stock in January 1998.

They also allege that after the disclosure of the accounting
irregularities, the company misstated its intention to complete
the tender offer and a second step merger pursuant to which the
remaining shares of ABI stock were to be acquired by the
company.  Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages.

On Apr. 4, 2006, the company entered into an agreement to settle
the ABI Actions for $22 million.  A hearing on the settlement
occurred on July 24, 2006.  The court approved the settlement
and the settlement has been fully funded by Realogy and Wyndham
Worldwide.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Semerenko and P. Schoenfield - Plaintiff] Allyn Zissel
         Lite and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg
         and Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12TH Floor, Newark,
         NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and

     (2) [Semerenko and P. Schoenfield - Defendant] Michael M.
         Rosenbaum of Budd Larner, P.C., 150 John F. Kennedy
         Parkway, CN 1000, Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999, Phone:
         (973) 379-4800, E-mail: mrosenbaum@budd-larner.com.


CHICO'S FAS: Settlement of "Schaffer" Labor Suit Now Complete
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action filed against Chico's FAS, Inc.
over allegations of California labor laws violations has been
completed.  

The company was named as defendant in a putative class action
filed in June 2005 in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Bernardino, "Carol Schaffer v. Chico's
FAS, Inc. et al."

The complaint alleged that the company, in violation of
California law, failed to pay overtime wages, permit rest and
meal periods, and timely pay separation wages, among other
claims.

Although the company believed it had strong defenses to the
allegations in this case, the company agreed to participate in a
voluntary private mediation on March 16, 2006.  The parties
reached a settlement at the mediation, notice was given to class
members regarding the filing of claim forms to participate in
the settlement, the period for filing claims lapsed, no class
members filed objections to the settlement and the Court gave
its final approval to the settlement.

The company has made all required payments under the settlement.  
The court was notified that administration of the settlement has
been completed.  


CITGO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citgo Petroleum Corp, the wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuelan
state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) has
sought the dismissal of a purported antitrust class action filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

Filed in Nov. 13, 2006 by companies that directly purchase
Citgo's oil products in the U.S., the suit charges that the
subsidiary is involved with oil price manipulations allegedly
perpetuated by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- Abston Petroleum, Inc.;
     -- Major Oil Co, Inc.;
     -- Spectrum Stores, Inc.; and
     -- WC Rice Oil Co, Inc.

According to the complaint, Citgo has entered into an agreement
with OPEC and its members to facilitate, enable, and provide
direct assistance to the cartel's price-fixing scheme.

Although owned by Venezuela, a member of OPEC -- which has
eluded U.S. antitrust law due to the foreign sovereignty of OPEC
member states -- plaintiffs were able to sue Citgo since it is a
U.S. company, according to an op-ed piece in The Washington
Times.

The suit charges the company of "directly and materially"
assisting OPEC by, among other things, "providing analyses of
American oil markets and other information" and "preparing
OPEC's long-term strategy."  It asserts that Citgo's agreement
with PDVSA and Venezuela is anticompetitive.

The lawsuit argues that a current Citgo director, Bernard
Mommer, and former director Luis Vierma helped develop
strategies for OPEC while they were members of the company's
board (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006).

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons and business
entities in the U.S. who have directly purchased oil-based
products, including gasoline, lubricants, motor oil, and asphalt
from CITGO within the last four years.

The purpose of the suit is to recover damages for the plaintiffs
and the class in the amount, trebled, of the overcharge
collected by defendant and its co-conspirators as a result of
OPEC's artificial price restraints, and to enjoin defendant from
facilitation, assisting, pr implementing such anticompetitive
conduct in the future.

The plaintiffs demand:

     -- that this case be certified as a nationwide class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that CITGO's unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged
        herein be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable
        restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1
        of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1) and Section 4
        of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Section 15);

     -- that plaintiffs and class members recover actual
        damages incurred as a result of the illegal OPEC price-
        fixing cartel, as provided by law, in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- that plaintiffs and class members recover ascertainable
        future damages that will be incurred as a result of the
        illegal OPEC price-fixing cartel, as provided by law, in
        an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- that plaintiffs and class members recover punitive  
        damages, as provided by law, in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- that CITGO be required to disgorge all unlawful profits
        earned by the OPEC price-fixing cartel;

     -- that the court, pursuant to SEction 4 of the Clayton
        Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a), award plaintiffs and the
        class members threefold the damages sustained by
        plaintiffs and the class members;

     -- that, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
        U.S.C. Section 26, the court grant plaintiffs          
        injunctive relief against threatened continued
        violations of the antitrust laws, as described herein,
        by CITGO;

     -- that the plaintiffs recover their costs of this suit,
        including reasonable attorney's fees as provided by law;
        and

     -- that plaintiffs be granted such other, further, and
        different legal and equitable relief as the nature of
        the case may require or as may be deemed just and
        appropriate by the court.

Recently, Citgo filed a motion to stay discovery while it tries
to get the suit dismissed, and a ruling on that motion is
expected by the end of March.  

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1532

The suit is "Spectrum Stores, Inc. et al. v. CITGO Petroleum
Corp., Case No. 4:06-cv-03569," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John T. Crowder of Cunningham, Bounds et al., 1601
         Dauphin St., Mobile, AL 36604, Phone: 251-471-6191,
         Fax: 251-479-1031, E-mail: jtc@cbcbb.com;

     (2) Robert Gerard Eisler of Lieff Cabraser Heiman &
         Bernstein, 780 Third Avenue, 48th floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail:
         reisler@lchb.com;

      (3) Geoffrey L. Harrison of Susman Godfrey LLP, 1000
          Louisiana, Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone:
          713-653-7807, Fax: 713-654-3367, E-mail:
          gharrison@susmangodfrey.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Richard N Carrell of Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301
         McKinney St., Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77010-3095, Phone:
         713-651-5447, Fax: 713-651-5246, E-mail:
         rcarrell@fulbright.com; and

    (ii) Chad J. Doellinger of Elmer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg,
         LLP, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL
         60604, Phone: 312-660-7600, Fax: 312-692-1718, E-mail:
         cdoellinger@eimerstahl.com.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settles "Fielder" Consumer Suit for $12.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corp. has signed a Memorandum of Understanding
to settle a consumer class action, "Marvin Fielder, et al. v.
Credit Acceptance Corp.," pending in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri.

Credit Acceptance has agreed to pay $12.5 million in full and
final settlement of all claims against Credit Acceptance.

The suit was filed on Oct. 15, 1996. The lawsuit relates to
allegations that between Oct. 15, 1991 and Oct, 9, 1997, in
Missouri, Credit Acceptance delivered defective post
repossession notices, assessed excessive interest, and accepted
assignment of installment contracts from Missouri dealers that
contained excessive official fees.

The company's 2006 fourth quarter financial results will reflect
a $11.2 million pre-tax charge related to the settlement, which
is subject to court approval.


EGL INC: Continues to Face Suit by Pickup and Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
EGL, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed
by one former and two current independent contractor pickup and
delivery (P&D) drivers of the company on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated drivers in California.   

The suit alleges various causes of action based on their theory
that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors.   

Filed in California state court on Sept. 12, 2005, the complaint
requests:  

      -- the matter be designated as a class action on behalf of  
         all independent contractor P&D drivers working for EGL  
         in California;  

      -- a declaratory judgment that EGL has violated the law;  
  
      -- an equitable accounting and an unspecified amount of  
         damages; and  

      -- restitution in the form of business expenses, unpaid  
         overtime, meal period compensation, unlawful deductions  
         from wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'  
         fees and costs.  

The company removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and the parties agreed to focus
only on the individual claims of the three named defendants in
the first phase of the proceedings.   

In the event one or more of the plaintiffs' claims survive the
summary judgment phase, the next phase would focus on whether
the action is maintainable as a class action.   

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 "Narayan et al. v. EGL, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:05-
cv-04181-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:  

     (1) Lorraine Grindstaff and Jules Sandford of Patten Faith  
         and Sandford, 635 West Foothill Blvd., Monrovia, CA  
         91016-2097, US, Phone: 626-359-9335, Fax: 626-303-2391,  
         E-mail: lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com and  
         jsandford@pfslaw.com; and  

     (2) Aaron D. Kaufmann of Hinton, Alfert & Sumner, 1646 N.  
         California Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596,  
         Phone: (925) 932-6006, Fax: (925) 932-3412, E-mail:  
         kaufmann@hinton-law.com.  

Representing the defendants is Karen J. Kubin of Akin Gump  
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 580 California Street, Suite 1500  
San Francisco, CA 94104-1036, Phone: 415-765-9522, Fax: 415-765-
9501, E-mail: kkubin@akingump.com.


ENRON CORP: Banks Appeal Class Certification of Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments on
an appeal by certain investment banks that seek to decertify as
a class action filed by Enron Corp. investors.

Merrill Lynch & Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston asked to end
a class action by Enron investors, who are seeking the $40
billion that they lost when the energy trader collapsed in 2001.

Both companies argued that Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas was wrong to
allow the Enron investors to sue as a group.

In a June 2006 order, Judge Harmon ruled that plaintiffs could
argue that the banks were "primary violators."  She also ruled
that if jurors find that the banks are primary violators, the
financial institutions can be held liable for tens of billions
of dollars in shareholder losses that stemmed from an
overarching fraud, whether they knew what other participants
did.

The banks argued that they could not be sued since they did not
participate directly in the accounting fraud that led to Enron's
bankruptcy.  Thus, they want the Fifth Circuit to reverse the
ruling, which if granted would eliminate both the class-action
status and the parameters that the judge set for the case.

Regarding defendants role in the fraud, plaintiffs contend that
the banks have the same level of responsibility as anyone at
Enron, since they structured allegedly dubious deals that they
knew the energy company used to fudge its financial statements.

The case is bound for an April 2007 trial.

Along with Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse, the other defendants
in the shareholders' suit are Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank
of Scotland and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

In the past few years, The University of California Board of
Regents has reached settlements with other defendants in the
case, including Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, the outside
directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and CIBC, totaling over
$7 billion for investors (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2007).

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: (415) 288-
4545, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against Exide Technologies, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey has filed an
amended complaint after an initial dismissal of the case.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints briefing.  The court
has granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and
permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which it
did.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, according to
the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class actions against the company and certain of
its current and former officers, alleging violations of certain
federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading
public statements made during this period by the company and its
officers.

The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought.  

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases as, "Aviva Partners v. Exide
Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."  

On March 24, 2006 Judge Cooper appointed:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management

co-lead plaintiffs for the putative class of former Exide
stockholders and appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin
Stoja Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as
co-lead counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated the claims described
above but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who
purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004 and May 17,
2005.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints briefing.  The court
has granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and
permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which it
did.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, according to
the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper,
with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov
Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277,
Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail:
procco@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants is Edward T. KOLE of Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs., 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
- Box 10, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958, Phone: (732) 636-8000, E-
mail: ekole@wilentz.com.


FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Isaac Corp. remains a defendant in a putative consumer
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia over alleged violation of the Credit Repair
Organizations Act.

The suit is "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc.
and Fair Isaac, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM."  It was filed
on Nov. 19, 2004, and asserts that defendants have jointly sold
the company's Score Power credit score product in violation of
certain procedural requirements under CROA.  

Plaintiff contends that Equifax Consumer Services and the
company are "credit repair organizations" under CROA and that
the transaction by which he purchased Score Power was in
violation of CROA and fraudulent.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased such services from defendants within
the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.  They
also seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2005, the district court denied defendants' partial
motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered,
denying all liability or wrongdoing.

The company reported no significant development in the case at
its Feb. 7 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Beverly B.
Martin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H.
         Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood,
         925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road,
         N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E-
         mail: efile@pmkm.com;  

     (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall
         225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278; and

     (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Craig Edward Bertschi, Audra Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn
         Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree Street,
         Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-
         6500, E-mail: cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com,
         adial@kilpatrickstockton.com,
         chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP,
         Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610,
         Phone: 312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-mail:
         kliebardk@howrey.com or mclawhornt@howrey.com.


FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Isaac Corp. remains a defendant in a putative consumer
class action over alleged violation of the Credit Repair
Organizations Act that was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  

In the suit, "Christy Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and MyFICO
Consumer Services, Inc.," plaintiff claims that the company sold
credit score-related products in violation of the CROA.

The plaintiff is also claiming that the defendants violated
certain procedural requirements of CROA, and violated the
antifraud provisions of CROA, with respect to the sale of credit
score products on the company's myFICO.com website.

The plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated the
California Credit Services Act and were unjustly enriched.  The
plaintiff has sought certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased credit score products from the company
on the myFICO.com website in the five year period prior to the
filing of the complaint on Jan. 18, 2005.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and denied any liability or wrongdoing and has denied that
class certification is appropriate.

On April 22, 2005, the company brought a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.  On June 27, 2005, the court granted the
company's motion, in part, by dismissing certain of the
plaintiff's claims under the CSA.  The plaintiff has brought
motions for summary judgment and for class certification.

The company reported no significant development in the case at
its Feb. 7 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is "Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
00257-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Sabrina S. Kim, Michael C.
Spencer and Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, Phone: 213-617-1200, 212-594-5300 and 213-617-
1200, Fax: 213-617-1975, 212-868-1229 and 213-617-1975, E-mail:
skim@milbergweiss.com and jwesterman@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants is Frederick Brown and Rebecca
Justice Lazarus of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, One Montgomery
St., Montgomery Tower, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-393-8204 and 415-393-8296, E-mail:
fbrown@gibsondunn.com and rjustice@gibsondunn.com.


GRAND PRIX: Formula 1 Fans Suit in Quebec Allowed to Go Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Michel Caron of the Quebec Superior Court has given the
go-ahead for a planned class action against Grand Prix F1 du
Canada Inc., grand prix organizers in Montreal, PaddockTalk
reports.

In his Feb. 1 decision, the judge said that the main legal
issues to be dealt with in the case include whether the location
and environment of Grandstand 10 conformed to what the Grand
Prix represented to patrons.

Led by spectator Scott McColl, a group of Canadian Formula 1
fans claim that their trackside view of the race in 2005 was
obstructed, despite paying for tickets to the same grandstand
they enjoyed 12 months earlier.  

Mr. McColl, a Pointe Claire businessman, argues ticketholders in
Grandstand 10 had unobstructed views at the June 2004 race,
including the starting line, the pit lane and the podium.  But
in 2005, the grandstand had been moved to allow for "podium
suites," which he contends blocked their view.

As a result, the seats "provided no views whatsoever" of some of
the most entertaining sites on the track, like the start/finish
line and the pit lane, Mr. McColl alleges in court documents.

Mr. McColl's lawyer, Rene R. Gauthier said no date has been set
for the suit to be heard.

Rene R. Gauthier is with Lazarus, Charbonneau, 200-759 Sq.
Victoria, Montreal, PQ H2Y 2J7, Canada, Phone: (514) 289-8600.


HAWAII: Supreme Court Clears Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii has allowed to proceed a class
action filed on behalf of thousands of native Hawaiian waiting
to be awarded homesteads by the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands trust, the Honolulu Advertiser reports.

About 2,700 homelands beneficiaries were denied properties after
the state shut down the claims process in 1999 (Class Action
Reporter, June 1, 2006).

The lawsuit alleges breach of trust on the part of the DHHL and
involves a variety of claims from individuals and families who
were on the list to be awarded homesteads from 1959 through
1988.

The claims range from lengthy waits for parcels to the
dissemination of wrong information to beneficiaries to problems
associated with the construction of homes.

Tom Grande, one of the claimant attorneys, said he's pleased the
agency "is making efforts to fulfill their trust obligations in
awarding homesteads," according to the report.

However, he said, "we think that the same efforts should be made
in resolving the claims of our 2,721 class members for breaches
of trust that occurred between 1959 and 1988."


HOMEDICS INC: Recalls Heating Pads Posing Burn Injuries Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
HoMedics Inc., voluntarily recalled, approximately 292,108 of
its heating pads which were produced in 2001 and subsequently
shipped to retailers in 2001 and 2002.

These heating pads were sold nationwide to Walgreens as well as
to drug stores, discount stores and department stores.

It has been determined that some of the heating pads contained
an inadequate connector crimp, which lead to a high resistance
connection that generated excessive heat, thereby posing a risk
of burn injuries, fire or damage to the heating pad itself or to
materials (like bedding and furniture) that could come into
contact with the pad.

HoMedics has received eight reports of minor or first degree
burns associated with the use of the heating pads and five
additional reports of minor or first degree burns possibly
related to the use of the heating pads, as well as reports of
property damage.  If burned, the consumer should seek medical
attention if appropriate.

Models involved in this recall include:

     -- Model 802857 (Walgreens by HoMedics) Standard Size
        Moist/Dry Heating pad; sold exclusively through
        Walgreens;

     -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-100 Standard Size Dry Heating
        Pad;

     -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-150 Standard Size Moist/Dry
        Heating Pad;

     -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-200 Standard Size Moist/Dry
        Heating Pad with Auto Shut-off;

     -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-300 King Size Moist/Dry
        Heating Pad;

     -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-500 King Size Moist/Dry
        Heating Pad with Auto Shut-off;

Each HoMedics heating pad is marked with a unique 4-digit date
code located both on the back of the hand control as well as on
the bottom panel of the color box.  Only 4-digit date codes
ending in "01" are subject to this voluntary recall.

In order to accurately identify the date code, consumers are
advised to refer to the diagram:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/photos/heatingpad.jpg


HO'S TRADING: Recalls Dried Lily Bulbs Over Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc. of 1010 Dean Street, Brooklyn, New York 11238,
is recalling Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb, because it
contains undeclared sulfites.

People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product.

The recalled Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb is packed in 10
oz., un-coded plastic bags.  The products were sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Fortune Star
Brand Dried Lily Bulb, which did not declare sulfites on the
label.

The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfites sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb
are advised to return it to the place of purchase.  Consumer
with any questions may contact the company at 718-622-2288.


INDIAN TRUST: Discussions on Settlement of "Cobell" to Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discussions are set to continue in the new Congress on
"settlement concepts" to resolve the "Cobell v. Kempthorne"
litigation, The Indian Country Today reports.

In 2006, a congressional initiative to end the litigation
failed.  At the end of that process, the federal government
brought forward a handful of suggestions under the rubric of
"settlement concepts," which will be one of the issues covered
by the new Congress, according to the report.

One of the "settlement concepts," which was proposed would
ordain a federal withdrawal from management of the trust funds
in two phases over a 10-year period.

The priority of the first phase would be consolidation of
fractionated lands by voluntary and involuntary mechanisms.

Fractionated lands, universally recognized as the leading
problem in managing the trust, would be consolidated, however,
land title would remain with Indian individuals or tribes.

Meanwhile, the priority of the second phase would be transition
to a "beneficiary-managed" trust with limits on federal
liability.

                        Case Background

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in
Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 24, 2007).

It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions
of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians
and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest
form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to
surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge Thomas F. Hogan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;

     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;

     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and

     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact

     (i) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

    (ii) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and

   (iii) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


MICROSOFT CORP: N.J. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Area schools in New Jersey are set to receive more than $1
million in grant money under the settlement of an antitrust
class action against Microsoft Corp., The Daily Review reports.

Fremont schools are eligible for $439,000, New Haven schools are
eligible for $437,000 and Newark schools are eligible for
$198,842 of the $1.1 billion settlement.

The settlement stems from a 1998 antitrust suit, filed by the
U.S. Department of Justice and 20 states, about certain
Microsoft software acquired by consumers and businesses between
Feb. 18, 1995 and Dec. 15, 2001 for use in California.

The suit alleged that Microsoft Corp. unlawfully used anti-
competitive measures to obtain a monopoly on software.

The class action claimed that the Redmond, Washington-based firm
overcharged consumers who licensed its MS-DOS, Windows, Word,
Excel, and Office software.  

In December 2004, a settlement was reached in the antitrust and
unfair competition class action.

Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will provide
vouchers totaling up to $1.1 billion to eligible California
users of its Windows, MS-DOS, Office, Excel, Word, Works Suite
or Home Essentials 97 or 98 products to be redeemed for cash
after they purchase qualifying computer hardware or software.

Roughly $1 million was awarded to education and the rest went to
the non-profit organizations and charter schools.  

The money was made available to schools whose districts have a
state-approved technology plan and at which a minimum of 40
percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced-
price meals.

In Newark, those include Schilling, Graham, Musick, Snow and
Milani elementary schools, and Newark Memorial High School.

Districts have until June 2008 to apply.

Microsoft-California Class Action Settlement on the net:
http://www.microsoftcalsettlement.com.


MOLEX INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Molex, Inc. and certain of its
officers and employees.

Between March 2, 2005 and April 22, 2005, seven separate
complaints, each purporting to be on behalf of a class of Molex
shareholders, were filed against the company, and certain of its
officers and employees.  

The shareholder actions have been consolidated before Judge
Ruben Castillo in the case, "The Takara Trust v. Molex Inc., et
al., Case No. 05C 1245," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that from July 27, 2004 to Feb. 14, 2005, the named defendants
made or caused to be made a series of materially false or
misleading statements about the company's business, prospects,
operations, and financial statements which constituted
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  

The complaint also alleges that certain of the named defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5.  

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 individual defendants named in the consolidated amended
complaint are:

      -- J. Joseph King,
      -- Diane S. Bullock,
      -- John H. Krehbiel Jr.,
      -- Frederick A. Krehbiel and
      -- Martin P. Slark  

On April 28, 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On July 6, 2005, the court appointed
City of Pontiac Group, Joan L. Weeks individually and as
trustee, and James Baker as lead plaintiffs, and approved lead
plaintiffs' choice of lead counsel.  

Discovery is ongoing, and is scheduled to conclude in March
2007, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2006.   

The suit is "The Takara Trust v. Molex Inc., et al., Case No.
05C 1245," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite
         1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403,
         Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com;
         and

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

Representing the defendants are Harold C. Hirshman, Jason L.
Rubin, Christopher Qualley King and Gerald E. Fradin of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-
mail: cking@sonnenschein.com and gfradin@sonnenschein.com.


PEANUT PROCESSORS: Recalls Peanut Paste Containing Metal Grains
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peanut Processors, Inc. of Dublin, North Carolina, is recalling
certain bulk loads of peanut paste because the paste may contain
small particles of metal.

These products were sold to manufacturers of consumer food
products in Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina on:

     -- Monday, Jan. 29,
     -- Tuesday, Jan. 30,
     -- Wednesday, Jan. 31,
     -- Thursday, Feb. 1, and
     -- Friday Feb. 2.

A total of seven shipments were delivered to three different
food product manufacturers.

Each of the food product manufacturers has been given notice of
the recall and of the specific shipments recalled.

The metal particles were detected through internal quality
checks by one manufacturer.  No consumer complaints have been
reported.


POST APARTMENT: Ga. High Court Blocks Stock Suit Deal Challenge
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court refused to review a ruling approving a
settlement of shareholder derivative and class actions against
Post Apartment Homes LP and the members of its board of
directors.

On May 5, 2003, the company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action was filed against members
of the board of directors of the company and the company as a
nominal defendant.  This complaint alleged various breaches of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the company and
sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain
information by the defendants.

This complaint also sought to compel the defendants to undertake
various actions to facilities a sale of the company.  On May 7,
2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary expedited
discovery.  

On May 13, 2003, the company received notice that a similar
shareholder derivative and purported class action was filed
against certain members of the board of directors of the company
and against the company as a nominal defendant.  

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the
defendants.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as
appropriate, injunctive relief.  

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior  
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation.

An alleged company shareholder, who has filed a separate
purported derivative and direct action against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, has appealed from the
Superior Court's orders approving the settlement, overruling the
shareholder's objection to the settlement, denying the
shareholder's motion to intervene, and dismissing the litigation
with prejudice.  

In November 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
orders.  In December 2005, the alleged company shareholder asked
the Georgia Supreme Court to review the case.  In April 2006,
the Georgia Supreme Court denied review, and the alleged company
shareholder indicated that he would seek review by the U.S.
Supreme Court.  The alleged shareholder has not sought such
review, however, and the deadline has passed.


RADNET INC: Still Faces DVI Securities Fraud Litigation in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radnet, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action,
"In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation," which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
according to the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Oct. 31, 2006.

This is a class action securities fraud case under Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  It was
brought by shareholders of DVI, Inc., one of the company's
former major lenders, against DVI officers and directors and a
number of third party defendants, including Radnet.  

The case arises from bankruptcy proceedings instituted by DVI in
August 2003.  Radnet was named as a defendant in the third
amended complaint filed in July 2004.

The putative plaintiff class consists of those persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired DVI, Inc. securities between
August of 1999 and August of 2003.  

Plaintiffs allege that in 2000, we acquired from a third party
one or more unprofitable imaging centers in order to help DVI
conceal the fact that existing DVI loans on the centers were
delinquent.

Plaintiffs argue that the company should have known that DVI was
engaging in fraudulent practices to conceal losses, and the
company's alleged "lack of due diligence" in investigating DVI's
finances in the course of these acquisitions amounted to
complicity in deceptive and misleading practices.

The company has answered the complaint.  The matter is still in
its initial stages with discovery just beginning in that the
court has stayed the proceedings for many months.

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
2:03-CV-5336," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Antonia M. Apps of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and  
         Evans, PLLC, 1615 M. Street, North West, Suite 400,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-326-7900;

     (2) Thomas V. Ayala of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701  
         Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-963-
         5719, E-mail: tayala@morganlewis.com; and

     (3) Gregory Ballard of Cadwalader wickersham & Taft LLP,  
         One World, Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone:  
         212-504-6701, E-mail: gregory.ballard@cwt.com.

Representing the plaintiffs is M. Reas Bowman of Krislov &  
Associates Ltd, 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1350, Chicago, IL 60606,  
Phone: 312-506-0500.


RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Cuts Damage Estimate in "Scott" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal reduced the amount of
potential damages by at least 70 percent in the Scott class
action, a suit brought by smokers in the state against cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Jeff Raborn, senior counsel for R.J. Reynolds said, "We are
certainly pleased with that, but we remain convinced that the
class should be decertified and the case completely reversed."

Mr. Raborn added R.J. Reynolds will seek further review of the
case.

On Nov. 5, 1998, in the case, "Scott v. American Tobacco Co.," a
Louisiana state appeals court affirmed the certification of a
medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana
residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.

On Feb. 26, 1999, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for review.  Jury selection began on  
June 18, 2001 and was completed on Sept. 23, 2002.  

Opening statements occurred on Jan. 21, 2003.  On July 28, 2003,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants,
including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, on the plaintiffs'
claim for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not
defectively designed.  

In addition, however, the jury made certain findings against the
defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, on
claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and
smoking cessation.

With respect to these findings, this portion of the trial did
not determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.  What primarily remained in the case was a
class-wide claim that the defendants, including RJR Tobacco and
Brown & Williamson, pay for a program to help people stop
smoking.  

On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address the
scope and cost of smoking cessation programs.  On May 21, 2004,
the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591 million on the
class claim for a smoking cessation program.  

On Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond
(pursuant to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to
$50 million collectively for Master Settlement Agreement MSA
signatories) and noticed their appeal.  RJR Tobacco posted $25
million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W) towards the bond.  

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on the Net: http://www.RJRT.com.


TJX COS: Faces New Suit in Mass. Over Client Information Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
TJX Cos. Inc. is facing a new class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all
consumers of the Framingham retailer who had personal and
financial data stolen from the computer network of TJX, the
Boston Herald reports.

The suit alleges that TJX was negligent for failing to protect
their credit and debit card information and to promptly notify
them of the company's recent computer breach.

According to the recent lawsuit, Fitchburg resident Rachel
Rosenfeld, who shopped at Marshalls last year, had her Visa
debit card information stolen.

On Jan. 17, Ms. Rosenfeld's credit union informed her on that
day that her debit card number was at risk due to an unspecified
merchant's network intrusion.  It issued her a new card and
advised her to review her accounts for unauthorized
transactions, the suit says.

"After making efforts on her own, she was finally later able to
confirm with her credit union that the 'intrusion' was at TJX,"
the suit said.

Although TJX discovered the data breach in mid-December 2006, it
did not publicly announce the intrusion until one month later
when it issued a press release on Jan. 17, 2007.  

Because of TJX's actions, hundreds of thousands or even millions
of its customers have allegedly had their personal financial
information compromised, have had their privacy rights violated,
have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft, and
have otherwise suffered damages.

The other plaintiffs in the suit are from Michigan, Oregon and
California.  One had fraudulent charges posted to her
MasterCard.

The suit is "Buckley et al. v. TJX Cos., Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
10209-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

Representing plaintiffs are Thomas G. Shapiro and Robert E.
Ditzion both of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-
mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com or rditzion@shulaw.com.


TYSON FOODS: Workers File Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ia.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Employees at Tyson Foods Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa for alleged
non-payment to workers for the time needed to prepare for each
shift, WOI-TV reports.

According to the complaint, Tyson does not pay workers for the
whole time it takes to change into required uniforms and safety
equipment and collect and sanitize knives and other equipment
needed to work on the production lines.

The employees claim workers are paid only for the time they
spend on the production line and four minutes per day for
"clothes changing time," a process the lawsuit said can take up
to 35 minutes.

Ten workers from Tyson plants in Denison and Storm Lake are
seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, which seeks unpaid
overtime wages and other damages.  If granted, the litigation
would affect as many as 35 hundred current and former workers
since Feb. 6, 2005.

The suit is "Sharp et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-
04009-MWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa under Judge Mark W. Bennett with referral to
Judge Paul A. Zoss.

Representing plaintiffs is MacDonald Smith of Smith & McElwain,
505 Fifth Street, Suite 530, Sioux City, IA 51101, Phone: 712
255 8094, Fax: 712 255 3825, E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Price-Fixing Suit Dismissal Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has yet to make a
ruling with regards to an appeal of the dismissal by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York of a
consolidated class action against United Technologies Corp.,
Otis Elevator Co. and other elevator and escalator
manufacturers.  

The suit alleges a worldwide agreement among elevator and
escalator manufacturers to fix prices in violation of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit did not specify the
amount of damages claimed.  

On June 6, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without leave to re-plead.  On June 30, 2006, the
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

The company expects a decision in the second or third quarter of
2007, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04-
cv-01178-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Jane Fait, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Stuart
         S. Saft, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz,
         L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600, E-mail: fait@whafh.com,
         isquith@whafh.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
         B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA, Phone:
         619-231-7423; and  

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller, Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi
         & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-
         mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com, bkeller@faruqilaw.com and
         avozzolo@faruqilaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Deborah M. Buell, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 1 Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006,
Phone: 212-225-2000, Fax: 212-225-3499, E-mail:
maofiling@cgsh.com.


VAXGEN INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
VaxGen, Inc.

On March 17, 2003, the suit "Janice Whitkens v. VaxGen, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. C03-1129 JSW," was filed against the
company for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 17, 2003, a civil complaint for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
entitled, "Janice Whitkens v. VaxGen, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. C03-1129 JSW."  

Named, as defendants are VaxGen, Inc., chief executive officer
Lance K. Gordon and former president Donald P. Francis.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased
the company's securities between Aug. 6, 2002 and Feb. 26, 2003,
and alleges that the defendants misled investors about the
progress of certain clinical trials and our future manufacturing
and marketing plans.

Following the filing of the Whitkens complaint, several
additional class action complaints were filed in the same court,
each making identical or similar allegations against the same
defendants.

On April 16, 2004, Theodore Williams was appointed lead
plaintiff and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on May
14, 2004.  

On June 28, 2004 defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.  In May 2005, the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with
prejudice the class action filed against the company, according
to the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2004.

The suit is "In re VaxGen Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. C-03-1129-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;


     (2) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610/667-7706,
         E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (3) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market
         Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
         rsg@classcounsel.com.

Representing the defendants is William S. Freeman and William S.
Freeman of Cooley Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155, Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax:
650 857-0663, E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com and
freemanws@cooley.com.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Del. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a
motion filed by VERITAS Software Corp., which was recently
acquired Symantec Corp., seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action filed against it.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck,
et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004 that it
expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates.  The complaint
generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004 through July 6,
2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.

Defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which was denied by
the court in May 2006, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 29, 2006.

The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal,
Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O.
Box 1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E-
mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Erica Niezgoda Finnegan of Cross & Simon, LLC, 913
         North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001,
         Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 777-4200, (302) 777-
         4224, E-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com; and

     (2) Peter J. Walsh, Jr. of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box
         951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6037,
         Fax: (302) 658-1192, E-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com.


VISA: Merchant Claims Still Accepted in Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. merchants, who accepted cards from Visa U.S.A. and
MasterCard Worldwide between October 1992 and July 2003, can
still file claims to receive their fair share of the settlement
in the class action "Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 96-5238," the Green Sheet reports.

According to Lloyd Constantine, partner with the law firm
Constantine Cannon, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the law
firm has not yet decided when to close the class.

"If and when it's our recommendation to the court that we end
that, we will give public notification well in advance," Mr.
Constantine said in an interview with Green Sheet.

                       Case Background

The $3.1 billion settlement fund stems from class action
captioned, "In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The suit was between retailers nationwide and credit providers
Visa and MasterCard and relates to how the stores process
transactions made with debit cards, which deduct cash from
consumers' existing bank accounts, rather than building up their
debt with credit accounts.

It charges both MasterCard and Visa USA with violating U.S.
antitrust law by monopolistic and anticompetitive business
practices concerning debit cards.

The suit specifically alleges that Visa and MasterCard violated
antitrust laws by insisting that merchants who accept their
credit cards must also accept their debit cards, and also that
the two card companies charge unfair fees, eventually driving up
costs for consumers (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2003).

The case was certified as a class action in February of 2000,
and included five million merchants in the U.S. and is said to
involve billions of dollars.

On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle with the final
settlement agreements being signed on June 4, 2003 and the
federal judge overseeing the case, Judge John Gleeson, granting
preliminary approval to the deal and the notice plan on June 13,
2003 (Class Action Reporter story July 24, 2003).

Objections to the terms of the settlements and plan of
allocation were due last Sept. 5, 2003.  A fairness hearing took
place on Sept. 25, 2003, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York before Judge Gleeson.

Alongside the $3 billion compensation award, the settlement also
called for the providers to stop requiring merchants that accept
credit cards to also accept certain debit card transactions.  
The companies also agreed to lower debit card fees that they
charge merchants for an interim period, by one-third.

Some of retail's heaviest hitters led the suit, including Wal-
Mart Stores Inc., Sears Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores
Inc. and Safeway Inc.  Those stores will collect exponentially
more than a business the size of the smaller companies involved
in the case.

Earlier, Constantine Cannon directed the claims administrator to
mail checks to class members (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3,
2007).  These payments include claims that were filed and
approved by March 10, 2006 that did not involve the
consolidation of multiple store locations or divisions.  

Claims that required consolidation and were filed and approved
by Oct. 20, 2006, are also being paid at this time.  

This distribution of approximately 128,000 payments involves
more than $300 million.  This is the third round of
distribution, the first having occurred in December 2005 and the
second in June 2006, involving more than $650 million in claim
payments.

Constantine Cannon expects that the remaining claim forms
involving payments for signature debit and credit card
overcharges will be approved and ready for payment before the
end of 2007.  

It also expects that payments for online PIN debit overcharges
will be made to all or most qualifying class members in 2007.

Among the 128,000 checks to be mailed by the claims
administrator are approximately 29,400 checks of $1,000.00 or
more; 1,790 checks of $10,000.00 or more; 308 checks of
$100,000.00 or more; and 40 checks of $1,000,000.00 or more.

In addition to this cash monetary relief, the settlement in this
case includes an injunction valued by the court in the range of
$25-$87 billion to U.S. merchants and consumers.

In approving the settlement, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit stated that it is "the largest antitrust
settlement in history," that "the compensatory relief by itself
constitutes the largest settlement ever approved by a federal
court;" and "produced significant and lasting benefits for
America's merchants and consumers."

For more details, call 1-888-641-4437 or 212-350-2799 or visit,
http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com.

The suit is "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al. v. Visa USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John
Gleeson with referral to Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lloyd Constantine, Matthew L.
Cantor, Jeffrey Issac Shinder and Robert L. Begleiter of
Constantine Cannon, P.C., 477 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-350-2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail:
lconstatine@cpny.com, mcantor@cpny.com, jshinder@cpny.com and
rbegleiter@cpny.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kevin J. Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 425
         Lexington Ave., 29th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 455-7680 or -2000, Fax: (212) 455-2502, E-mail:
         karquit@stblaw.com, and

     (2) Stephen V. Bomse, Brian P. Brosnahan and Thomas P.
         Brown of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, 333 Bush
         St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone:
         (415) 772-6000, E-mail: sbomse@hewm.com,
          bbrosnahan@hewm.com and tbrown@hewm.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GLOBALSTAR INC: KGS Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announced that a securities fraud class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of shareholders of Globalstar,
Inc. common stock purchased in the initial public offering or on
the open market during on or about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 6,
2007.

The complaint charges Globalstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities law.

On or about Nov. 2, 2006, the IPO Prospectus, which forms part
of the Registration Statement, became effective and at least 7.5
million shares of Globalstar's common stock were sold to the
public, thereby raising more than $127 million.

The Prospectus failed to disclose that Globalstar's
constellation of satellites was degrading at an increasingly
fast rate and the length of their commercial viability was
decreasing.

Then, on Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing several material
events.

Among other things, the company disclosed that it has received
updated information concerning its constellation of satellites
and that the satellites' rate of degradation had accelerated.

In response to the announcement about the company's satellites,
on Feb. 6, 2007, the price of Globalstar stock declined
precipitously falling from $14.48 per share to $10.40 per share
-- approximately 39% below the IPO price -- on extremely heavy
trading volume.

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

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner of
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 106
(toll free), Mobile: 504-301-7900, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com.


LG. PHILIPS: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendant LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and one or more of
its officers and/or directors, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of LG.Philips
between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the company's securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven of Brower Piven,
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.


LG. PHILIPS: Brualdi Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm commenced a securities class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. publicly traded
securities between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006.

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

It alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
positive statements concerning the company's LCD business while,
unbeknownst to investors, defendants were using artificial
antitrust mechanisms, including price fixing, to support the
company's already inflated margins.

However, by late spring 2006, as the company's executives became
aware of fines and jail sentences imposed for price fixing in
the industry, they began ceasing their price-fixing behavior and
rumors about the reasons for the sudden "weak pricing" in the
LCD marketplace circulated throughout the markets.

Without artificial anticompetitive mechanisms in place, the
company's profits began to fall and its share price declined
from $22 to $15.

On Dec. 8, 2006, officials from South Korea's Fair Trade
Commission appeared at the company's Seoul headquarters to
proceed with a formal investigation of the company and its top
executives.

Then on Dec. 11, 2006, the company announced it was being
investigated for possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD
industry.

The announcement spurred a two-day stock slide that erased about
$1.6 billion in market value from the top five producers,
including LG.Philips.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the following material adverse facts from the
investing public:

     (a) from on or about June 2004 until on or about June 2006,
         LG.Philips and its co-conspirators entered into and
         engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the United
         States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
         competition by fixing the prices of LCD panel products
         to be sold to resellers and consumers; and

     (b) as a result, the company's shares traded at inflated
         prices, enabling the company to consummate its initial
         public offering raising $1 billion, its secondary
         offering raising $1.4 billion, and obtain an additional
         $500 million in other securities offerings on terms
         otherwise unobtainable but for defendants' conduct,
         including the use of defective prospectuses for each
         such offering.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
Feb. 7, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

LG.Philips engages in the manufacture and supply of thin film
transistor liquid crystal displays to original equipment
manufacturers and multinational corporations.  It sells its
products primarily in the U.S., Korea, Asia, and Europe.

For more information, contact Tali Leger, Director of
Shareholder Relations of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, Phone: (877) 495-1877 toll
free or (212) 952-0602, E-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com,
Website: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/.


LG. PHILIPS: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of LG.Philips
LCD Co., Ltd. between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are those who purchased in the Initial
Public Offering and in the Secondary Offering on or around July
21, 2005.

The complaint alleges that LG Phillips and certain of its
officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws in the
U.S.

Specifically, defendants made positive statements concerning the
company's liquid crystal displays business while they were using
artificial antitrust mechanisms, including price fixing, to
support inflated margins.

During the Class Period, defendants concealed that:

     (i) from on or about June 2004 until on or about June 2006,
         LG Philips and its co-conspirators entered into and
         engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the United
         States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
         competition by fixing the prices of LCD panel products;
         and

    (ii) as a result, the company's shares traded at inflated
         prices, enabling the company to consummate its IPO
         raising $1 billion, its Secondary Offering raising $1.4
         billion, and obtain an additional $500 million in other
         securities offerings.

On Dec. 8, 2006, officials from South Korea's Fair Trade
Commission appeared at the company's Seoul headquarters to
proceed with a formal investigation of the company and its top
executives.

On Dec. 11, 2006, LG Phillips announced it was being
investigated for possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD
industry.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A.
Kulesa, both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499
toll-free, E-mail: firm@snlaw.net, Website:
http://www.snlaw.net.


NUVELO INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo, Inc.
publicly traded securities during the period between Jan. 5,
2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

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

The complaint alleges that Nuvelo misrepresented its chances of
obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a
purported new blood clot dissolver, alfimeprase.

The complaint further alleges that despite the fact that 80% of
Nuvelo's value was attributed to this drug, the company's top
officers concealed that their own clinical data demonstrated
alfimeprase was ineffective in dissolving blood clots.

On Dec. 14, 2005, the company announced it had received a
Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreement from the FDA,
claiming that the SPA would solidify the regulatory pathway to
approval for alfimeprase.   Defendants also stated their "power
calculations" demonstrated alfimeprase's efficacy as a drug
candidate.

During a Jan. 5, 2006 conference call, defendants confirmed they
believed alfimeprase would reach the U.S. consumer market by
2008 and that alfimeprase would generate $500 million in annual
sales in the U.S. alone.

The complaint alleges Nuvelo's stock price surged on this news
and remained inflated throughout the Class Period while Nuvelo
issued and sold 7.5 million shares of its common stock in an
underwritten offering on Jan. 30, 2006, receiving over $119
million in proceeds.

Then on Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo disclosed that alfimeprase had
completely failed its clinical trials. During the conference
call following the announcement, Nuvelo's chief executive
sadmitted that alfimeprase failed to perform better than
placebos and that previously reported positive results were due
to drug injections washing clots away rather than dissolving
them.  On this news the company's stock fell 80%, erasing over
$800 million in market capitalization.

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

     (i) Nuvelo had no reliable clinical data suggesting that
         alfimeprase "dissolved" blood clots when applied to
         them through a catheter, other than physically washing
         them away;

    (ii) Nuvelo had no "power calculations" suggesting
         alfimeprase would out-perform a placebo as required to
         demonstrate the efficacy the FDA would demand; and

   (iii) defendants knew the decision of Amgen, the drug's
         original developer, to walk away in December 2004 was
         based on Amgen's educated suspicion (based on clinical
         data also known to defendants) that alfimeprase would
         likely not pass FDA muster and thus was not a
         commercially viable drug candidate.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Nuvelo publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

Nuvelo is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the development
and commercialization of acute cardiovascular and cancer
therapies.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone:
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com,
Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/nuvelo/.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between May 2, 2005 and
Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

For more information, 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 Toll-Free, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Website:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, on behalf of all common stock purchasers of
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (PWAV) from May 2, 2005 through
Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that Powerwave was materially overstating its financial
         results, specifically by improperly recognizing
         revenue;

     (2) that the company was materially overstating its
         profitability by underreporting foreseeable expenses,
         and failing to make proper, timely adjustments;

     (3) that Powerwave's financial statements were not prepared
         in accordance with GAAP;

     (4) that the company lacked adequate internal operational
         or financial controls;

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

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On Oct. 9, 2006, prior to the market opening for that day,
Powerwave shocked investors when it announced, in striking
contrast to the company's prior announcements, the company was
drastically slashing its financial guidance for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On the release of this news, shares of the company's stock
declined $1.38, or 17.6 percent, to close on Oct. 9, 2006 at
$6.42 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-
299-7706 toll free or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announced that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Powerwave Technologies Inc., between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9,
2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges Powerwave and certain officers and directors
of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants made a
series of materially false and misleading statements or failed
to disclose certain adverse facts, including;

     (1) problems associated with the implementation of the
         company's enterprise resource management system;

     (2) that Defendants had overstated Powerwave's
         profitability and understated its expenses and
         acquisition integration costs;

     (3) that the company did not have adequate internal
         controls; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked any
         reasonable basis to claim that Powerwave was operating
         according to plan and could achieve financial guidance
         issued by Defendants.

On Oct. 9, 2006, Powerwave announced preliminary financial
results for the third quarter of 2006.

The press release announced that the company expected revenue
for the quarter to be in the range of $155 million to $160
million, approximately $50 million below the company's previous
guidance.

In reaction to the news, shares of Powerwave fell from $7.79 per
share to $6.41 per share, a decline of approximately 17.7%.

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

For more information, contact Brian Penny Esq., of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scralato & Karon., P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130.


QUANTA CAPITAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. (QNTA) or
preferred shares (QNTA.P) between Dec. 14, 2005 and March 2,
2006, inclusive.


The action charges Quanta and one or more of its officers and/or
directors of violating federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's securities.

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

For more information, contact David Brower and Charles Piven,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone:
410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Entwistle & Cappucci Files D.C. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York law firm Entwistle & Cappucci LLP filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia for violations of the federal securities laws.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.,
     -- Paul J. Klaassen,
     -- Thomas B. Newell,
     -- Bradley B. Rush,
     -- Ronald V. Aprahamian,
     -- J. Douglas Holladay,
     -- Thomas J. Donohue,
     -- William G. Little,
     -- Teresa M. Klaassen,
     -- Craig R. Callen and
     -- J. Barron Anschutz.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
Sunrise common stock from Aug. 4, 2005 through and including
June 15, 2006 and all persons who owned Sunrise common stock at
the time Sunrise's 2000 through 2006 Proxy Statements were
circulated to shareholders.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements and omitted material
facts concerning the company's financial performance and
condition.

In this regard, the complaint alleges that the defendants
falsely represented to investors that Sunrise's equity in
earnings in unconsolidated senior living properties was growing
due to its joint ventures.

The complaint further alleges that the statements were
materially false and misleading because, among other reasons,
the defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) Sunrise was understating losses from its minority
         interests in joint ventures in which Sunrise's partners
         received preferential distributions;

    (ii) the company was improperly accounting for gains on real
         estate sales in which it provided guarantees and
         commitments to venture partners and third parties; and

   (iii) its financial results were overstated due to options
         back-dating.

Accordingly, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A and 14(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

On May 9, 2006, the company announced it was rescheduling its
2006 earnings release to allow additional time for review of the
accounting treatment applied to the company's investments in
unconsolidated senior living communities.

In response to this announcement, the price of Sunrise common
stock dropped from $39.30 per share on May 8, 2006, to $32.35 on
May 9, 2006, and continued to decline during the remainder of
the Class Period, to as low as $28.54 per share on June 15,
2006.

On May 10, 2006, Sunrise further disclosed that its internal
review is focused on the allocation of profits and losses for
certain joint ventures where Sunrise was a minority partner and
its capital partner received a preference.

Thereafter, on May 11, 2006, Sunrise announced that, as a result
of its review, the company decided to use a different
methodology to allocate profits and losses from its joint
ventures in the future.

On July 31, 2006, Sunrise announced that it would restate its
financial statements for the years ended 1999 through 2005 to
adjust the accounting treatment related to the company's
ventures that contain partner preferences and its recognition of
income from prior sales of real estate.  The company further
announced that the cumulative impact of the restatement was
expected to be between $60 million and $110 million.

In connection with its recent disclosures, Sunrise also
announced that it is currently the subject of ongoing
investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Specifically, on Aug. 8, 2006, the company announced that the
SEC had requested information regarding the company's accounting
method and its interpretation of certain accounting principles.

Thereafter, on Dec. 11, 2006, the company announced that the SEC
had requested information regarding the company's stock option
grant practices and its executives' insider trading.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.,
Shareholder Relations Dept. of Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, 280
Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, New York 10017, Phone:
(212) 894-7200, Fax: (212) 894-7272, E-mail:
rcappucci@entwistle-law.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  * * *