CAR_Public/070219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 35

                            Headlines


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Insurance Scoring Suit Settlement Approved
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Class Seeks $3.2B in New Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Securities Fraud Suit Remanded to N.Y. Court
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Certification of Cardholders' Lawsuit
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Whalen & Tusa is Loan Fees Suit Lead Counsel

CABOT CORP: Pa. Beryllium Emissions Suit Moved to Federal Court
CALIFORNIA: School District Faces Disability Discrimination Suit
CEBRIDGE TELECOM: Internet Subscriber Complains Over Billings
DENVER HEALTH: Employees File Racial Bias Lawsuit Against CEO
DILLARD'S INC: Awaits Approval of $35M ERISA Suit Settlement

ENCANA CORP: Settles Calif. State, Federal Lawsuits for $22.9M
ENCANA CORP: Continues to Face $30M "Gallo" Complaint in Calif.
FIRST BANCORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in P.R.
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Toy Bunnies with Nose that Can Detach
FLORIDA: Trial Dates Set for Canker Eradication Program Lawsuits

HOME DEPOT: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ga.
HOME DEPOT: Faces New ERISA Suit Over Stock Option Practices
JACKSON HEWITT: No Ruling Yet on Review of Calif. RALs Lawsuit
JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over RALs in Ohio
JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. RAL Lawsuit Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal

JAZWARES: Recalls Puzzles with Magnets That can Fall Out
JIN ASIAN: Restaurant Workers Sue Chinese Boss Over Pay, Tips
LESLIE'S POOLMART: Calif. Court Sustains Privacy Suit Demurrer
NAVARRE CORP: Responds to Minn. Securities Fraud Complaint
NEW JERSEY: $2.5M Settlement Reached in Suit Over Dam Failures

MCY MUSIC: Appeals Court Refuses to Certify 'N Sync Concert Suit
POST PROPERTIES: Shareholder Seeks Court Review of Ga. Suit Deal
TJX COS: Faces New Suit in Mass. Over Client Information Leak
WAL-MART STORES: Mr. Coughlin Ordered to Testify Anew in "Dukes"
WEST PUBLISHING: $49M Settlement Offer in "Rodriguez" Challenged

WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Still Faces Product Liability Suit in Okla.
ZOELLER PUMP: Recalls Septic Pumps to Replace Defective Plug


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GLOBALSTAR INC: Bernstein Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
GLOBALSTAR INC: Federman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
GLOBALSTAR INC: Spector Roseman Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NEW CENTURY: Gutride Safier Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.

NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NEW CENTURY: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.

NEW CENTURY: KGS Announces Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
NUVELO: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
QUANTA CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Insurance Scoring Suit Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fred Biery of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas granted final approval to a settlement
agreement in the insurance scoring lawsuit filed against
Allstate Insurance Co.

"This is a groundbreaking settlement, because Allstate has
agreed to change the way it uses credit information to price
insurance.  We believe this change significantly benefits
Allstate's minority customers," according to lead plaintiff's
attorney Christa Collins, of the law firm James, Hoyer, Newcomer
& Smiljanich, PA.

According to the court, Allstate has millions of African
American and Hispanic customers who are affected by the
settlement nationwide.

"The bottom line," said Ms. Collins, "is many of Allstate's
minority customers stand to save significant dollars in their
premium payments as a result of the credit scoring changes."

In a lengthy opinion, Judge Biery concluded that settlement was
"powerful" and cited that it allowed "individuals as private
litigants to challenge and ultimately change corporate practices
they regard as discriminatory and as a result to bring about
important social change."

Judge Biery also approved fees and expenses of $11.72 million
for plaintiffs' lawyers over the objections of some defense
lawyers.

It is, however, still unknown how much Allstate will have to pay
in the class-action settlement, and the judge may have to
withhold his final ruling for months if there are additional
objections.

The case, filed in 2001 in U.S. District Court, Western District
of Texas San Antonio division, was brought by seven individual
Allstate customers seeking to represent a nationwide class of
African-American and Hispanic individuals who were issued
automobile and/or homeowners insurance policies by Allstate-
affiliated companies.  

The plaintiffs claim that they were discriminated against in
violation of federal civil rights laws, including the Fair
Housing Act, by allegedly being charged higher premiums based on
Allstate's use of information from their credit reports.  

In June 2006, Judge Biery preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2006).

Under the terms of the settlement, Allstate will take these
actions:

     -- Allstate will roll-out a new insurance scoring  
        algorithm;

     -- in states where Allstate uses information from credit  
        reports to rate policies, Allstate will provide its  
        customers with the opportunity to have an insurance  
        policy priced using its new insurance scoring algorithm;

     -- Allstate will make its new insurance scoring algorithm  
        publicly available;

     -- Allstate will deliver a comprehensive credit education  
        program to class members, which provides valuable  
        information, including the many different types of  
        business transactions where information from credit  
        reports is used today and how class members can improve  
        their credit position;

     -- Allstate will adopt an appeals program under which all  
        customers who experience extraordinary events that  
        negatively impact their credit history information can  
        potentially obtain premium reductions;

     -- Allstate will increase the substantial percentage of its  
        national media spend devoted to targeted multicultural  
        marketing in its continued efforts to make the widest  
        range of consumers aware of its insurance products; and

     -- Class members will be entitled to apply for a one-time  
        monetary payment.  Eligibility for this payment will be  
        determined based on a comparison of the insurance  
        scoring group assigned to his or her Allstate policy and  
        the insurance scoring group assigned under the insurance  
        scoring algorithm that will be implemented pursuant to  
        this Settlement.

The court has made no rulings on the merits of any of
plaintiff's claims, and Allstate denies that it in any way
discriminates against minorities in the pricing of insurance
policies.

According to Allstate spokesman Michael Trevio, Allstate already
has begun implementing changes in its credit scoring in states
where it was used to determine the risk of potential customers,
which are part of the settlement.

The suit is "Jose DeHoyos, et al. v. Allstate Corp., et al.,
Case No. 5:01-cv-01010-FB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge Fred Biery.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard Fenton and Jeffrey Lennard of Sonnenshein, Nath  
         & Rosenthal, 8000 Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker,  
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, Fax: (312)  
         876-7934;

     (2) Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East  
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6048, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:  
         (312) 861-2391, Fax: 312/660-0194;  

     (3) Roger D. Higgins of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, 700  
         N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-2832,  
         Phone: (214) 871-8200, Fax: 214/871-8209;

     (4) Maryanne Lyons of Baker & Botts, LLP, 3000 One Shell  
         Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713)  
         229-1255, Fax: 713/229-1522;

     (5) Rod Phelan of Baker & Botts, 800 Trammell Crow Center,  
         2001 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75201-8001, Fax: 214/661-
         4609, E-mail: rod.phelan@bakerbotts.com;

     (6) Tony P. Rosenstein of Baker & Botts, 3000 One Shell  
         Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713)  
         229-1582, Fax: 713/229-7782, E-mail:  
         tony.rosenstein@bakerbotts.com; and

     (7) Kevin M. Sadler of Baker Botts, LLP, 98 San Jacinto  
         Blvd. Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701-4039, Phone:(512)  
         322-2500, Fax: 512/322-2501, E-mail:  
         kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com.
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Beusse, Brownlee, Bowdoin & Wolter,  
         390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2500, Orlando, FL 32801, \
         Phone: (407) 926-7713, Fax: 407/926-7720;  

     (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &  
         Balint, P.C., 4041 N. Central, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ  
         85012-3311, Phone: (602)274-1100, Fax: 602/274-1199, E-
         mail: afriedman@bffb.com;
  
     (3) W. Christian Hoyer of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, &  
         Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, Suite 550, 4830   
         West Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609, Fax: 813/286-4174;

     (4) Robert Q. Keith of Keith & Weber, P.C., 1450 Cypress  
         Valley Ranch, Cypress Mill, TX 78663-8619, Fax:  
         830/825-3457;

     (5) John J. Stoia, Jr. 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;

     (6) Ron Parry of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, PSC, 441  
         Garrard Street, Covington, KY 41011, Phone: (859)291-
         9000, Fax: (859)291-9300;

     (7) Daniel J.T. Sciano of Tinsman & Houser, 700 N. St.  
         Mary's St., 1400 One Riverwalk Place, San Antonio, TX  
         78205, Phone: (210) 225-3121, Fax: 210/225-6235, E-
         mail: dsciano@tsslawyers.com; and
  
      (8) Joe R. Whatley of Whatley Drake LLC, 2323 2nd Avene  
          North Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)328-9576, Fax:  
          205/328-9669.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Class Seeks $3.2B in New Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries face two putative class actions in state court in
Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and
derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc.

According to the company, an excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of American International with respect to the 1999
litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of
liability.  In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the
judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent
of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the
settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature
of the excess policy.

They further allege that American International, its
subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression
for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of
coverage.  In their complaint, plaintiffs request compensatory
damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus
punitive damages.  

American International and its subsidiaries deny the allegations
of fraud and suppression and have asserted, inter alia, that
information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed
months prior to the approval of the settlement.  American
International and its subsidiaries further assert that the
current claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that
plaintiffs' assertions that the statute was tolled cannot stand
against the public disclosure of the excess coverage.

Plaintiffs, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was
insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and
did not start the running of the statute of limitations.  On
Jan. 28, 2005, the Alabama trial court determined that one of
the current actions may proceed as a class action on behalf of
the 1999 classes that were allegedly defrauded by the
settlement.

American International, its subsidiaries, and Caremark sought
appellate relief from the Alabama Supreme Court, which was
granted in substantial part in August 2006.  The matter is in
the process of being remanded to the trial court to proceed with
a class certification determination under the standards set by
the Alabama Supreme 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.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Securities Fraud Suit Remanded to N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit remanded all
claims back to the district court in a consolidated securities
fraud suit filed against American Express Co. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Beginning in mid-July 2002, 12 putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  In October 2002, these cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re American Express Co. Securities Litigation."  
These lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws
and the common law in connection with alleged misstatements and
omissions regarding certain investments in high-yield bonds and
write-downs in the 2000-2001 timeframe.

The purported class covers the period from July 18, 1999 to July
17, 2001.  The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages as
well as disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and interest.

In March 2004, the District Court granted the company's motion
to dismiss the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.  In August 2006,
the Court of Appeals, without expressing any views whatsoever on
the merits of the cases, vacated the District Court's judgment
and remanded all claims to the District Court for further
proceedings.

More particularly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling that two of the plaintiffs' claims in an amended
complaint did not "relate back" to the original complaint and
were thus time-barred under the statute of limitations period.  
As a result, the Court of Appeals decided that it was prudent to
remand all claims back to the District Court so that plaintiffs
could file a new amended complaint.  

The company continues to believe that it has meritorious
defenses to the action and intends to file a new motion to
dismiss the lawsuit once the amended complaint is filed.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Certification of Cardholders' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. is asking for an interlocutory appeal on
the certification by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York of an injunction class in the suit "Ross,
et al. v. American Express Co., American Express Travel Related
Services and American Express Centurion Bank."

The suit was filed July 2004.  The complaint alleges that Amex
Life Assurance Co. unit, which the company sold in 1995,
conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting
of foreign conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration
clauses in certain of their cardmember agreements.  The suit
seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  

The class is defined as:

     "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general purpose
     cardholders who used cards issued by any of [multidistrict
     litigation] Defendant Banks...."

American Express cardholders are not part of the class.  In
September 2005, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss
the action and preliminarily certified an injunction class of
Visa and MasterCard cardholders to determine the validity of
Visa's and MasterCard's cardmember arbitration clauses.

American Express filed a motion for reconsideration with the
court, which motion was denied in September 2006.  American
Express has filed an appeal from the District Court's order
denying its motion to compel arbitration and has asked the
appellate court to entertain an interlocutory appeal from the
District Court's certification of an injunction class.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Whalen & Tusa is Loan Fees Suit Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
appointed the law firm of Whalen & Tusa, P.C. as class counsel
in the certified class action against Astoria Financial, Inc.
and its subsidiaries, including Astoria Federal Savings and Loan
Association.

The suit claims that the company's charging of attorney document
preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees for
mortgage loans violate state laws.

In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated filed the suit
against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants.

The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that
in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans
made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank FSB, which
was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related
entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation
of:

     -- the federal Truth in Lending Act,
     -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
     -- the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA), and
     -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act

The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part,
dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.

The court further determined that class certification would be
considered prior to considering summary judgment.  On Sept. 19,
2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  

The class comprises current or former customers who obtained
residential loans carrying fees deemed in violation of the
contract or the law.  Court filings revealed that the case could
involve tens of thousands of current and former customers, a
report by Newsday indicated.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph S. Tusa at Whalen & Tusa,
P.C., 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-786-7377,
Fax: 212-658-9685, E-mail: joseph@whalen-tusa.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Alfred W.J. Marks at Day, Berry & Howard, LLP, 875
         Third Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-829-3634, Fax: 212-829-3601, E-mail:
         awjmarks@dbh.com; and

     (2) Lisa Pepe Whittaker at Day Berry & Howard LLP, 875
         Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212-829-
         3600, Fax: 212-829-3601, E-mail: lpwhittaker@dbh.com.


CABOT CORP: Pa. Beryllium Emissions Suit Moved to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, "Sheridan et al. v. NGK North America, Inc.,
et al.," which names Cabot Corp. as one of the defendants, has
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to Cabot's Feb. 8, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The class action complaint was originally filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on
behalf of persons that resided within a one-mile radius of the
company's former Reading, Pennsylvania facility for a period of
at least six months between 1950 and 2000.  In 1986, Cabot sold
a manufacturing facility in Reading to NGK Metals, Inc.

The class action alleges that these persons were exposed to
emissions of beryllium from the Reading plant and are,
therefore, entitled to receive medical monitoring.  

In December 2006, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs have
opposed the removal and filed a motion to remand to the state
court.  The motion is currently pending.

The suit is "Sheridan et al v. NGK North America, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-05510-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania James Knoll Gardner.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ruben Honik of Golomb & Honik,
PC, 121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19107,
Phone: 215-985-9177, E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com.

Representing the defendants is Thomas c. Delorenzo of Marshall
Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 1845 Walnut Street, 19th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-575-2741, Fax: 215-
575-0856, E-mail: tcdelorenzo@mdwcg.com.


CALIFORNIA: School District Faces Disability Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakley Union Elementary School District faces a purported
class action alleging that it systematically uses discipline to
boot disabled students out of its schools, The Contra Costa
Times reports.

The class-action disability discrimination suit was filed in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a
parent of a former Delta Vista Elementary special education
student, both unnamed in court documents.

The 13-year-old student was expelled for bringing a 2-inch
pocketknife to school.  The mother alleges that school and
district officials failed to follow legal requirements on
providing proper information to her on how to re-enroll her son
in the district.

Citing the Individuals with Disabilities Education and
Improvement Act, which was passed in 2004, Rhoda Benedetti, the
plaintiff's lead attorney, contends that under the federal
special education law, one cannot expel a child with special
education needs for having a knife with a blade that size.

Ms. Benedetti and other attorneys for the mother estimate that
the class size could be as many as 20 students.  

An Oakley elementary school district spokeswoman said that the
district had not been formally notified of the lawsuit,
according to the report.

For more details, contact Rhoda Benedetti of Disability Rights
Advocates, 449 15th Street, Suite 303, Oakland, CA  94612,
Phone: 501-451-8644, Fax: 510-451-8511.


CEBRIDGE TELECOM: Internet Subscriber Complains Over Billings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cebridge Telecom WV, doing business as Suddenlink, is facing a
class action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia, for allegedly charging erroneous monthly bills to
Internet subscribers, the West Virginia Record reports.

Kanawha County resident, Laura Alvis, on behalf of herself and
others who were allegedly charged more than they were supposed
to be, filed the suit claiming Suddenlink has taken part in
unlawful, deceptive acts, "which involve the incorrect
imposition of monthly charges for 384K high-speed Internet
service to West Virginia consumers."

The suit says customers who subscribed to the 384K high-speed
Internet service were incorrectly charged $39.99 a month instead
of $29.99.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Alvis contacted Suddenlink several
times in Jan. 2007 prior to filing the case, requesting her bill
be changed to the correct price.  However, the suit says she was
denied the bill change.

The mistake in billing is one many customers might not be aware
of, the suit says.

The suit seeks notice for all customers who might be affected by
the incorrect charges, as well as compensatory damages for the
overage each customer has paid, which is not to exceed $75,000.

The case has been assigned to Judge Tod Kaufman the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.

Ms. Alvis is represented by Harry F. Bell, of Bell & Bands PLLC,
30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, WV 25326, Phone:
(304) 345-1700 or (800) 342-1701 (Toll Free), Fax: (304) 345-
1715, Web site: http://www.belllaw.com.


DENVER HEALTH: Employees File Racial Bias Lawsuit Against CEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three African Americans and a Hispanic Jew, all employees of
Denver Health Medical Center, filed a class action against
company chief executive officer Dr. Patricia Gabow over alleged
discrimination against non-white employees, the 9 News Denver
reports.

The lawsuit alleges Dr. Gabow has trained her managers and
supervisors to "ignore objective performance criteria" in
retaining employees.

According to the suit Dr. Gabow wants people who are not like-
minded to be "put off the bus."

Plaintiffs claim they were discriminated against after they
complained about another discrimination incident.

Court documents further points to an instance where a non-white
employee was fired because of the "right person, right seat"
approach in which people who are not "like-minded" are "put off
the bus."

The suit says dozens of complains claiming discrimination have
been filed by employees at Denver Health and says Dr. Gabow is
often listed in those complaints.

Denver Health released a statement Thursday afternoon: "Denver
Health is proud of the diversity represented throughout its work
force.  Denver Health cannot comment on matters of pending
litigation."


DILLARD'S INC: Awaits Approval of $35M ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Dillard's Inc. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Southern Ohio has approved a $35.0 million
settlement of a purported class action over alleged violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On July 29, 2002, a class action complaint was filed on behalf
of a putative class of former plan participants.  A second
amended class action complaint was filed on Dec. 13, 2004.

The suit named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- the Mercantile Stores Pension Plan, and
     -- the Mercantile Stores Pension Committee  

The complaint alleges that certain actions by the Plan and the
Committee violated the ERISA, as a result of amendments made to
the Plan that allegedly were either improper and/or ineffective
and as a result of certain payments made to certain
beneficiaries of the Plan that allegedly were improperly
calculated and/or discriminatory on account of age.

The second amended complaint does not specify any liquidated
amount of damages sought and seeks recalculation of certain
benefits paid to putative class members.

During the 13 weeks ended July 29, 2006, the company signed a
memorandum of understanding for $35.0 million to settle the case
and, accordingly, accrued an additional $21.7 million ($13.6
million after-tax or $0.17 per diluted share) regarding the case
in trade accounts payable and accrued expenses.  The settlement
is still pending court approval, according to the company's form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 28, 2006.

The suit is "Clevenger v. Dillards Dept Stores, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00558-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Southern Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carrie Atkins Barron of Freking & Betz, 215 East Ninth
         Street, Fifth Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
         5137211975, E-mail: cbarron@frekingandbetz.com;

     (2) William K. Carr of the Law Offices of William K. Carr,
         2222 E. Tennessee Avenue, Denver, CO 80209, Phone: 303-
         296-6383, E-mail: bill@pension-law.com; and

     (3) Steven Katz of Korein Tillery, LLC, 701 Market Street,
         Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 53101, Phone: 314-241-4844, E-
         mail: skatz@koreintillery.com.

Representing the defendants are Stephen Joseph Butler and Jack
Frederick Fuchs of Thompson Hine, LLP, 312 Walnut Street, 14th
Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4029, Phone: 513-352-6700, Fax: 513-
352-6741, E-mail: steve.butler@thompsonhine.com and
Jack.Fuchs@ThompsonHine.com.


ENCANA CORP: Settles Calif. State, Federal Lawsuits for $22.9M
--------------------------------------------------------------
EnCana Corp. and its indirect wholly owned U.S. marketing
subsidiary WD Energy Services Inc. agreed to settle all of the
class actions in both state and federal court, for payment, of
$20.5 million and $2.4 million, respectively, the company
disclosed in a Feb. 15 quarterly financial report.

During the period between 2003 and 2005, EnCana and WD Energy,
along with other energy companies, were named as defendants in
several lawsuits, some of which were class actions, relating to
sales of natural gas from 1999 to 2002.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
with unnamed competitors in the natural gas markets in
California in violation of U.S. and California anti-trust and
unfair competition laws.

Without admitting any liability in the lawsuits, Energy agreed
to settle all of the class actions in both state and federal
court, for payment, of $20.5 million and $2.4 million,
respectively.

Court approval of the federal court class action settlement of
$2.4 million is pending, court approval having been granted in
the state court action.


ENCANA CORP: Continues to Face $30M "Gallo" Complaint in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnCana Corp. and its indirect wholly owned U.S. marketing
subsidiary, WD Energy Services Inc. remain defendants in a
lawsuit filed by E. & J. Gallo Winery in the U.S. District Court
in California, the company disclosed in a Feb. 15, 2007
Quarterly Financial Report.  

The Gallo and other California lawsuits contain allegations that
the defendants engaged in a conspiracy with unnamed competitors
in the natural gas and derivatives market in California in
violation of U.S. and California anti-trust and unfair
competition laws (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2006).

Along with other energy companies, EnCana Corp. and WD Energy
are defendants in several other lawsuits relating to sales of
natural gas in California from 1999 to 2002, some of which are
class actions and some of which are brought by individual
parties on their own behalf.

As is customary, these lawsuits do not specify the precise
amount of damages claimed.  

In all but one of the class actions in the U.S. District Court
and in the Gallo action, decisions dealing with the issue of
whether the scope of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
exclusive jurisdiction over natural gas prices precludes the
plaintiffs from maintaining their claims are on appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Gallo lawsuit claims damages in excess of $30 million.
California law allows for the possibility that the amount of
damages assessed could be tripled.


FIRST BANCORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in P.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico.

Initially, the company and certain of its officers and directors
and former officer and directors were named as defendants in
five separate securities class actions filed between Oct. 31,
2005 and Dec. 5, 2005, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All securities class actions have been consolidated into one
case, "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations" currently
pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico.

The corporation has been engaged in discussions with lead
plaintiffs through private mediation proceedings.  In connection
with a potential settlement, the corporation accrued $74.2
million in its consolidated financial statements for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 8,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Fox v. First Bancorp, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
02148-GAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico under Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles S. Hey-Maestre of De Jesus, Hey & Vargas Law
         Office, 1060 Borinquena St., Santa Rita Bldg., Suite C-
         8, San Juan, PR 00925, Phone: 787-758-8950, Fax: 787-
         758-8911, E-mail: fedcases@djhv-derechopr.com;

     (2) Glenn Carl James-Hernandez of James Law Offices, PMB
         501, 1353 Rd. 19, Guaynabo, PR 00966-2700, Phone: 787-
         763-2888, Fax: 787-763-2881, E-mail:
         jameslawoffices@centennialpr.net;

     (3) Andres W. Lopez of Andres W. Lopez Law Office, 207 Del
         Parque St., Third Floor, San Juan, PR 00912, Phone:
         787-406-9075, Fax: 787-641-4544, E-mail:
         andreswlopez@yahoo.com; and

     (4) PHV Kevin McGee of Zwerling, Schachter & Swerling, LLP,
         595 South Federal Highway, Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL
         33432, US, Phone: 561-544-2500, Fax: 561-544-2501, E-
         mail: kmcgee@zsz.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) PHV Joseph S. Allerhand of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 767
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, US, Phone: (212) 310-
         8945, Fax: (212) 310-8007, E-mail:
         joseph.allerhand@weil.com; and

    (ii) Eyck O. Lugo-Rivera of Martinez Odell & Calabria, P.O.
         Box 190998, San Juan, PR 00919-0998, Phone: 787-274-
         2903, Fax: 787-764-5664, E-mail: elugo@mocpr.com.


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Toy Bunnies with Nose that Can Detach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, New York, in cooperation with the
S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
500,000 "Laugh and Learn" Learning Bunny Toys, with an
additional 700,000 were sold worldwide.

The company said the pink pompom nose can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the Laugh and Learn Learning Bunny that
measures about 10-inches tall.  The yellow bunny with one green
and one orange ear has musical and counting sound effects.  The
words, "Laugh and Learn" are printed on the bunny's shirt.

Product numbers involved in the recall are: K0468, K2960, K2961,
K2962, K2963, K2964, K2965, K3440, K6898, K7884, L0327, and
K5862.

The product numbers are located on the fabric tag sewn to the
body of the bunny.  Only bunnies with three dimensional pompom
noses are included in this recall.  Bunnies with flat or
embroidered noses are not subject to this recall.

These recalled "Laugh and Learn" Learning Bunny Toys were
manufactured in China and are being sold at discount department
stores and toy stores nationwide May 2006 through December 2006
for about $15.

Pictures of recalled "Laugh and Learn" Learning Bunny Toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07105a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07105b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these recalled toys
away from children and contact Fisher-Price to arrange for the
return of the bunny to receive a voucher for a replacement toy
of the customer's choice.

For additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (866) 447-
5003 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.service.mattel.com


FLORIDA: Trial Dates Set for Canker Eradication Program Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions over the controversial canker
eradication program in Florida are scheduled for a trial in the
fall, The Miami Herald reports.

Judges in Broward and Palm Beach counties have set court dates
for September and October for the start of two South Florida
class actions, seeking compensation from the state.  Similar
suits in Miami-Dade, Orange and Lee counties are awaiting a
trial date.

If successful the suits could bring money to thousands of
homeowners whose citrus trees were ripped from their back yards
in the course of the canker eradication program, which was shut
down in failure last year.

Though declining to give an amount, plaintiffs' attorney Robert
C. Gilbert said that what he would ask jurors to award
homeowners will be "staggering."

At issue in slated trials is the value of more than 450,000
trees removed from more than 217,000 residential properties in
Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties since 2000.

The state maintains that all the trees that were destroyed were
within 1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree, so they were
exposed and had no value, according to Wes Parsons, attorney for
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

For more than 20 years, the state tried unsuccessfully to stop
the spread of the tree disease from Southeast Florida into the
commercial citrus belt of Central Florida.  

Though canker is harmless to humans, it causes blemishes on
fruit.  Some experts say the disease weakens the tree and
decreases its production.

After spending nearly $500 million since 1995 and failing to
stop the disease, the federal and state governments gave up in
January 2006.

During the eradication effort, the state gave homeowners a $100
Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree cut, encouraging residents
to replant other trees, shrubs or plants.  The state also wrote
checks for $55 each for all other citrus trees removed from a
yard.

Mr. Gilbert pointed out that whether the $100 vouchers and $55
checks are enough is the heart of the issue.  He said the suits
seek compensation only for "exposed" residential trees in the
1,900-foot radius that did not show symptoms of canker when they
were cut down.

For more details, contact Robert C. Gilbert of Robert C.
Gilbert, P.A., 220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 400, Miami, FL 33134-
5174, Phone: (305) 529-9100.


HOME DEPOT: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. remains a defendant in several class
actions filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia in Atlanta over its return-to-vendor practices.

In the second fiscal quarter of 2006, the company reported that
six purported, but as yet uncertified, class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.

The suit alleges certain misrepresentations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with the company's
return-to-vendor practices.  

These actions were filed by certain current and former
shareholders of the company.  In the third fiscal quarter of
2006, one of the shareholders dismissed his complaint.  

The court has preliminarily appointed a lead plaintiff, and the
lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in each of the
remaining five actions.  Relief sought in the amended complaint
includes unspecified damages and costs and attorney's fees.  

The first identified complaint is "John Mizzaro, et al. v. Home  
Depot, Inc., et al. Case No. 06-CV-01151," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge  
J. Owen Forrester.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:  

     (1) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of  
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706;
  
     (2) Charles T. Caliendo and Jay W. Eisenhofer of Grant &  
         Eisenhofer, P.A., 45 Rockerfeller Center, 15th Floor,
         630 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10111, US, Phone: 646-
         722-8500, E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com and  
         jeisenhofer@gelaw.com;  

     (3) Alan R. Perry, Jr. of Page Perry, LLC, Suite 1050, 1040  
         Crown Pointe Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338, Phone: 770-
         673-0047, Fax: aperry@pageperry.com.  

Representing the defendants is Michael R. Smith of King &  
Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763,  
Phone: 404-572-4600, E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com.


HOME DEPOT: Faces New ERISA Suit Over Stock Option Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
One purported, but as yet uncertified, class action was filed in
the third fiscal quarter of 2006 against The Home Depot, Inc.,
The Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative Committee and
certain of the company's current and former directors and
employees in federal court in Brooklyn, New York.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in connection
with the company's return-to-vendor and stock option practices.  

Including this action, three purported, but as yet uncertified,
class actions have been filed in connection with the company's
return-to-vendor and stock option practices.  

According to a Sept. 13, 2006 issue of the Class Action
Reporter, two suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, are:

      -- "Clark v. Home Depot, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
         03216-CPS-RLM," filed on June 29, 2006; and

      -- "Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
         03938-CPS-RLM," filed in Aug. 15, 2006.

These actions were brought by certain former employees of the
company and seek unspecified damages, costs, attorney's fees and
equitable and injunctive relief.  

Atlanta, Georgia-based The Home Depot, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.homedepot.com/.


JACKSON HEWITT: No Ruling Yet on Review of Calif. RALs Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court is yet to rule whether to review a
Court of Appeals decision in a suit over Refund Anticipation
Loans filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust, and Cendant Corp.

On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors brought the purported class action in the Superior Court
of California (San Francisco), subsequently adding Cendant, in
the Superior Court of California (Santa Barbara, following a
transfer from San Francisco).

The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the
provision of RALs, as to the lawfulness of the practice of
cross-lender debt collection, as to the validity of Santa
Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to
whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to
the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.

It also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and expenses.

The company is a party in the action for allegedly
collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.

The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third-
party bank defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed
all other proceedings pending appeal.  The California Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court's preemption decision.

A decision by the California Supreme Court to grant review of
the Court of Appeal reversal is pending, according to the
company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2006.


JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over RALs in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains a defendant in a suit
filed by Canieva Hood in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Montgomery County.

Ms. Hood filed the suit on Dec. 18, 2003 against the company and
Cendant Corp.  Plaintiff in the suit seeks to certify a class in
the action.  The case raises allegations of negligence, breach
of fiduciary duty, and violation of certain Ohio law relate to
the same set of facts as a suit filed by the same plaintiff
together with the Congress of California Seniors in the Superior
Court of California (San Francisco).

The California suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with
the provision of Refund Anticipation Loans, as to the lawfulness
of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, as to the
validity of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust's cross-lender debt
collection provision and as to whether the method of disclosure
to customers with respect to the provision is unlawful or
fraudulent.

It also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and expenses.

Plaintiff seeks equitable and declaratory relief, damages,
attorneys' fees, and expenses.  Plaintiff subsequently
voluntarily dismissed Cendant from this action.  The case is in
its discovery and pretrial stage.  The company has filed a
motion to stay the action, or in the alternative to add Santa
Barbara Bank as a third-party defendant, pending a decision in
the California appeal.

A decision by the Ohio court is currently pending, according to
the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2006.


JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. RAL Lawsuit Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a lawsuit over Refund Anticipation Loans filed
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York has appealed the
dismissal of his complaint.

On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought a purported class action
against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co. and the company in
connection with disclosures made in the provision of RALs,
alleging that the disclosures and related practices are
fraudulent and otherwise unlawful.  The plaintiffs sought
equitable and monetary relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.  In
response, Mr. Benton withdrew his original complaint and filed
an amended complaint on Jan. 3, 2005.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment and the
plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.  On July
26, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for summary
judgment in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's amended
complaint.  

The plaintiff has appealed, according to the company's Sept. 11,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006.

New Jersey-based Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. on the Net:
http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/.


JAZWARES: Recalls Puzzles with Magnets That can Fall Out
--------------------------------------------------------
Jazwares, Inc. of Sunrise, Florida, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 30,000
units of Link-N-Lite Magnetic Light-Up Puzzles.

The company said the small magnets used to connect the puzzle
pieces can fall out.  Magnets found by young children can be
swallowed or aspirated.  If more than one magnet is swallowed,
the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal
perforation or blockage, which can be fatal.

The firm has received reports of nine incidents where magnets
became loose from these puzzles.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled Link-N-Lite Magnetic Light-Up Puzzle, which is a
double-sided plastic magnetic puzzle for ages 3 and up, has two
designs.  The Disney-brand puzzle shows the Disney Princesses on
the front and Ariel, from The Little Mermaid, on the back.  The
Marvel-brand puzzle shows "Spider-Man & Friends" on both sides.  

Each puzzle measures 8 inches by 10.5 inches, contains nine
pieces with four or six magnets per piece, and lights-up when
all pieces are in place.  A 9-volt battery is placed in the
center bottom piece that contains a battery case.

These recalled Link-N-Lite Magnetic Light-Up Puzzles were
manufactured in China and are being sold at Target and Kohl's
stores nationwide and on Amazon.com from June 2006 through
January 2007 for about $15.

Pictures of recalled Link-N-Lite Magnetic Light-Up Puzzles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07106a.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the puzzles and
contact Jazwares for a free replacement toy that does not
contain magnets.

For additional information, contact Jazwares Inc. at (800) 370-
1827 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.jazwares.com.


JIN ASIAN: Restaurant Workers Sue Chinese Boss Over Pay, Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jin Asian Cuisine, formerly known as East Manor of Boston, is
facing a class action for allegedly bilking employees of pay and
tips, TheBostonChannel.com reports.

Former and current immigrant workers at the Chinese restaurant
in Route 1 in Saugus, Massachusetts said that they are fed up
with the boss, Ming Lam, and his sister, Li.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Latino and Chinese employees,
allege workers weren't paid the $7.50-an-hour minimum wage and
never earned overtime.

The complaint said tips from patrons were always redistributed
mostly to management.

A spokesperson for the restaurant told TheBostonChannel.com that
the owners have not seen the recent lawsuit as of yet, according
to the report.


LESLIE'S POOLMART: Calif. Court Sustains Privacy Suit Demurrer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court has yet to make a ruling
in a class action filed against Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. in
September 2006.

In that action, the plaintiff sought damages under a claim that
Leslie's policy of obtaining personal information from customers
who are returning products purchased from the company is a
violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
Leslie's class action counsel filed a demurrer seeking the
dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

After briefing and oral argument, the Superior Court judge
sustained the company's demurrer on Jan. 23, 2007, without leave
to amend the complaint.

The parties are awaiting the entry of a formal order by the
court.  The plaintiff has the right to appeal from the entry of
that order.


NAVARRE CORP: Responds to Minn. Securities Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corp. responded to the allegations of securities fraud
violations by the company and certain of its officers and
directors in a consolidated class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Two groups filed lead plaintiff motions for the consolidated
class action litigation against Navarre Corp., which were
initially commenced in June 2005.  

The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities
benefited company insiders including the individual defendants.
It further alleged that the company failed to properly recognize
executive deferred compensation and improperly recognized a
deferred tax benefit as income.  

Plaintiffs sought compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.   

The actions are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for
plaintiffs in each of these cases to postpone the time for
bringing a motion to dismiss until after a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel are appointed by the court, and an amended
consolidated complaint is filed.

By memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 12, 2005, the court
appointed:

     * "The Pension Group," comprised of the Operating Engineers
       Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund; and

     * Ms. Grace W. Lai,

as Lead Plaintiff, and appointed:

     * the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm
       as liaison counsel, and

     * the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead counsel.  

The court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the
caption, "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation," and
further ordered that a consolidated amended complaint be filed.

On Feb. 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint with the court.  This consolidated amended complaint
reiterates the allegations made in the individual complaints and
extends these allegations to the company's restatements of its
previously issued financial statements that were made in
November 2005.  A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was
held on May 10, 2006.

And by an order dated June 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota dismissed the amended class action
brought against Navarre Corp. which alleges securities fraud by
the company and certain of its officers and directors (Class
Action Reporter, June 29, 2006).

The dismissal by the court was without prejudice, meaning that
the plaintiffs were granted 30 days if so desired to amend their
complaint to cure its deficiencies.  If not, the complaint will
be dismissed with prejudice.

On July 28, 2006, plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaint against defendants.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting,
among other things, that plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured
the defects present in the original consolidated amended
complaint.

By a Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the court granted
defendants' motion in part, denied it in part, and specifically
removed Cary L. Deacon, Brian M.T. Burke and Charles Cheney as
individual defendants.

Defendants answered the complaint on Jan. 26, 2007 and
anticipate that typical disclosure requirements and discovery
will proceed.

The consolidated suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A.
Magnuson with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laura M Andracchio, Amber L Eck and Trig R Smith all of  
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP - SD,  
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:  
         619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858, E-mail:  
         lauraa@lerachlaw.com or ambere@lerachlaw.com or  
         trigs@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Frances E Baillon of Halunen & Associates, 220 South  
         Sixth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:  
         612-605-4098, Fax: 612-605-4099, E-mail:  
         baillon@halunenlaw.com;

     (3) Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr of Reinhardt Wendorf &  
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250, St Paul, MN  
         55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:  
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (4) Richard B Brualdi of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway  
         24th Floor, New York, NY 10006, Phone: 212-952-0602, E-
         mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com;

     (5) Gregg M Fishbein, Richard A Lockridge and Gregory J  
         Myers all of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, 100  
         Washington Ave S Ste 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179,  
         Phone: (612) 339-6900, Fax: (612)339-0981, E-mail:  
         gmfishbein@locklaw.com or lockrra@locklaw.com or  
         myersgj@locklaw.com; and

     (6) Andrei V Rado, Steven G Schulman and Peter E Seidman  
         all of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One  
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-  
         0165, Phone: 212-946-4474 or 212-946-9356 or 212-631-
         8625, E-mail: arado@milbergweiss.com or  
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com or  
         pseidman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are David A Davenport, Geoffrey P  
Jarpe, Kyle J Kaiser, and William A McNab all of Winthrop &  
Weinstine, PA, 225 S 6th St Ste 3500 Mpls, MN 55402-4629, Phone:  
612-604-6716 or 612-604-6697 or 612-604-6735 or 612-604-6652,  
Fax: 612-604-6816 or 612-604-6897 or 612-604-6835 or 612-604-
6852, E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com or gjarpe@winthrop.com or  
kkaiser@winthrop.com or wmcnab@winthrop.com.


NEW JERSEY: $2.5M Settlement Reached in Suit Over Dam Failures
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative $2.5 million settlement was reached for a class
action over damages inflicted during a July 2004 flood in New
Jersey, The Medford Central Record reports.

Plaintiffs' attorney Edward Petkevis announced that Medford
Township, Medford Lakes Borough and the Evesham Municipal
Utilities Authority (MUA) have tentatively agreed to pay $2.5
million in connection with damages to the Upper and Lower Aetna
Lake dams in Medford Lakes, the Timber Lake Dam in Medford and a
cranberry bog dam in Evesham.

Under the class action, the class, which is currently composed
of 168 families, is defined as "all natural persons and private
fictitious entities permitted by law to sue who suffered
personal injury, property damage or business or other personal
loss resulting from flooding which occurred in the Rancocas
Creek Watershed on July 12 and 13, 2004."

As many as 13 inches of rain fell in the area on July 12, 2004
and more than 30 dams in the county were destroyed or damaged by
the storm.

The class is alleging that the failure or damage to dams
included in litigation, helped attribute to flooding that caused
damage to homes.

According to Mr. Petkevis, Medford Lakes Borough is owner of the
Upper Aetna Dam and is "alleged to be a part-owner" of the Lower
Aetna Dam.  Medford is part owner of the Timber Lake and the
Evesham MUA is owner of the cranberry bog dam.

A fairness hearing regarding the settlement has yet to be
scheduled.  But, according to Mr. Petkevis, a notice of the date
will be published in The Central Record legal section once it is
set.

For more details, contact Edward R. Petkevis, 1380 Hornberger
Ave., Roebling, NJ 08554-1309, Phone: (609) 499-4300.  Karen
McGuinness is attorney for the municipalities.


MCY MUSIC: Appeals Court Refuses to Certify 'N Sync Concert Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Calvin Campbell of the Illinois Appellate Court for the
4th Division denied class certification to a few hundred 'N Sync
ticketholders who are suing organizers of the concert in Joliet
in 2000, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Pierre Petrich, her daughter, a niece and another guest made it
late to the concert due to heavy traffic and scarce parking.  
She argues that the event organizers and sponsors weren't
adequately prepared for the huge crowds.  Plaintiffs claim the
venue was designed to hold 30,000 people, but more than 48,000
tickets were sold.

The Circuit Court of Cook County denied certification to the
suit.  On appeal, plaintiff contends that:

     (1) the trial court erred in failing to certify a class of
         concertgoer-plaintiffs who plaintiff alleges were
         denied reasonable access to the 'N Sync concert when
         defendants breached the contractual terms of the
         concert tickets;

     (2) the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's
         consumer fraud claim;

     (3) the trial court erred in dismissing the individual
         'N Sync defendants from the case; and

     (4) the trial court erred in failing to enforce the terms
         of plaintiff's settlement agreement with defendants.
  
The appeals court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of
Cook County in that no such settlement agreement was reached
because the plaintiffs failed to accept an $45,000 offer.

As for class certification, the appellate held that "a ticket
does not create implied guarantees of timely arrival or
appropriate parking."

Ken Goldstein, Mrs. Petrich's attorney, said that a decision to
appeal hadn't been made by his client, a Chicago Sun-Times
report said.

A copy of the appellate ruling is available free of charge at:

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

The suit is "Petrich et al. v. MCY Music World et al., Case No.
1-05-1903," on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Representing plaintiffs is Kenneth T. Goldstein of Krislov &
Associates, LTD., 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1350, Chicago, IL
6060, Phone: (312) 606-0500, Fax: (312) 606-0207, Web site:
http://www.krislovlaw.com.

Representing defendants is Jack J. Crowe of Winston & Strawn
LLP, 35 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601-9703, Phone: (312)
558-7423, Fax: (312) 558-5700.


POST PROPERTIES: Shareholder Seeks Court Review of Ga. Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged Post Properties, Inc. shareholder who planned to ask
the U.S. Supreme Court to review a settlement of the shareholder
derivative and purported class action filed against the company
has failed to do so, according to the company's form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.

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 was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 2, 2003.  It alleges 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.  It also sought to compel the
defendants to undertake various actions to facilitate 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.  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.

The estimated legal and settlement costs, not covered by
insurance, associated with the expected resolution of the
lawsuits were recorded in 2003 as a component of a proxy contest
and related costs charge.  

An alleged company shareholder, who had filed a separate
purported derivative and direct action against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, appealed 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 has indicated that he will seek
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The alleged shareholder has
not sought such review, however, and the deadline has passed,
the company said in the regulatory filing.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Post Properties, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.postproperties.com/.


TJX COS: Faces New Suit in Mass. Over Client Information Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
A T.J. Maxx and HomeGoods shopper filed a class action against
TJX Cos. Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for allegedly failing to timely disclose a
computer breach in January, Boston Herald reports.

According to Robert Mann of Pembroke when he tried to use his
debit card late last month, he discovered that some 110
fraudulent transactions -- totaling thousands of dollars -- had
occurred or were attempted in his account from Jan. 24 to 27.  
The charges, similar to ones reported by other TJX customers,
included purchases at Wal-Mart and in other countries.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Mann had to take two unpaid days
from work to address the problem, and his bank ultimately
removed the charges from his account.  He canceled and replaced
several other credit cards as a precaution.

The complaint documents plaintiffs' accounts mirroring those of
shoppers across the country who were inconvenienced, experienced
anxiety or encountered financial headaches simply because they
shopped at TJX-owned stores.

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 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 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 suit is "Cohen et al. v. TJX Companies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-10280-WGY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge William G. Young.

Representing plaintiffs is Jonathan Shapiro of Stern, Shapiro,
Weissberg & Garin, Suite 500, 90 Canal Street, Boston, MA 02114-
2022, Phone: 617-742-5800, Fax: 617-742-5858, E-mail:
jshapiro@sswg.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Mr. Coughlin Ordered to Testify Anew in "Dukes"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin J. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered former Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. Vice Chairman Thomas M. Coughlin, who pleaded guilty to
federal charges of stealing from the company, to testify again
in the case of "Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,"
Bloomberg reports.

At a hearing last week, Judge Jenkins said that he would allow a
new deposition, over Wal-Mart's objections.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said they needed to immediately interview
Mr. Coughlin, who was sentenced to house arrest because of
health problems, in case his declining condition rendered him
unavailable for a future trial.

"Mr. Coughlin held positions that were central to the issues in
this case," said attorney Joseph Sellers, who represents the
women.  "It was apparent at his sentencing hearing that his
health is very precarious."

No date has been set for the deposition, which would be
conducted at Mr. Coughlin's home in Arkansas, Mr. Sellers said.

The pre-trial gathering of evidence, known as discovery, has
been delayed while Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, the
world's largest retailer, appeals a decision giving the women
the right to sue as a group.

                       Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

                 Ruling Affirming Class Status

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

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

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

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

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

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


WEST PUBLISHING: $49M Settlement Offer in "Rodriguez" Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two lead plaintiffs in the class action, "Ryan Rodriguez et al.
v. West Publishing Corp. et al.," are vigorously opposing a
proposed $49 million settlement of the case.

In a nine-page memo dated Jan. 29, co-lead plaintiffs Loredana
Nesci and Lisa Gintz, raised two main objections to the proposed
settlement:

      -- compensation for plaintiffs was too low, and

      -- the deal offered only "nominal" injunctive relief

The memo speaks for Ms. Nesci, Ms. Gintz and apparently co-lead
plaintiff Ryan Rodriguez.  Within it and in separate interviews,
both women, said they would do everything in their power to get
the settlement revoked, according to a report by The Recorder.

Failing that, they will ask the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to disgorge legal fees from their
attorneys for alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

                        Case Background

Filed in May 2005 filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, the suit was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses.  

Kaplan is an international provider of educational and career
services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have.  

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.

Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar
review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar
examination or any subsequent bar examination is a class member.

                      Proposed Settlement

Under the Settlement, the estimated 300,000 class members will
each get about $125.  The deal also calls for BAR/BRI to
discontinue a 10-year-old co-marketing agreement.

West Publishing also committed to "accurate advertising of the
BAR/BRI course in accordance with state and federal laws" and to
advise law students who enroll in its course as early as their
first year "that they are, in fact, not committed to making full
payment for the BAR/BRI course when they graduate, or to taking
it."

However, according to the plaintiffs, these concessions fall far
short of the promises made to them when they signed up as class
representatives.

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc", filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eliot G. Disner, Esq. of McGuireWoods, LLP, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8299, Fax: 310-315-8298, E-mail:
         edisner@mcguirewoods.com;

     (2) Noah E Jussim of McGuire Woods, 1800 Century Park East,
         8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (3) Sidney K Kanazawa of Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket,
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90067, Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail:
         skanazawa@vsblaw.com;

     (4) Tracy Evans Moyer of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (5) Colleen M Regan of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail: cregan@vsblaw.com; and

     (5) Joanna Shally of Shearman and Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4700.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Edward A Klein of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine &
         Regenstreif, 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
         90024-3503, Phone: 310-500-3500;

     (2) Stuart N Senator of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S Grand
         Ave, 35th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-
         683-9100, E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com;

     (3) Lee Scott Taylor of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 South
         Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90071-1560;

     (4) Jeffrey A LeVee of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street,
         50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939,
         E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com;

     (5) Courtney M Schaberg of Jones Day, 555 South Flower
         Street, 50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         489-3939, E-mail: cmschaberg@jonesday.com; and

     (6) Brian A Sun of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street, 50th
         Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939, E-
         mail: basun@jonesday.com.

For more details, contact BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator,
P.O. Box 24639, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-888-285-
7850, E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com, Web site:
http://www.barbri-classaction.com/barbri/default.htm.


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Still Faces Product Liability Suit in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc. remains a co-defendant in a product
liability case, "Cuesta v. Ford, et al.," filed in the District
Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.  

The company was named co-defendant in Oct. 1, 2004.  The suit is
seeking class-action status, and an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the class.  

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-
00511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For more details, contact The Burrage Law Firm, First United
Center - Suite 100, 115 N. Washington, P.O. Box 1727, Durant, OK
74702-1727, Phone: 580-920-0700, E-mail:
dburrage@burragelaw.com, Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/.


ZOELLER PUMP: Recalls Septic Pumps to Replace Defective Plug
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoeller Pump Co., of Louisville, Kentucky, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,300 units of Zoeller brand septic pumps with a 20-foot black
cord with a plug.

The company said the plug on the pumps could have a grounding
problem that could pose an electrical shock hazard to consumers.  
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Zoeller brand septic pumps have a 20-foot black
cord with a plug.  The pumps have date codes 0906 and 1006.  On
models 53, 57, 151, 152 and 153 the date code is printed on the
nameplate on the top of the pump.  On Model WM48 the date code
is printed on the tag near the plug.  "Philippines" is stamped
on the plug.

A list of specific part numbers, model numbers, date codes and
UPC codes can be found at http://www.zoeller.com. Pumps that  
have already been hard wired during installation (where the plug
has been removed) are not included in the recall.

These recalled Zoeller brand septic pumps with a 20-foot black
cord with a plug were manufactured in the Philippines and are
being sold by Zoeller distributors nationwide from September
2006 through December 2006 for between $125 and $375.

Picture of the recalled Zoeller brand septic pumps with a 20-
foot black cord with a plug:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07104.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact Zoeller to schedule an
inspection, replacement and return of affected pumps.

For additional information, contact Zoeller Pump Co. at (800)
928-7867 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
E-mail: customercare@zoeller.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.zoeller.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GLOBALSTAR INC: Bernstein Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP announces that a
class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Globalstar, Inc. securities, pursuant and/or traceable to the
company's initial public offering on or about Nov. 2, 2006
through Feb. 5, 2007.

This action concerns the initial public offering of Globalstar
common stock which took place on or about Nov. 2, 2006.

The complaint charges Globalstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that the company's Prospectus, dated Nov.
2, 2006, failed to disclose that Globalstar's constellation of
satellites was degrading at an increasingly fast rate and that
the length of their commercial viability was decreasing.

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

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.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Globalstar securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the company's IPO.

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

For more information, contact Sandy A. Liebhard, Seth Ottensoser
or Gregory M. Egleston, all of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York, Phone: (800) 217-
1522 or (212) 779-1414, E-mail: GSAT@bernlieb.com, Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


GLOBALSTAR INC: Federman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Federman & Sherwood announces that on Feb. 9, 2007,
a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Globalstar, Inc.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class
period is from Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 5, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, Phone: +1-405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com,
Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


GLOBALSTAR INC: Spector Roseman Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that
a securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Globalstar, Inc. pursuant
and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering on or
about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 5, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10b-5
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements contained in press
releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the initial public
offering 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.

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

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

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Phone: 888-
844-5862 (toll-free), E-mail; classaction@srk-law.com, Website:
at http://www.srk-law.com.


NEW CENTURY: Gutride Safier Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gutride Safier LLP announces that a class action
has been commenced in the U.S. District Court, Central District
of California, against New Century Financial Corp. and certain
officers, on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during the
period from May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Further, it alleges that defendants materially overstated
earnings, understated losses from loan repurchases, failed to
establish a sufficient loss reserve, and violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principals in various press releases and
quarterly reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

It also alleges that certain individual defendants who are
insiders sold shares before the disclosure at artificially
inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $7.3 million.

On Feb. 7, 2007, defendants issued a press release admitting
that they had failed to properly apply GAAP in 10-Q quarterly
reports they filed for the first three quarters of 2006.

Defendants conceded that they would have to materially restate
New Century's financials to reflect the proper accounting for
loan repurchase losses.

In reaction to the surprising disclosure, New Century's shares
declined from a price of $30.16 on Feb. 7 to $19.24 per share on
Feb. 8, a decline of approximately 36%, on unusually heavy
volume.

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

For more information, contact Michael Reese of Gutride Safier
LLP, Phone: 212-579-4625, E-mail: michael@gutridesafier.com,
Website: http://www.gutridesafier.com.


NEW CENTURY: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP has filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Case No. 07-00931) on behalf of a class
of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of New
Century Financial Corp. (NYSE: NEW) between May 4, 2006 and Feb.
7, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations during the Class Period thereby artificially
inflating the price of New Century Financial securities.

The complaint alleges that the company's May 4, 2006, July 10,
2006 and Nov. 2, 2006 press releases and its Form 10-Qs for the
quarters ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2006
were all materially false and misleading because the financial
statements included in each document did not fairly present the
financial condition, results or operations of the company.

Defendants include New Century Financial, Brad A. Morrice,
president and chief executive; Taj S. Bindra, executive vice
president and chief financial officer; Robert K. Cole, chairman
from 1995 to December 2006; and Patti M. Dodge, chief financial
officer.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
knew but failed to reveal that New Century Financial was being
forced to buy-back substantially more loans than originally had
been expected.  Despite knowing of the surge in forced loan
repurchases, the defendants failed to properly account for them.

In addition, the company failed to write-down the value of the
loans reacquired, even though these troubled loans had
materially declined in value.

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century Financial shocked the market by
announcing that it was going to restate its financial results
for the first three quarters of 2006 because the company had
failed to account for all of the re-purchased loans, and had
failed to properly reduce the value of the loans repurchased.

The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
for the quarters ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006 and Sept.
30, 2006 could no longer be relied upon.  As a result of the
Feb. 7, 2007 revelations, New Century Financial shares slumped
to a 52-week low, dropping $10.92, a decline of over 36% on
volume of 25 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired New Century securities during
the Class Period.

Lead plaintiff filind deadline is April 10, 2007.  Abbey Spanier
Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP has been retained to represent the
Class.

Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP is based in 212 East
39th Street, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700,
(800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), E-mail slee@abbeyspanier.com,
contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan Lee.


NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of New Century Financial
Corp. (NEW) between April 7, 2006 and Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against defendant New Century and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.  The action 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.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 10, 2007.

Brower Piven is based at The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, E-
mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com, Phone: 410/986-0036.


NEW CENTURY: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against New Century Financial
Corp. (NE) on Feb. 9, 2007.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from April 7, 2006 to Feb. 7, 2007.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 10, 2007.

Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC is based in 11311 Arcade
Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-5438
501-312-8500; On the Net: http://www.cauleybowman.com.


NEW CENTURY: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Paskowitz Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock and other securities of New
Century Financial Corp. (NEW) who purchased during the period
from May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that New Century and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the company's operations and financial results for the first
three quarters of 2006.

New Century, a mortgage finance company, makes substantial
amounts of residential mortgage loans.  It does not hold these
loans but sells the loans to banks and investors.  The
purchasers can require New Century to repurchase loans which
become troubled.

Then on Feb. 7, 2007 the company shocked the market by
announcing that it was going to restate its financial results
for the first three quarters of 2006 because the company had
failed to account for all of the re-purchased loans, and had
failed to properly reduce the value of the loans repurchased.  
The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
could no longer be relied upon.

As a result of this unexpected news, New Century shares slumped
to a 52-week low, dropping $10.92, a decline of over 36% on
volume of 25 million shares.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 10, 2007.

The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C. Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. Toll free:
1-800-705-9529, E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com.


NEW CENTURY: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of New Century Financial Corp. between May 4,
2006 through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that New Century and certain of its
officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws.  
Specifically, defendants made false and misleading statements
and concerning the company's operations and financial results
for the first three quarters of 2006.  

New Century is a mortgage finance company that makes a
substantial number of residential mortgage loans.  It does not
hold these loans but sells the loans to banks and investors.  
The purchasers can require New Century to repurchase loans which
become troubled.

During the Class Period defendants failed to disclose that New
Century was being forced to buy-back substantially more loans
than originally had been expected.  Despite knowing of the surge
in forced loan repurchases, the defendants failed to properly
account for them.  

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century announced that it was going to
restate its financial results for the first three quarters of
2006 because the company had failed to account for all of the
re-purchased loans, and had failed to properly reduce the value
of the loans repurchased.  The company was forced to admit that
its financial statements could no longer be relied upon.  On
this news, New Century shares fell $10.92, a decline of over
36%, to close at $19.24.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 10, 2007.

Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. -- http://www.snlaw.net-- has not  
filed a lawsuit against the defendants.


NEW CENTURY: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
New Century Financial Corp. (NEW) and certain of its officers
and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the publicly traded securities of NEW between May 4,
2006 and Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results, thus causing NEW's publicly traded securities to trade
at artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that, unknown to investors,
during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded:

     -- that NEW was repurchasing substantially more loans than
        originally had been expected because of borrower
        defaults;

     -- in violation of generally accepted accounting
        principles, defendants failed to properly account for
        the loans by failing to take adequate reserves for loans
        that it would be forced to repurchase; and

     -- that the company's internal controls were woefully
        inadequate, especially in light of the company's recent
        growth.

The complaint further alleges that on Feb. 7, 2007, after the
close of trading, NEW disclosed, among other things, that it
would restate its financial statements for the quarters ended
March 31, June 30 and Sept. 30, 2006 "to correct errors the
company discovered in its application of generally accepted
accounting principles regarding the company's allowance for loan
repurchase losses."

Further, the company stated that, once restated, its net
earnings for each of the first three quarters of 2006 will be
reduced.  The company also disclosed that its previously filed
condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarters
ended March 31, June 30 and Sept. 30, 2006 and all earnings-
related press releases for those periods "should no longer be
relied upon" and that the company "expects that the errors
leading to these restatements constitute material weaknesses in
its internal control over financial reporting for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006."

On Feb. 8, 2007, in reaction to NEW's surprising disclosure, its
shares declined from $30.16 per share at the close of trading on
Feb. 7, 2007, to close at $19.24 per share, a decline of $10.92
per share or approximately 36%, on unusually heavy volume.

The Complaint also alleges that certain individual Defendants
sold approximately 164,000 NEW shares at artificially inflated
prices for proceeds of approximately $7.3 million.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 10, 2007.

Fox & Kilsheimer LLP on the Net: http://www.kaplanfox.com.


NEW CENTURY: KGS Announces Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that a securities fraud class
action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of shareholders of New Century
Financial Corp. who purchased shares during the period between
April 7, 2006 and Feb. 7, 2007.

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

Particularly, late on Feb. 7, 2007, New Century announced that
it will have to restate its consolidated financial results for
the first three quarters of 2006 to correct errors the company
discovered in its application of generally accepted accounting
principles regarding the company's allowance for loan repurchase
losses.

As a result of this shocking news, New Century's stock collapsed
$10.92 per share to close at $19.24 per share on Feb. 8, 2007, a
one-day decline of 36%, on volume of 25 million shares, 17 times
the average three month 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
KGS, Phone: -866-467-1400, ext. 106, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com.


NUVELO: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed 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 Nuvelo, Inc. between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec.
8, 2006, inclusive.  Also included are those who purchased in a
Secondary Offering on or around Jan. 30, 3006.

The complaint alleges that Nuvelo and certain of its officers
and directors violated Federal Securities laws.  Specifically,
defendants concealed the following facts:

     (i) Nuvelo had no reliable clinical data suggesting that
         its drug candidate alfimeprase "dissolved" blood clots
         when applied to them through a catheter; and

    (ii) that Nuvelo had no "power calculations" suggesting
         alfimeprase would out-perform a placebo as the U.S.
         Food and Drug Administration would demand.

On December 14, 2005, Nuvelo announced a Special Protocol
Assessment (SPA) agreement from the FDA, which it claimed 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 would generate $500 million in annual sales in the U.S.
alone.

On Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo disclosed that alfimeprase had
completely failed its clinical trials.

Nuvelo's CEO then admitted 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, Nuvelo's stock fell 80%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10,
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.


QUANTA CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Quanta
Capital Holdings, Ltd. (QNTA) between Dec. 14, 2005 and March 2,
2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Quanta.

For more information, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at clients@brodsky-
smith.com, or by calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.


                            *********


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  * * *