CAR_Public/070221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 37

                            Headlines


ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
AMERICAN HOME: January Trial in Suit Over Norplant Postponed
AT&T CORP: Judge Walker Denies Motion to Remand Suits to Calif.
AT&T INC: Court Yet to Rule on Applicability of Hepting Order
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit in N.C. Alleging ERISA Violations

BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
BOEING CO: Faces Ill. ERISA Suit Over Voluntary Investment Plan
BOEING CO: Still Faces Age Bias Suit Over Spirit's Hiring System

BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Tex. High Court Mulls Appeal in "Ridgeway"
COCA-COLA: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
COCA-COLA: Settles Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif. for $14M
COCA-COLA: Ga. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
EMD SERONO: Enters $24M Settlement in Mass. Suit Over AIDS Drug

ENOGEX INC: Responds to Amended Complaint in "Buser" Litigation
EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Settles Docs' Underpayments Suit for $29M
FIRST FIDELITY: May 4 Hearing Set for CAL Lawsuit Settlement
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: July 19 Hearing Set for AWP Suit Settlement
GOODYEAR TIRE: Continues to Face Property Damage Lawsuit in Ohio

GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities, Derivative Suits
HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Ariz. Pensioners' Suit Gets Class Status
ILLINOIS UNION: "Van Emden" Lawsuit in Mass. Remains Pending
KEANE INC: Shareholder Files Suit in Mass. Over Sale to Caritor
KEANE INC: Faces Second Mass. Suit Over Caritor Acquisition

LEVI STRAUSS: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: No Trial Yet for CA$150M Policyholders Suit
METLIFE INC: Ind. Teachers Claim Fraud in 403(b) Plan Investment
MICROSOFT CORP: Cleveland County Gets Share in Antitrust Deal
OGE ENERGY: Subsidiaries Still Face Price I Litigation in Kans.

OGE ENERGY: Subsidiaries Still Face Price II Litigation in Kans.
OKLAHOMA GAS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Electric Bill Charges
PNC FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Settle Suit Related to Adelphia
RAILAMERICA INC: Settles with Victims of Styrene Leak in Ohio
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $13.5M

SL INDUSTRIES: N.J. Pollution Suit Proceeds as Individual Cases
TRUMP ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Continues in N.J. ERISA Lawsuit
WET SEAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LG PHILIPS: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit Filing
NUVELO INC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action against Ace Ltd.

ACE Ltd. was named in four putative securities class actions on
Oct. 14, 2004 following the filing of a civil suit against Marsh
& McLennan Cos. Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  

The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet Metal Workers'
National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust.  
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian
Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants.  Plaintiffs
assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control person liability).

Plaintiffs allege that the company public statements and
securities filings should have revealed that insurers, including
certain company entities and brokers, allegedly conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions and that the company's
revenues and earnings were inflated by these practices.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and
that defendants could not be held liable for any failures to
disclose information.  

Defendants also argued that the individual defendants could not
be held liable for statements they did not make that plaintiffs
had not adequately pled scienter, and that plaintiffs had not
adequately pled loss causation.  

Plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains
pending.  

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

The suit is "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Timothy J. Savage.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Tor Gronborg, Udoka Nwanna and
Debra J. Wyman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
231-1058, E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com, udokan@lerachlaw.com and
debraw@lerachlaw.com.


AMERICAN HOME: January Trial in Suit Over Norplant Postponed
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial set to begin on Jan. 16, 2007 in the suit against
American Home Products Corp. over alleged defects in its
Norplant(R) contraceptive device has been postponed, according
to the Norplant Litigation Web site http://www.norplantcase.com.

On October 2001, the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana granted class-action certification
to the lawsuit "Davis, et al., v. American Home Products Corp.,
d/b/a Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Case No. 94-11684."

The lawsuit is about whether Norplant(R) is a defective product,
and whether the maker, American Home, is liable.

The Norplant(R) contraceptive device was a prescription birth
control implant in the form of "timed-release" rods that were
surgically implanted below the skin of a woman's upper arm to
provide birth control for up to five years.

The plaintiffs allege that women suffered adverse effects
because the dosage was too high during the first 12-18 months,
and that the Norplant(R) contraceptive device is a defective
product as a result.

The court has decided that this lawsuit is a class action, and
may go ahead to a trial, because it meets the requirements of
the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, articles 591-92, which
govern class actions in Louisiana.

The class involves a group of people, that includes women who
claim to be suffering, or have suffered from, adverse effects as
a result of the Norplant(R) contraceptive implant, including
changes or irregularities in menstrual bleeding, pain or itching
at the implant site, infection at the implant site, removal
difficulties, headaches, nervousness, nausea, dizziness,
swelling near implant site, dermatitis, acne, change of
appetite, breast pain, weight gain, or excessive body or facial
hair and/or scalp hair loss.

Class members must also either have had the implant surgically
implanted or removed in Louisiana, or have been a Louisiana
resident at the time it was implanted.

Wyeth denies the claims and allegations in the lawsuit that the
Norplant(R) contraceptive implant was defective or that it did
anything wrong.

Deadline to file for exclusion from the class was Dec. 15, 2006.  

A copy of the detailed notice is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1247

The suit is "Davis, et al., v. American Home Products Corp.,
d/b/a Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Case No. 94-11684," filed in
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana under Judge Piper D. Griffin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darleen M. Jacobs of Jacobs & Sarrat, PLC, 823 St.
         Louis Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: (504) 522-
         3287;

     (2) Roy F. Amedee, Jr. of Law Offices of Roy F. Amedee,
         Jr., 1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 735, Metairie, LA 70001-
         7522, Phone: (504)-799-3232;

     (3) Richard J. Arsenault of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, PO
         Box 1190, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: (800)-256-
         1050;

     (4) J. Robert Ates of Ates & Associates, 13726 River Road,
         Destrehan, LA 70047, Phone: (985)-764-9911;

     (5) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the Law Offices of Daniel E.
         Becnel, Jr., 106 West Seventh Street, PO Drawer
         Reserve, LA 70084-2095, Phone: (985)-536-1186,

     (6) Allan Berger of Allan Berger & Associates, PLC, 4173
         Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70119-5972, Phone: (877)-
         820-3198;

     (7) Terrill W. Boykin of Bordenave Boykin & Ehret, PC, 400
         Poydras Street, Suite 2450, New Orleans, LA 70130,
         Phone: (504)-527-5450;   

     (8) Calvin C. Fayard of Fayard & Honeycutt, APC, 519
         Florida Avenue Southwest, Denham Springs, LA 70726,
         Phone: (225)-664-0304; and

     (9) Bruce C. Dean of Bruce C. Dean, LLC, 3500 North Hullen
         Street, Metairie, LA 70002, Phone: (504)-456-8633.


AT&T CORP: Judge Walker Denies Motion to Remand Suits to Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order on Jan. 18
denying a motion by plaintiffs to remand wiretapping suits filed
against Verizon Communications, Inc. and AT&T Corp.

On May 26, 2006, plaintiffs brought a suit against Verizon
Communications, Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court seeking to
enjoin Verizon's alleged disclosure to the National Security
Agency of telephone calling records of its California
residential customers.

Plaintiffs allege these disclosures violate their privacy rights
under the California Constitution and California Public
Utilities Code Section 2891.  A similar suit was brought against
AT&T Corp. in San Francisco superior court on May 26, 2006.

Verizon and AT&T removed these actions to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 5 and 6,
2006, respectively.  Plaintiffs in both actions dispute the
propriety of removal and have moved to remand these actions to
state court, asserting that none of defendants' bases for
removal creates jurisdiction in this court.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the U.S. filed a "statement of interest" in
opposition to plaintiffs' motions to remand.  

The court denies plaintiffs' motions to remand finding that
California state law provides the government a right to
intervene.  The court stated in an order, "remand would be
futile, serving only as a delay and a waste of resources for the
parties and the federal and state courts."

"In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs' suits give rise to
jurisdiction under the "embedded federal issue" doctrine and
under the federal officer removal statute [].  The court also
finds that remand would be futile because intervention by the
government in state court would render this action removable..."

A copy of the order is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a0e

In 2006, a judicial panel of multidistrict litigation chaired by
Wm. Terrell Hodges ordered the transfer of 17 purported class
actions filed against several telecommunication companies to the
Northern District of California under Judge Walker for
coordinated or consolidated trial proceedings.

Twenty-one pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court.   The cases are consolidated as:   
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records   
Litigation, MDL-1791."  

Master consolidated complaints have been filed for:

     * AT&T Mobility and Cingular Wireless:           
       http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191a  

     * BellSouth
       http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191b

     * Sprint Nextel
       http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191c

     * T-Mobile, Comcast, Transworld, and McLeod
       http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191d

     * Verizon and MCI
       http://researcharchives.com/t/s?191e

Representing the plaintiffs are:           

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454     
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-    
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:     
         cindy@eff.org; and     

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman     
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San     
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-     
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.        

Representing the defendants are Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.          
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont          
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:          
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:          
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and  
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


AT&T INC: Court Yet to Rule on Applicability of Hepting Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California heard on Feb. 9 arguments on
whether the Hepting Order should apply to non-AT&T carriers.  It
also heard motion for a stay pending interlocutory appeal of
"Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., No. C 06-0672-VRW."

The court took the matters under-submission.  It indicated it
would issue a written ruling.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the U.S. submitted a proposed Order listing
the materials submitted to the court ex parte, in camera, in the
Hepting action and providing for their continued availability to
the court in the Hepting action and to judges for the Court of
Appeals.

                       The Proposed Order
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a0f

The U.S. has lodged with the Court in the Hepting action these
classified materials for the Court's in camera, ex parte
consideration:

Lodged on May 13, 2006:

     -- In Camera, Ex Parte Memorandum of the U.S. in
        Support of the Military and State Secrets Privilege and
        Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary
        Judgment;

     -- In Camera, Ex Parte Declaration of John D. Negroponte,
        Director of National Intelligence; and

     -- In Camera, Ex Parte Declaration of Lieutenant General
        Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency.

Lodged on June 16, 2006:

     -- In Camera, Ex Parte Reply in Support of the U.S.'
        Assertion of the Military and State Secrets Privilege
        and Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for
        Summary Judgment;

     -- In Camera, Ex Parte Supplemental Declaration of John D.
        Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence; and

     -- In Camera, Ex Parte Supplemental Declaration of William
        B. Black, Acting Director, National Security Agency.

Lodged on July 31, 2006:

     In Camera, Ex Parte Response to the Court's Order that the
     parties provide their "views regarding the means by which
     the court should review any future classified submission."

The documents became part of the record in the Hepting action
and, during the pendency of that action.  It was ordered
preserved in the custody of the U.S. and stored in a secure
location in Washington, D.C. by the Litigation Security Section
of the Department of Justice.

During the pendency of the Hepting action, the documents will be
made available to the District Court as necessary for any future
consideration or use in Hepting, and to the judges of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit assigned to an appeal in
the Hepting action.

In the suit, plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding
company, AT&T Inc., are collaborating with the NSA in a massive
warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks the
domestic and foreign communications and communication records of
millions of Americans.    

In 2006, a judicial panel of multidistrict litigation chaired by
Wm. Terrell Hodges ordered the transfer of 17 purported class
actions filed against several telecommunication companies to the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker for
coordinated or consolidated trial proceedings.

Twenty-one pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the
jurisdiction of a single court.   The cases are consolidated as:   
"In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records   
Litigation, MDL-1791."  

Counsel for plaintiffs are Cindy Cohn, Kurt Opsahl, Barry
Himmelstein, Richard Wiebe, Ann Brick, Laurence Pulgram, Steven
Schwarz, Val Exnicios, Harvey Grossman (ACLU), Vincent Parrett,
Gary Lewis, Jon Eisenberg (Al-Haramain Islamic Fdn).

Counsel for defendants: Carl Nichols, Anthony Coppolino (USA),
Brad Berenson, Edward McNichols, Bruce Ericson, Marc Axelbaum
(AT&T), John Kester (Sprint), John Rogovin, Samir Jain
(Verizon), Christopher Soriano (Comcast).


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit in N.C. Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. faces a purported federal class action
claiming the bank cost its employees millions of dollars by
investing pension and 401(k) money in its own mutual funds, The
Charlotte Business Journal reports.

Originally, the suit was filed in California back in 2006 under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  However, it was
recently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, pursuant to defendants' request.

Elena M. David, a 64-year-old former branch manager, filed the
suit.  She and her lawyers are seeking class-action status on
behalf of 382,000 participants in the company's pension and
401(k) plans who were harmed by what the suit calls "corporate
self-dealing."

Named as defendants in the suit are:

      -- Bank of America Corp.,

      -- Bank of America Corporation Board of Directors,

-- Bank of America Corporation Corporate Benefits
         Committee,

-- Alvaro G. de Molina,

      -- Amy Woods Brinkley,
     
      -- Barbara J. Desoer,
   
      -- Bradford H. Warner,

      -- Charles J. Cooley,

      -- Charles K. Gifford,

      -- Edward L. Romero,

      -- Edward J. Brown, III,

      -- Eugene M. McQuade,

      -- F. William Vandiver, Jr.,

      -- Frank P. Bramble, Sr.,

      -- Gary L. Countryman,

      -- J. Steele Alphin,

      -- Jackie M. Ward,

      -- James H. Hance,

      -- John T. Collins,

      -- Kenneth D. Lewis,

      -- Liam E. McGee,

      -- Meredith R. Spangler,

      -- Michael E. O'Neill,

      -- O. Temple Sloan, Jr.,

      -- Owen G. Shell, Jr.,

      -- Patricia E. Mitchell,

      -- Paul Fulton,

      -- R. Eugene Taylor,

      -- Richard M. DeMartini,

      -- Robert L. Tillman,

      -- Thomas J. May,

      -- Thomas M. Ryan,

      -- Tommy R. Franks,

      -- Walter E. Massey, and

      -- William Barnet, III.

The suit is "David v. Alphin et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00011,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina under Judge Carl Horn, III.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William Bertain, 1310 Sixth St., Eureka, CA 95501,
         Phone: 707-443-5078, Fax: 707-443-4998; and

     (2) Cornish Hitchcock, 5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 350,
         Washington, DC 20015, Phone: 202-364-6900, Fax: 202-
         364-9960.

Representing the defendants is Matthew David Powers of O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, 275 Battery St., Ste. 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415-984-8700.


BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. remains defendant in four employment
discrimination cases in which class certification was or is
being sought or has been granted, according to the company's
Feb. 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

                       Williams Litigation

In the Williams racial discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, the company prevailed in a jury trial in December
2005, but plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial dismissal of
compensation claims in November 2005.  

                       Calender Litigation

In the Calender racial discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. Northern District of Illinois -- a spin-off
from Williams -- plaintiffs dropped their promotions claim on
June 6, 2006 and put their compensation claims on hold pending
the outcome of the Williams appeal.

                       Anderson Litigation

The Anderson gender discrimination class action was filed on
March 22, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.  The class claims in the case were
dismissed on Oct. 18, 2006, and no appeal was taken.

The Boeing Co. on the Net: http://www.boeing.com/.


BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
over allegations that it violated Employment Retirement Income
Security Act in relation to its Pension Value Plan for
Employees.

On June 23, 2006, two employees and two former employees of
Boeing filed a purported class action on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated participants in the Plan, against:

     -- Boeing Co.,
     -- McDonnell Douglas Corp., and
     -- the Pension Value Plan for Employees of The Boeing Co.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 23, 2006 by:

     -- Larry Wheeler of Edwardsville,
     -- David and Maral Keeton of Wildwood, Missouri, and
     -- Vincent Parisi of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri

Plaintiffs allege that as of Jan. 1, 1999 and all times
thereafter, the Plan's benefit formula used to compute the
accrued benefit violates the accrual rules of ERISA and that
plaintiffs are entitled to a recalculation of their benefits
along with other equitable relief.  

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that their retirement benefits
are less than the accrued benefit to which they are legally
entitled, since the plan failed to properly apply accrual and
vesting rules imposed by ERISA.  The conduct mentioned is
widespread, affecting hundreds of plan participants, according
to the complaint (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2006).  

Plaintiffs also claim that the plan violates ERISA's anti-back
loading provisions by making benefits accrue very slowly over
time until the participants nears the normal retirement age so
that a participant's vested pension rights have very little
value until they complete a very long period of service.

In addition, plaintiffs argue that under ERISA a defined benefit
plan must allow a participant to accrue, i.e. earn benefits no
less that ratably over a working career so as to prevent
employers from using creative plan designs to avoid the
protection afforded by ERISA's vesting rules.

The company believes the allegations claimed by plaintiffs lack
merit and have filed a motion to dismiss all claims.  

                         Relief Sought

Furthermore, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to appropriate
equitable relief to redress the plan's violations of ERISA and
to enforce provisions, and incidental monetary relief
mechanically flowing from injunctive relief in the form of a
common fund equal to the difference between what they were paid
under the alleged unlawful method of computing their pension
benefits.

The suit is asking the court for a declaration that the pension
plan's method of computing benefits is unlawful, a judgment for
them and against the company and a permanent injunction
preventing the plan from calculating pension benefits in
violation of ERISA.

Plaintiffs are also asking for the creation of a common fund
equal to the amount of pension benefits due, pre and post
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
common fund/benefit doctrine or any other applicable laws and
any other relief the court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.

The company reported no new development in the matter at its
Feb. 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is, "Wheeler et al. v. Pension Value Plan for Employees
of The Boeing Co. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00500-DRH-PMF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
under Judge David R. Herndon.

Representing the plaintiffs are Matthew H. Armstrong and Jerome
J. Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard, Phone: 314-621-6115 and 618-
632-3329, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com and
jschlichter@uselaws.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Lisa Demet Martin of Bryan Cave - St. Louis, 211 North
         Broadway, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600, St.
         Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2000, Fax: 314-259-
         2020; and

     (2) Christopher J. Rillo of Groom Law Group, Chartered,
         1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
         202-857-0620, Fax: 202-659-4503, E-mail:
         crillo@groom.com.


BOEING CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for Middle District of
Tennessee alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action asserting allegations that Boeing is obligated to provide
vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to plaintiffs and all
class members.

Plaintiffs alleged that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.

The lawsuit alleged that the collective bargaining agreements
and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime
retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class
members.

On Sept. 15, 2006, Boeing filed a lawsuit in the Northern
District of Illinois against the International UAW and two
retiree medical plan participants seeking a declaratory judgment
confirming that the company has the legal right to make changes
to these medical benefits.

The suit is "Mayfield et al. v. Boeing Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00883," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Representing the plaintiffs is Deborah Godwin of Godwin, Morris,
Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC, 50 N. Front Street, Suite 800,
Memphis, TN 38173-0290, Phone: (901) 528-1702, E-mail:
dgodwin@gmlblaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Charles Edward Young, Jr. of
Kramer, Rayson, Leake, Rodgers & Morgan, LLP, 800 S. Gay Street,
Suite 2500, Knoxville, TN 37901-0629, Phone: (865) 525-5134,
Fax: (865) 522-5723, E-mail: ceyoung@kramer-rayson.com.


BOEING CO: Faces Ill. ERISA Suit Over Voluntary Investment Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's Feb. 16 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006.  In it plaintiffs are
seeking to represent a class of similarly situated participants
and beneficiaries in the Boeing Co. Voluntary Investment Plan.  
They allege that fees and expenses incurred by the Plan were and
are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely for the
benefit of the Plan and its participants, and undisclosed to
participants.

The plaintiffs further allege that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
seek injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.


BOEING CO: Still Faces Age Bias Suit Over Spirit's Hiring System
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas alleging age
discrimination.

On March 2, 2006, the company was served with a complaint in
Wichita, Kansas, alleging that hiring decisions made by Spirit
Aerospace near the time of the sale of the Wichita facility were
tainted by age discrimination.

The case, filed on Dec. 19, 2005, was brought as a class action
on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit.  Pursuant to an
indemnity provision in the Asset Purchase Agreement, Spirit
agreed to defend and indemnify the company.

The company reported no new development in the matter at its
Feb. 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas under Judge Monti L. Belot with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Uzo L. Ohaebosim and Lawrence
W. Williamson, Jr. of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301
N. Main, 1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-
5400, Fax: 316-261-5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are, James M. Armstrong and Carolyn
L. Matthews of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, 1551 N Waterfront Parkway,
Ste. 100, Wichita, KS 67206-4466, Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-
267-6371, Fax: 316-267-6345, E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com and
cmatthews@foulston.com.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Tex. High Court Mulls Appeal in "Ridgeway"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas has yet to rule on an appeal made by
plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in behalf of Ray Ridgeway
against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. and The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. (Case No. 48-185170-00)
originally in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th
Judicial District.

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. predecessor, Santa Fe
Southern Pacific Corp.

The complaint alleges that Santa Fe Southern erroneously
informed shareholders as to the tax treatment of the dividend
"specifically, the apportionment of the dividend as either a
distribution of earnings and profits or a return of capital,"
which allegedly caused some shareholders to overpay their income
taxes.

The plaintiffs assert, through their expert's report, that Santa
Fe Southern had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits
and that the entire dividend distribution should have been
treated as a return of capital, rather than the approximately 34
percent that Santa Fe Southern determined was a return of
capital.

On July 8, 2005, the court entered an order denying the
plaintiffs' requests to certify a class action.  The Texas Court
of Appeals affirmed the order denying certification on Aug. 24,
2006.  Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing of the order of the
Texas Court of Appeals was denied.

Plaintiffs have sought review by the Supreme Court of Texas and
the court has not yet ruled on that petition, according to the
BNSF Railway Co.'s Feb. 16 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. on the Net:
http://www.bnsf.com/.  


COCA-COLA: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and its California subsidiary remains
a defendant in a purported class action, "Costanza, et al. v.
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, et al.," which
alleges violations of state wage and hour rules.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles-Civil Central West,
under Case No. BC 351382.

Plaintiffs sued on behalf of a putative class of certain exempt
supervisory employees who claim to have been misclassified as
exempt employees and thus seek overtime pay and other related
damages, including but not limited to penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees.


COCA-COLA: Settles Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif. for $14M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and its California subsidiary
settled a consolidated class action filed by several current and
former employees of the company over alleged violations of state
wage and hour rules.

In a matter combined in a consolidated class action proceeding
styled, "In re BCI Overtime Cases," which is pending in San
Bernardino Superior Court (the first consolidated suit was filed
July 18, 2001), plaintiffs allege that certain hourly employees
were required to work off the clock.  The company denies the
allegations.

Recently, the parties have agreed to settle this matter, as well
as a smaller accompanying suit, for a total of $14 million,
inclusive of claims, attorneys' fees and costs of
administration.

The settlement has been given preliminarily approval, according
to the company's Feb. 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


COCA-COLA: Ga. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
dismissed a purported securities fraud class action filed
against Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and several current and
former officers and directors.  

The suit, "In re Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:06-CV-0275-TWT," was
originally filed as "Argento Trading Co., et al, vs. Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc. et al." on Feb. 7, 2006.

It alleges that the company engaged in "channel stuffing" with
customers.  In addition, the suit raises certain insider trading
claims.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the court dismissed the case, according to the
company's Feb. 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Argento Trading Co. L.P. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00275-TWT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Lauren S. Antonino, James M.
Evangelista and Stuart Jay Guber of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone:
404-664-9168 and 404-881-9199, E-mail: lantonino@motleyrice.com,
jevangelista@motleyrice.com and sguber@motleyrice.com.


EMD SERONO: Enters $24M Settlement in Mass. Suit Over AIDS Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMD Serono Inc. agreed to pay $24 million to settle a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts over the company's AIDS drug Serostim, the Boston
Globe reports.

Earlier District Court Judge Patti B. Saris granted preliminary
approval to the settlement, which would reimburse health plans,
health insurance providers and individuals who paid for the
drug.

"The company felt it was prudent to settle the class actions and
put the matter behind it to focus and devote its energies on the
core mission of developing treatments for unmet medical needs,"
Serono said in a statement.

The agreement follows a settlement Serono reached in 2005 with
the U.S. Department of Justice to pay $704 million in fines for
unlawfully promoting Serostim.

The lawsuit, filed in 2005, accused Serono of promoting an
unapproved medical device to improperly diagnose patients with
AIDS wasting.

The suit also alleged Serono provided doctors with travel
stipends to prescribe the drug and that it marketed the drug for
uses that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

The suit is "Government Employees Hospital Association v. Serono
International, S.A. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11935-PBS," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA
98101-1090, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
steve@hbsslaw.com; and David S. Nalven and Thomas M. Sobol, both
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 26th Floor, One Main Street,
4th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142, Phone: 617-482-3700, Fax: 617-
482-3003, E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com or Tom@hbsslaw.com.

Representing defendants are Fred A. Kelly, Jr. of Nixon Peabody,
LLP, 101 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02210, Phone: 617-345-1319,
Fax: 866-947-1649, E-mail: fkelly@nixonpeabody.com; and Timothy
W. Mungovan, Dennis A. Murphy and David M. Ryan, all of Nixon
Peabody, LLP, 100 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-
345-1000 or 617-345-1068 or 617-345-6060, Fax: 617-345-1300 or
866-823-4234 or 866-947-1616, E-mail: tmungovan@nixonpeabody.com
or dmurphy@nixonpeabody.com or dryan@nixonpeabody.com.


ENOGEX INC: Responds to Amended Complaint in "Buser" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enogex Inc., Enogex Products Corp. and Enogex Gas Gathering,
L.L.C., which are all subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp.,
responded to the amended complaint in a purported class action
filed against them in the District Court of Canadian County,
Oklahoma.

On July 22, 2005, Enogex along with certain other unaffiliated
co-defendants was served with a purported class action that had
been filed on Feb. 7, 2005 by Farris Buser and other named
plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs' own royalty interests in certain oil and gas
producing properties and allege they have been under-compensated
by the named defendants, including the Enogex companies,
relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered during the
transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs' wells.  

Plaintiffs' assert breach of contract, implied covenants,
obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and
fraud causes of action and claim actual damages in excess of
$10,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages in
excess of $10,000.  

The Enogex companies filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on Nov. 18, 2005, subject to the plaintiffs' right to
conduct discovery and the possible re-filing of their
allegations in the petition against Enogex companies.  

On Sept. 19, 2005, co-defendants, BP America, Inc. and BP  
America Production Co., filed a cross claim against Enogex  
Products Corp. seeking indemnification and/or contribution from  
Products based upon the 1997 sale of a third party interest in
one of Products natural gas processing plants.  

The court-established date for the refiling of the allegations
in the petition was extended until May 17, 2006, and, on such
date, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition against the  
Enogex companies.

Enogex filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on Aug. 2,
2006.  The hearing on the dismissal motion was held on Nov. 20,
2006 and the court denied the Enogex companies' motion.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
petition and BP's cross claim, according to at the company's
Feb. 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Settles Docs' Underpayments Suit for $29M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Excellus BlueCross BlueShield agreed in December to pay $29
million to Rochester Community Individual Practice Assoc. to
settle doctors' claims that the insurer had shortchanged them on
fees in New York, Lawyers and Settlements reports.  The suit was
filed eight years ago.

Neither side admitted any wrongdoing in the agreement under the
settlement.  The funds will be divided among 2,600 of the
Rochester association's members beginning in March.


FIRST FIDELITY: May 4 Hearing Set for CAL Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on May 4, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. for
the proposed $7.4 million settlement in a suit filed on behalf
of holders of Continental Airlines, Inc. first priority secured
equipment certificates.

The hearing will be held before Judge Denise Cote of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the
U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 11B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York.

Any exclusion from the settlement must be made on or before
March 30, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities who are or were
holders of Continental Airlines, Inc. first priority secured
equipment certificates at any time from the commencement of
Continental's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on Dec. 3, 1990 to the
present.

Generally, the complaint alleges that defendants violated their
obligations under 15 U.S.C. Section 77ooo(c) of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, breached their fiduciary duties to the
Certificate holders, breached their contractual duties under the
Indenture and were negligent.  

The suit is "The Dresner Co. Profit Sharing Plan and Leon Meyers
v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., New Jersey, Midlantic National
Bank, Nationsbank of Tennessee, N.A., and Constellationbank,
Case No. 95 Civ. 1924 (DLC)."

For more details, visit Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212)
545-4600, E-mail: continentalcs@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com/continentalcertificatesettlement.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: July 19 Hearing Set for AWP Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 19, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $70 million settlement by SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
d.b.a. GlaxoSmithKline, in the matter, "In re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456."

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 22, 2007, and May 27, 2007, respectively.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant drug companies either report
the AWP of each drug they make to trade publications or provide
those publications with information from which the publications
calculate an AWP for each of defendants' drugs.  

The published AWP of a drug has been used to set the price those
consumers who made Medicare Part B co-payments, and Medicare
paid for the drug.  Insurance companies often used the published
AWP to determine what they will reimburse doctors or pharmacies
for these drugs.    

The lawsuits claim, among other things, that consumers making
Medicare Part B co-payments, and consumers who paid in full for
drugs or made a percentage co-payment outside of Medicare Part
B, paid more than they should have paid for the Covered Drugs
because drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, intentionally
reported false and inflated AWPs concerning the drugs at issue.

                         The Settlement

The settlement will provide reimbursement to both patients and
third-party payers, such as union benefit funds and health
plans, who pay for drugs on behalf of their members (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2006).   

In the proposed settlement agreement, 30 percent of the $70
million settlement will go to consumers who incurred co-payments
based on Average Wholesale Price for a list of specific Medicare
Part B covered drugs manufactured by Glaxo.  The remaining 70
percent will go to third-party payers including health plans,
Health Maintenance Organizations and other organizations who
purchased certain Glaxo drugs.  

The proposed settlement will refund class members for drug
amounts paid in excess, and will guarantee a minimum payment of
$100.00.

Five states -- including Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Connecticut
and New York -- will split $2.5 million for their role in
leading the litigation efforts.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594, Web site:
         http://www.hagens-berman.com;and

     (2) GSK AWP Litigation Administrator c/o Complete Claim
         Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 24743, West Palm Beach, FL
         33416, Phone: 1-888-568-7645, Web site:
         http://www.GSKSettlement.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Continues to Face Property Damage Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. remains a defendant in a civil action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio under the caption, "Adkins, et al. v. Divested Atomic
Corp., et al."

On June 8, 1998, a civil action was filed against Divested
Atomic Corp., the company and Lockheed Martin Energy Systems on
behalf of approximately 276 persons who currently reside, or in
the past resided, near the Portsmouth Uranium Enrichment
Complex, a facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy
located in Pike County, Ohio.  

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of all persons who were residents, property owners or
lessees of property subject to alleged windborne particulates
and water run off from the Department of Energy Plant, that
Divested Atomic (and, therefore, the company) and Lockheed
Martin in their operation of the Portsmouth DOE Plant:

      -- negligently contaminated, and are strictly liable for
         contaminating, the plaintiffs and their property with
         allegedly toxic substances;

      -- have in the past maintained, and are continuing to
         maintain, a private nuisance;

      -- have committed, and continue to commit, trespass; and

      -- violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
         Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.

The plaintiffs are seeking $30 million in actual damages, $300
million in punitive damages, other unspecified legal and
equitable remedies, costs, expenses and attorney's fees.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 16
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Adkins, et al. v. Divested Atomic Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:98-cv-00595-WHR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H. Rice.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Louise Malbin Roselle of Waite,
Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co - 1, Central Trust Tower, Fourth
& Vine Streets, Suite 1513, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
621-0267.  

Representing the defendants is Robert Edgar Tait of Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease - 2, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay Street, Columbus,
OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, Fax:
614-464-6341, E-mail: retait@vssp.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities, Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
dismissed a purported securities class action and derivative
actions filed against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., but refused to
dismiss breach of fiduciary claims in the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act class action filed against the company.

                     Securities Litigation

On Oct. 23, 2003, a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of purchasers of its common stock, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  

After that date, a total of 20 of these purported class actions
were filed against the company in that court.  These lawsuits
also name as defendants several of the company's present or
former officers and directors, including:

      -- current chief executive officer Robert J. Keegan,

      -- current chief financial officer Richard J. Kramer, and

      -- former chief financial officer, Robert W. Tieken.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other named defendants violated federal securities laws by
artificially inflating and maintaining the market price of the
company's securities.  

                      Derivative Litigation

Five derivative lawsuits were also filed by purported
shareholders on behalf of the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio and two similar derivative
lawsuits originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas for
Summit County, Ohio were removed to federal court.

The derivative actions are against present and former directors,
the company's present and former chief executive officers and
its former chief financial officer.  

The suits allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty
and corporate waste arising out of the same events and
circumstances upon which the securities class actions are based.  
The plaintiffs in the federal derivative actions also allege
violations of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by
certain of the named defendants.

                         ERISA Litigation

Finally, at least 11 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
company, The Northern Trust Co., and current and/or former
officers of the company, asserting breach of fiduciary claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of a
putative class of participants in the company's Employee Savings
Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees and the company's Savings
Plan for Salaried Employees.

The plaintiffs' claims in these actions arise out of the same
events and circumstances upon which the securities class actions
and derivative actions are based.

All of these actions have been consolidated into three separate
actions before the Honorable Judge John Adams in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On June 28 and July 16, 2004, amended complaints were filed in
each of the three consolidated actions.  The amended complaint
in the purported ERISA class action added certain current and
former directors and associates of Goodyear as additional
defendants and the Northern Trust Co. was subsequently dismissed
without prejudice from this action.  

On Nov. 15, 2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all
three consolidated cases.

In July 2006, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary claims under ERISA.  The court granted
Goodyear's motions to dismiss the purported securities class
action and derivative actions in March 2006 and January 2007,
respectively.  

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. on the Net: http://www.goodyear.com.


HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Ariz. Pensioners' Suit Gets Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
class action status to lawsuits against Honeywell International,
Inc.'s retirement earnings plan.

Plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to
allegations that, among other things, Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of employees of Garrett Corp., a
predecessor entity, when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed
to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms of
the plan.

In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these
claims and in favor of the Honeywell on virtually all other
claims.

The company said it strongly disagrees with, and intends to
appeal, the court's adverse ruling.  In September 2006, the
court certified a class.

Honeywell reported development in the matter at its Feb. 16 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings
Plan, Case No. 2:04-cv-00424-ROS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Roslyn O. Silver.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Daniel Lee Bonnett and Jennifer
Lynn Kroll of Martin & Bonnett, PLLC, 3300 N. Central Ave., Ste.
1720, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-240-6900, Fax: 602-240-2345,
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com and jkroll@martinbonnett.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael L. Banks and Amy Covert of Morgan Lewis &
         Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-
         2721, Phone: 215-963-5387 and 215-963-4749, Fax: 215-
         963-5001, E-mail: mbanks@morganlewis.com and
         acovert@morganlewis.com.

     (2) Dawn L. Dauphine of Osborn Maledon, PA, P.O. Box 36379,
         Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379, Phone: 602-640-9000, Fax: 602-
         640-6075, E-mail: ddauphine@omlaw.com.


ILLINOIS UNION: "Van Emden" Lawsuit in Mass. Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The state court class action, "Van Emden Management Corp. v.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al.," which names Illinois Union
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ACE Ltd., as defendant remains
stayed pending resolution of a consolidated proceedings in the
District of New Jersey.

The suit is Case No. 05-0066A, filed in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts on Jan. 13, 2005.  The allegations in this case
are similar to the allegations in a consolidated class action
pending against ACE, ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA, Inc.,
in the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs allege that insurers, including certain ACE
entities, and brokers conspired to increase premiums and
allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent
commissions.  In addition, the complaints allege that the broker
defendants received additional income by improperly placing
their clients' business with insurers through related wholesale
entities that act as intermediaries between the broker and
insurer.

Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries.  In the commercial insurance consolidated
complaint, plaintiffs assert these causes of action against ACE:
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the
consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until
further order of the court, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.


KEANE INC: Shareholder Files Suit in Mass. Over Sale to Caritor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keane Inc. is named nominal defendant in a derivative and class
lawsuits filed by a purported shareholder, Henry C. Blaufox, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
according to the company's Feb. 16, 2007 Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit seeks to bring derivative and direct claims on behalf
of Keane and a class of Keane's shareholders, against certain of
Keane's present and former directors and executive officers.

The suit purports to bring claims for monetary and equitable
relief under the federal securities laws and state law,
allegedly arising out of Keane's past stock option practices and
the recently announced proposed acquisition of Keane by Caritor
Inc.

Keane has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
Feb. 6, 2007 by and among Keane, Caritor and Renaissance
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Caritor,
providing for the acquisition of Keane by Caritor.

The suit is "Blaufox v. Keane et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10278-
PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing plaintiffs are Thomas G. Shapiro and Adam M.
Stewart, both of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, 37th
Floor, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134,
E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com or astewart@shulaw.com.


KEANE INC: Faces Second Mass. Suit Over Caritor Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Nichols, a purported Keane Inc. shareholder, initiated a
second purported class action in Massachusetts Superior Court
naming Keane Inc. and certain current and former directors as
defendants, the company said in a Feb. 16, 2007 Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Like the suit, "Blaufox v. Keane et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10278-
PBS," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, the current complaint alleges that
Keane's directors breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the recently announced proposed acquisition of Keane by Caritor
Inc.

The plaintiff in seeks monetary and equitable relief.

As previously disclosed, Keane, Inc. has entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Feb. 6, 2007 by and among
Keane, Caritor, Inc. and Renaissance Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Caritor, providing for the acquisition of
Keane by Caritor.

Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, Keane Inc. --
http://www.keane.com-- manages enterprise information systems  
and provides system integration services for both private and
public sector customers, and it offers a range of business
process outsourcing services through its Keane Worldzen
subsidiary.

Other services include application development, consulting,
project management, and strategic staffing. Keane has more than
70 offices in North America, the UK, and India.


LEVI STRAUSS: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to issue a ruling on a motion seeking dismissal of a  
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Levi
Strauss & Co., in connection with its April 6, 2001 and June 16,
2003 registered bond offerings.  

The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-03-05605 RMW," also names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

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

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, relating to the company's Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public statements.  

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

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

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action.  The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and,
after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter
under submission.  The court has not yet issued a ruling,
according to the company's Feb. 13 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 26, 2006.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

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


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: No Trial Yet for CA$150M Policyholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has yet been set for a CA$150 million lawsuit
filed by former policyholders of Manulife Financial, the
Barbados Advocate reports citing plaintiffs' lawyers.

Plaintiffs' lawyers, Harvey T. Strosberg Q.C. and Patricia
Speights, are still examining relevant documents, the most
recent of which was "certain information" provided by Life of
Barbados (now Sagicor Life) last year, the report said.

Mr. Strosberg, however, said class counsel was "continuing to
prepare for the trial of the common issues", which included:

     -- whether Manulife had the power to extinguish any rights
        of members of the class, including membership,
        ownership, voting, property and other rights, including
        those rights arising out of the Insurance Companies Act
        as a result of being the holder of a participating
        policy in Manulife;

     -- whether eligible policyholders were entitled to
        participate in Manulife's plan of demutualisation, and

     -- whether the company was negligent.

Mr. Strosberg added, "the examinations for discovery are
complete subject to the provision of answers to undertakings and
written interrogatories, a process that is more complicated than
originally anticipated."

The attorney said the process was a complicated one because
there were about 8,000 potential class members, many with
several policies of insurance, only about 3,000 have signed on
the suit.

In December 2001, four plaintiffs from Barbados -- including the
country's former Supervisor of Insurance, Wismar Greaves --
brought the suit against Manulife.

It argues that when Manulife sold its business interests in
Barbados in 1996 it inappropriately failed to protect the rights
of Barbados participating policyholders to benefit in the event
of the company's future demutualization.  It did so, the suit
contends, without their consent and without paying them fair and
equitable compensation.  

The class action alleges that Manulife was negligent and
breached its fiduciary duty when it chose not to protect the
ownership interests of the Barbados policyholders even though it
did protect the interests of policyholders in the U.S.

The suit asks that Manulife pay to former policyholders in
Barbados the same compensation paid to other policyholders when
Manulife demutualized.

In 2002, the class action was certified as a class proceeding by
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 30, 2002).

Plaintiffs' counsel, Harvey T. Strosberg, is from Sutts,
Strosberg LLP, Windsor, Ontario, Phone: 519.561.6228, Fax:
519.561.6203 or 866.316.5308, E-mail: harvey@strosbergco.com.


METLIFE INC: Ind. Teachers Claim Fraud in 403(b) Plan Investment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Indiana teachers filed a lawsuit against Metlife Inc.
and the Indiana Teachers' Association Administrative Services
over an alleged conspiracy that favored investing retirement
funds with Metlife, The Times of Northwest Indiana reports.

Merrillville attorney Glenn Vician represents plaintiffs:

    -- Daniel Spears, from Porter County;
    -- Katherine Lang, from Porter County;
    -- Daniel Massa, from Porter County;
    -- Jeffrey Yelton, from Lake County; and
    -- Raymond Commers, from LaPorte County.

They accuse the defendants of rigging retirement options to
favor Metlife.

The Indiana Legislature in June 2002 passed a bill allowing
school corporations that fund teacher retirement plans to borrow
funds to pay accrued teacher retirement obligations.  Teachers
could then choose to invest into 403(b) plans.

The suit argues "the enormous amount of money made available in
a short period of time for investment...made fallow ground for
unscrupulous companies. ..."

The suit alleges Metlife and the Indiana Teachers' Financial
Services Corp. is in violation of the Indiana Securities Act,
the Indiana Consumer Deceptive Practices Act and the Rackateer
Influence and Corrupt Organization Act.

It contends Metlife paid Indiana Teachers' Association
Administrative Services to promote Metlife over other insurance
options in an effort to control up to $1 billion in retirement
funds.

The lawsuit states that in 2006, one of Metlife's investment
plans cost members about 30 percent more in annual fees than
comparable plans.  But despite the excessive costs, the
consultants touted the Metlife plan as the best one available
without divulging all the information to teachers, according to
the report.  

It asks for "an amount equal to three times the actual damage,
the cost of this action, attorney fees and punitive damages."

"We've uncovered evidence we believe shows Metlife was involved
in a broad conspiracy to solicit teacher retirement funds by
deceptive practices," Mr. Vician said.  "They (Indiana teachers)
were many times approving in investing in Metlife even though
their prices were higher and rate of return lower."

Chris Breslin, a spokesman for Metlife, told The Times of
Northwest Indiana he had not heard of the lawsuit and would
investigate the allegations.

Glenn S. Vician is with Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, 8605
Broadway, Merrillville, IN 46410-5598, Phone: (219) 769-6671 or
(800) 228-8996, Fax: (219) 738-3044 or (317) 231-6570.


MICROSOFT CORP: Cleveland County Gets Share in Antitrust Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cleveland County School system is projected to receive
$262,562.34 from the $40.9 million being distributed in North
Carolina under the settlement of an antitrust class action
against Microsoft Corp, The Walton Sun reports.

Elementary and middle schools in the county with more than 60
percent of students in the free and reduced lunch program and
high schools with 70 or more percent will receive a base sum of
$10,000, according to David Lee, Cleveland County School
system's director of financial operation.

According to a press release from the N.C. Department of Public
Instruction, the funds gained in the settlement have been
earmarked to purchase technology equipment and software for
lower-wealth schools, whose eligibility is based on the
percentage of its students qualifying for free or reduced-cost
lunch.

Statewide, 642 elementary schools, 155 middle schools and 60
high schools qualify for the base sum.  Vouchers are expected to
be available in the coming month according to North Carolina's
Department of Instruction officials.


OGE ENERGY: Subsidiaries Still Face Price I Litigation in Kans.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp remain defendants in the
class action known as Price I pending in U.S. District Court,
State of Kansas.

On Sept. 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the company were
served with a class action petition filed in U.S. District
Court, State of Kansas by Quinque Operating Co. and other named
plaintiffs, alleging mismeasurement of natural gas on non-
federal lands.

On April 10, 2003 the court entered an order denying class
certification.  On May 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking to file an amended petition and the court granted the
motion on July 28, 2003.  

The plaintiffs are Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F.
Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves
and other royalty interest owners.

In this amended petition, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. and Enogex
Inc. were omitted from the case.  Two subsidiaries of Enogex
remain as defendants though.

Plaintiffs' amended petition alleges that approximately 60
defendants, including two Enogex subsidiaries, have improperly
measured natural gas.

The amended petition reduces the claims to:

      -- mismeasurement of volume only;

      -- conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting;

      -- a putative Plaintiffs' class of only royalty owners;
         and

      -- gas measured in three specific states.

A hearing on class certification issues was held April 1, 2005.

OGE Energy Corp. reported no new development in the matter at
its Feb. 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

OGE Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.oge.com/.


OGE ENERGY: Subsidiaries Still Face Price II Litigation in Kans.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp. remain as defendants in
the class action, "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v.
Gas Pipelines, et al.," pending in the 26th Judicial District,
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department.

Plaintiffs in the Price I case filed a new class action petition
(Price II) on May 12, 2003 in the District Court of Stevens
County, Kansas, relating to wrongful Btu analysis against
natural gas pipeline owners and operators.  They named the same
defendants as in the amended petition of the Price I case.  Two
Enogex subsidiaries were served on Aug. 4, 2003.  

The Price II suit is case no. 03C232.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of only royalty owners
either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or
measured natural gas since Jan. 1, 1974 to the present.  The
class action petition alleges improper analysis of gas heating
content.  

In all other respects, the Price II petition appears to be the
same as the amended petition in Price I.

Discovery on class certification is proceeding.  A hearing on
class certification issues was held April 1, 2005.    

OGE Energy Corp. reported no development in the matter at its
Feb. 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

OGE Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.oge.com/.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Electric Bill Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. is asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court
to dismiss a purported class action filed against the company by
customers questioning sales tax and franchise fee charges in the
company's electric bills.

On June 19, 2006, two Oklahoma Gas customers brought a putative
class action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in
the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs claim that Oklahoma Gas improperly charged sales
tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.  The
plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges,
contending that such fees are more than is allowed under
Oklahoma law.  

The court denied the company's motion for summary judgment.  
Oklahoma Gas has filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma
Supreme Court asking the court to direct the trial court to
dismiss the class action, according to OGE Energy Corp.'s Feb.
16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  

OGE Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.oge.com/.


PNC FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Settle Suit Related to Adelphia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A number of PNC Financial Services Group Inc. subsidiaries
facing a consolidated class action in relation to lending and
securities underwriting activities with Adelphia Communications
Corp., have reached agreement to settle the suit, according to
PNC's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The lawsuits seek unquantified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other expenses, and a return of the alleged
voidable preference and fraudulent transfer payments, among
other remedies.  The bank defendants, including the PNC
defendants, have entered into a tentative settlement of the
consolidated class action.  This settlement is subject to
conditions, including court approval.  

Some of the company's subsidiaries are defendants (or have
potential contractual contribution obligations to other
defendants) in several pending lawsuits brought during late 2002
and 2003 arising out of the bankruptcy of Adelphia
Communications and its subsidiaries.

There also are threatened additional proceedings arising out of
the same matters.  One of the lawsuits was brought, on
Adelphia's behalf by the unsecured creditors' committee and
equity committee in Adelphia's consolidated bankruptcy
proceeding and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by order dated Feb. 9, 2006.

The other lawsuits, one of which is a putative consolidated
class action, were brought by holders of debt and equity
securities of Adelphia and have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that district court.

These lawsuits arise out of lending and securities underwriting
activities engaged in by these PNC subsidiaries together with
other financial services companies.  

In the aggregate, more than 400 other financial services
companies and numerous other companies and individuals have been
named as defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.

Collectively, with respect to some or all of the defendants, the
lawsuits allege federal law claims, including violations of
federal securities and other federal laws, violations of common
law duties, aiding and abetting such violations, voidable
preference payments, and fraudulent transfers, among other
matters.


RAILAMERICA INC: Settles with Victims of Styrene Leak in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
RailAmerica, Inc. has reached settlement with an asserted class
members alleged to be most affected by a styrene leak at a
railcar near the company's Indiana & Ohio Railway property.

On Aug. 28, 2005, a railcar containing styrene located on the
company's Indiana & Ohio Railway, or I&O Railway, property in
Cincinnati, Ohio, began venting, due to a chemical reaction.  
Styrene is a potentially hazardous chemical used to make
plastics, rubber and resin.

In response to the incident, local public officials temporarily
evacuated residents and businesses from the immediate area until
public authorities confirmed that the tank car no longer posed a
threat.  As a result of the incident, several civil lawsuits
have been filed against the company and others connected to the
tank car.  Motions for class action certification have been
filed but remain pending.

In cooperation with the company's insurer, the company has paid
settlements to a substantial number of affected residents and
businesses, and has reached settlement with the asserted class
members alleged to have been most affected by the incident,
according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.  


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $13.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. executed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' representatives to settle a
consolidated shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, the company said in a
Feb. 20, 2007 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The settlement involves no admission of liability by the
company.

The total amount to be paid in settlement of all of the cases is
$13.5 million.  A portion of this amount is expected to be
offset by insurance recoveries.

The net amount has been previously provided for in the company's
2006 financial statements. The settlement provides for the
release of all parties, including the company's present and
former directors and officers, including without limitation the
defendants who were named in the suits.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, court review
and approval and other customary conditions.

Beginning in July 2005, seven putative class actions were filed
against the defendants.  In December 2005, these actions were
consolidated and in February 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased and/or acquired the publicly traded
securities of the company between April 22, 2003 and July 25,
2005.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants in
addition to the company, current and former officers of the
company as defendants.

It alleges that the company and the other named defendants
violated the U.S. federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and failing to state material facts about the
company's business and financial condition in, among other
things, U.S. Securities and Exchange filings and public
statements.

In March 2006, defendants notified the court of their intention
to move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Thus on
June 2006, they filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

On Oct. 24, 2006, before those motions were ruled upon, counsel
for the lead plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
move for leave to file a second amended complaint (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

On October 30, 2006, the defendants consented to that request.  
Once the new complaint is filed, it is expected that the
defendants will file motions to dismiss the new complaint.

But on February 14, 2007, the company executed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' representatives to settle its
consolidated shareholder class action securities litigation.

The suit is "In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities  
Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William  
H. Pauley, III.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,  
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road,  
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,  
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and  

     (2) Christopher J. Keller of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow,  
         LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017,  
         Phone: (212) 907-0853, Fax: (212) 883-7053, E-mail:  
         ckeller@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants is Steven Robert Paradise of Vinson  
& Elkins, L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor, New York 10103,  
Phone: (917) 206-8000, Fax: (917) 849-5338, E-mail:  
sparadise@velaw.com.


SL INDUSTRIES: N.J. Pollution Suit Proceeds as Individual Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against SL Industries Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, SL Surface Technologies, Inc.
(SurfTech), have not appealed the denial of certification to the
suit, 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 June 12, 2002, the company and SurfTech were served with a
class action complaint by 12 individual plaintiffs filed in
Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden County (Private Action).

The company and SurfTech are two of approximately 39 defendants
named in the Private Action.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the plaintiffs may suffer personal injuries as a
result of consuming water distributed from the Puchack Wellfield
located in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey, which supplied
Camden, New Jersey.

The Private Action arises from similar factual circumstances as
current environmental litigation and administrative actions
involving the Pennsauken Landfill and Puchack Wellfield, with
respect to which the company has been identified as a
potentially responsible party.  

These actions and the Private Action both allege that SurfTech
and other defendants contaminated ground water through the
disposal of hazardous substances at facilities in the area.  
SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating facility in Pennsauken
Township, New Jersey.

On June 30, 2006, the Superior Court denied class certification
in the Private Action and the plaintiffs have not appealed this
decision.  With the denial of a class certification, the Private
Action is proceeding as twelve individual claims.

Substantially all of the operating assets of SurfTech were sold
in November 2003.


TRUMP ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Continues in N.J. ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden
Division against Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., and certain
persons and organizations, including members of the Trump
Capital Accumulation Plan Administrative Committee.

On Feb. 8, 2005, certain individuals filed a complaint in the
District Court against certain persons and organizations that
included members of the Trump Capital Accumulation Plan
Administrative Committee.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
that such persons and organizations, who were responsible for
managing the Trump Capital Accumulation Plan, breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the plan participants when the common
stock of majority-owned subsidiary Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts
Holdings, L.P. (THCR), now Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings,
L.P., which were held in employee accounts, was allegedly sold
without participant authorization if the participant did not
willingly sell such shares by a specified date in accordance
with the Plan.

The plaintiffs brought this suit under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of themselves and certain
other plan participants and beneficiaries and sought to have the
court certify their claims as a class action.  

In their complaint, the plaintiffs also sought, among other
things, damages for losses suffered by certain accounts of
affected plan participants as a result of such allegedly
improper sale of the company's predecessor company's Common
Stock and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.  The parties
have commenced discovery, which is ongoing in this matter,
according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.


WET SEAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Seal Inc. has yet to report on a ruling by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities fraud suit.

As previously reported, the company and certain of its former
directors and former officers have been named as defendants in
several securities class actions filed on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 7, 2003, and
Aug. 19, 2004.  These actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The consolidated complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by, among other
allegations, making false and misleading statements concerning
the progress of the company's company to stem the losses of the
company's Wet Seal concept and return that business to
profitability as well as the illegal use of material non-public
information by former directors and a company controlled by
them.  

The plaintiff sought class certification, compensatory damages,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the consolidated class action was dismissed
against all defendants in the lawsuit.  However, plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint, which they did file
on Nov. 23, 2005.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on  
Jan. 25, 2006, and a court hearing was set for October 2006.   

The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Jan. 28, 2006.

The suit is "Alexander Vinokurov v. Wet Seal Inc., et al., Case  
No. 2:04-cv-07159-GAF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos and Bacine, 402 W.
         Broadway, Ste. 850, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         230-0800, E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com; and

     (2) William J. Doyle, II of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San  
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Seth A. Aronson of O'Melveny & Myers, 400 S. Hope St.,  
         15th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899, Phone: 213-430-
         6000, E-mail: saronson@omm.com;  

    (ii) Charles Avrith of Nagler and Associates, 2300 South  
         Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064, Phone: 310-
         473-1200, Fax: 310-473-7144.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LG PHILIPS: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP gave
notice that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all common
stock purchasers of LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (NYSE: LPL) from
July 16, 2004 to Dec. 11, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the company was engaging in illegal behavior,
         namely a conspiracy to fix prices in the LCD TV market;

     (2) that such illegal behavior was the primary driver of
         the superior sales margins achieved by LG. Philips in
         the LCD TV industry;

     (3) that such illegal behavior had a primary effect on
         "stabilizing" prices at elevated levels in the LCD
         market;

     (4) that as such illegal behavior came to light, the
         previously elevated prices for LCD TVs would
         significantly decline, causing the Company to report
         significantly lower revenue than in previous quarters;
         and

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP,
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 (toll free), E-mail:
info@sbtklaw.com, Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com.


NUVELO INC: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP gave
notice that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Nuvelo, Inc. (NASDAQ:NUVO) from January
5, 2006 through December 8, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the clinical trial information regarding multiple
         alfimeprase studies was inaccurate;

     (2) specifically, clinical data from testing failed to show
         that alfimeprase, when administered through a catheter,
         could dissolve blood clots;

     (3) that no reliable data existed to show that alfimeprase
         would meet the high standards for efficacy for U.S.
         Food and Drug Administration approval;

     (4) that such information, as described above, was known to
         defendants as early as December 2004, when Amgen
         discontinued its investment in alfimeprase; and

     (5) that, as a result of the above, the company's
         statements concerning alfimeprase and its clinical
         trials were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On December 11, 2006, Nuvelo shocked investors when it revealed
that, contrary to earlier positive reports provided by the
Defendants, Nuvelo's clinical trials of alfimeprase did not meet
any of the primary or key secondary endpoints established for
success.

In addition, the company announced that it had temporarily
suspended enrollment in all other ongoing trials, pending
discussions with outside experts and regulatory agencies due to
safety concerns and the usefulness of alfimeprase.

On this shocking and unexpected news, shares of Nuvelo plummeted
$15.50, or 79 percent, to close, on December 11, 2006, at $4.05
per share, on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 (toll-free), E-
mail: info@sbtklaw.com, Website: http://www.sbtklaw.com/.


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *