CAR_Public/070301.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 43

                            Headlines


AK STEEL: To Pay $600,000 to Settle EEOC Race Harassment Lawsuit
ALLIED WASTE: Court Considers Appeal for Dismissed Ariz. Suit
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: $49.7M Holocaust Suit Deal Gets Approval
CALCOT LTD: Sued for Allegedly Misusing Cotton Farmers' Funds
CENTENE CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.

DIAMOND PRICE FIXING: Antitrust Complaints Raised in Canada
DOMINION RESOURCES: Oct. Trial Set in W.V. Royalty Owners Suit
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Calif. Court Denies Class Status for "Jimenez"
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Coordination of Calif. Labor-Related Suits
FEDEX GROUND/HOME: Nev. Drivers Suit Consolidated with Ind. Case

FLORIDA: Seasonal Homeowners Sue State Over "Save Our Homes"
HALLIBURTON CO: Court Throws Out Securities Lawsuit Lead Counsel
INSURERS: Fla. Homeowners Sue Over Roof Repair, Replacement
MIRRACO LLC: Recalls Bicycles with Wheel Fork That Could Fail
NICOR GAS: Settlement in Ill. Plant Cleanup Case Challenged

NUMED INC: Patients' 2004 Suit Over Cardiac Stents Still Alive
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Defers Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement
POTLATCH CORP: Still Faces Pa. Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit
SABRE HOLDINGS: Amended Complaint Filed in Lawsuit Over Merger
SCCP PAINTING: Immigrant Workers Sue to Claim Unpaid Overtime

SOUTH AFRICA: Suit Over Pension Eligibility for Men Gets Support
SOUTH AFRICA: Robbery Victim Plans "Multi-Million-Dollar" Suit
SPORTCRAFT LTD: Recalls Bounce Houses to Replace Defective Fan
TARGET CORP: Paying $775,000 to Settle Racial Harassment Lawsuit
TEMPLE-INLAND: Settles Meal Break Law Violations Suit in Calif.

T-MOBILE: Could Face Suit Over Proposed Cell Site in Hawaii
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: 3rd Motion to Advance Fees for ERISA Actions
UST INC: Faces Suit in W.Va. in Relation to "Davis" Settlement
UST INC: Settles Some Tobacco-Related Suits, Still Faces Others
XCEL ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Nev. Natural Gas Rulings

XCEL ENERGY: "Ever-Bloom" Suit Stayed, Awaits 9th Circuit Ruling
XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Pollution Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Appeals Certification of Minn. Customers' Lawsuit
XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Kans. Natural Gas Suit

* David Berger, Class Action Veteran, Dies at 94


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Lawsuit
QUANTA CAPITAL: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Lawsuit


                           *********


AK STEEL: To Pay $600,000 to Settle EEOC Race Harassment Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corp. will pay $600,000 to settle a racial harassment
lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the agency announced.

The EEOC had charged that the Fortune 500 company violated
federal law at its Butler, Pennsylvania, facility by creating
and condoning a racially hostile work environment for a group of
African American employees, which included widespread racist and
threatening displays for years.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the hostile work environment
has included, since at least 2000, racially graphic graffiti,
the displaying of nooses and swastikas in work areas open to
African American employees, racial slurs and epithets, the open
display of Ku Klux Klan videos in employee lounge areas and the
circulation of Populist Party literature where the party
candi-date, David Duke, is a known KKK leader.

Some of the graffiti contained direct or implied threats to
African Americans, such as a message to "kill" them and a
picture of bullets coming out of a gun accompanied by a
threatening insult toward blacks.  There was also a good deal of
Nazi graffiti, including "I ? Adolf."

Besides complaints by black workers about these matters, the
EEOC said, the problem was so pervasive that AK Steel's managers
had knowledge of what was happening without such complaints.  
Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, Gerald Patterson, who
had filed the initial charge, died.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which makes it illegal to deny a person any employment
opportunity because of that person's race or color, sex,
religion or national origin, the agency said in a statement.  A
work environment free from racially hostile words and actions is
included in the range of "employment opportunities."

The consent decree settling the lawsuit provides Patterson's
estate and a class of seven African American employees with
$600,000 and includes a commitment that all employees who work
at the Butler location will receive annual training in the
company's equal employment opportunity policies.

"The racial harassment alleged in this case, including the use
of derogatory ethnic terms, nooses displayed in the work
environment and disciplining those who complained of race
discrimination, represents some of the most severe misconduct
this office has seen," said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline
McNair.  

"Through the consent decree resolving this case, EEOC will
monitor AK Steel's treatment of employees to ensure a workplace
environment free of harassment and race discrimination.  
Further, we believe the sizable monetary relief and the proposed
training of employees on anti-discrimination policies may serve
as a deterrent to future acts of blatant racism."

According to its Web site, Middletown, Ohio-based AK Steel is a
Fortune 500 company with nearly $6 billion in sales and major
plants and offices in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
The company makes flat-rolled carbon steel and stainless and
electrical steel products.

EEOC on the Net: http://www.eeoc.gov.


ALLIED WASTE: Court Considers Appeal for Dismissed Ariz. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule  
on plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Allied Waste Industries,
Inc. by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
according to the company's Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against  
the company and five of its current and former officers on March  
31, 2005, consolidating three lawsuits previously filed on  
Aug. 9, 2004, Aug. 27, 2004 and Sept. 30, 2004.   

The amended complaint asserted claims against all defendants  
under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934  
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against the  
officers under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange  
Act.

The complaint alleged that from Feb. 10, 2004 to Sept. 13, 2004,  
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be  
issued in the company's public filings and public statements  
regarding the company's anticipated results for fiscal year  
2004.  The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 2,  
2005.  On Dec. 15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the  
District of Arizona granted the company's motion and dismissed  
the case with prejudice.   

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit.  On Oct. 6, 2006 the plaintiffs filed their
opening appellate brief.  

The company and four individual defendants filed their brief in
opposition on Dec. 15, 2006, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply brief on Jan. 24, 2007.

The suit is "Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries,  
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01640-MHM," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Mary H.  
Murguia.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King  
         of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,  
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com;  
         and  

     (2) Richard Glenn Himelrick of Tiffany & Bosco, PA,  
         Camelback Esplanade II, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd  
         Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85016, Phone: 602-255-6021, Fax:  
         602-255-0103, E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David Hennes and Shahzeb Lari of Fried Frank Harris  
         Shriver & Jacobson, 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY  
         10004, Phone: (212) 859-8000; and

    (ii) Doug C. Northup of Fennemore Craig, P.C., 3003 N.  
         Central Ave., Ste. 2600, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913, Phone:  
         602-916-5000, Fax: 602-916-5562, E-mail:  
         dnorthup@fclaw.com.


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: $49.7M Holocaust Suit Deal Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York gave final approval to an
estimated $49.7 million settlement of the class action "In re:
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation,
No. 1374," the Wall Street Journal reports.

Judge Daniels signed off on the pact, which resolves the
majority of claims against Generali and its subsidiaries that
had sold policies to Holocaust victims and their families.

Earlier, Generali agreed to extend by as much as 18 months the
March 31 claims filing deadline in the settlement of the class
action (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2007).

It was extended to allow heirs of Holocaust victims to try to
find new documentation on unpaid life insurance policies at a
sealed Nazi archive in Bad Arolsen, Germany.

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

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

                    Summary of the Litigation

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

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

All persons worldwide who:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important terms of the proposed Settlement are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


CALCOT LTD: Sued for Allegedly Misusing Cotton Farmers' Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Calcot Ltd., a cotton-marketing cooperative, faces a purported
class action in then Superior Court of California, County of
Kern, which accuses it of secretly defrauding its members of
$23.6 million for a speculative real estate venture that is
carried on for years.

Andrews Farms, and Greg Palla Farming Co. filed the suit against
Calcot and its accountants, Eadie & Payne LLP.  

According to the suit, Calcot claims to offer cotton farmers a
way to reduce marketing costs, and claims to charge members only
for "the costs and expenses incurred in handling and marketing
cotton."

The cooperative deducts a fee from each bale of cotton sold,
called a seasonal or revolving retain, which it returns to the
farmer after five years.  

Plaintiffs claim that Calcot entered into a speculative real
estate deal without informing its members, and to make interest
payments on it, Calcot raised the seasonal retain by 15 percent
for years, illicitly grabbing $23,586,257, without being
obligated to return that money to growers.  

Plaintiffs claim the cumulative impact on members, with
interest, exceeds $54.1 million.  They seek punitive damages.

Generally, the suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty;
constructive fraud & deceit based upon fiduciary relationship;
accounting fraud & deceit -- intentional misrepresentation of
material fact; negligent misrepresentation; violations of
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1a80

The suit is S-1500-CV.  For more details, contact The Law
Offices of Ralph B. Wegis, 1930 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California (CA) 93301, Phone: (661) 635-2100, Fax: (661) 635-
2107.


CENTENE CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Securities fraud class actions against Centene Corp. have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Two class actions were filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, one in July, and one in August.  
Both were filed on behalf of purchases of the company common
stock from June 21, 2006 through July 17, 2006.

The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements prior to the announcement
of the company's fiscal 2006-second quarter results.

According to the suits, these allegedly materially false
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the
issuance of a press release announcing the company's preliminary
fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance.  

The suits were consolidated on Nov. 2, 2006 and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on Jan. 17, 2007.

The consolidated class action alleges, on behalf of purchasers
of the company's common stock from April 25, 2006 through July
17, 2006, that the company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false statements prior to the announcement of the
company's fiscal 2006 second quarter results.

According to suit, these allegedly materially false statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the
company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the
issuance of a press release announcing its preliminary fiscal
2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance.

The first identified complaint is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene
Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1142,"filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

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

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-800-347-1236,
         E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

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


DIAMOND PRICE FIXING: Antitrust Complaints Raised in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia alleges conspiracy to fix prices of gem-grade diamonds
sold throughout Canada by several companies.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Anglo American PLC,
     -- Central Holdings Ltd.,
     -- De Beers Canada Inc.,
     -- DB Investments, Inc.,
     -- De Beers S.A.,
     -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.,
     -- The Diamond Trading Co. Ltd.,
     -- CSO Valuations AG, and
     -- De Beers Centenary AG

The suit was filed Feb. 21 by Michelle Fairhurst, who had
purchased a Gem Grade Diamond in British Columbia.  She brought
the suit on behalf of all persons residing in British Columbia
who purchased Gem Grade Diamonds from Feb. 22, 1997 to the
present or such other class definition or class period as the
court may ultimately decide on the motion for certification.

Gem Grade Diamonds are mined from the earth and, after cutting,
polishing and other finishing, are valued based upon their
beauty, color, cut, clarity, and other characteristics.  These
are sold in their polished form to purchasers who incorporate
the diamonds into jewelry and other products for resale.

The suit alleges:

     -- defendants were the source of most Gem Grade Diamonds
        sold in the world.  Through direct ownership, or
        agreements and combinations with others, the defendants
        controlled about two-thirds of the world's supply of Gem
        Grade Diamonds, particularly diamonds in larger sizes.
        The rest of the Gem Grade Diamond Industry is highly
        fragmented.

     -- the defendants routinely acknowledged that their control
        over the Gem Grade Diamond industry constituted an
        illegal cartel that violates antitrust laws.

     -- the defendants' control over the Gem Grade Diamond
        industry began through agreements with other producers
        more than a century ago.

     -- the defendants obtained Gem Grade Diamonds from mines
        they owned and from the mines of other mining companies
        under contract to them, including mines in Canada. The
        Gem Grade Diamonds were sorted by the Central Selling
        Organization, and now by the Diamond Trading Co.  

        The defendants created a price book that valued Gem
        Grade Diamonds according to certain physical
        characteristics, according to its weight, shape, quality
        (i.e. the absence or presence of cracks and occlusions).  
        Once the Gem Grade Diamonds were sorted and graded, they
        were priced according to the price book.

     -- Gem Grade Diamonds of various grades were placed into
        boxes for distribution at a "sight."  The defendants
        controlled the distribution of Gem Grade Diamonds by the
        use of "sightholders."  A sightholder is an individual
        selected by and operating under defendants' direction
        who takes delivery, generally in London, of a box of
        rough Gem Grade Diamonds at a "sight" during a "sight
        week" held approximately ten times per year.  The
        sightholder re-sells the Gem Grade Diamonds, either as
        rough diamonds, or after cutting, polishing and other
        finishing, for distribution through manufacturers,
        wholesalers and jewelers to consumers and other end
        users.

     -- senior executives and employees of the defendants,
        acting in their capacities as agents for the defendants,
        conspired with each other, the sightholders and others
        to illegally fix the prices of Gem Grade Diamonds sold
        in Canada including British Columbia and supplied to
        manufacturers, wholesalers, and jewellers, for inclusion
        in products sold in Canada including British Columbia.
       
In furtherance of the conspiracy, such persons engaged in
communications, conversations and attended meetings with each
other in which these persons unlawfully agreed to:

     -- fix, increase and maintain at artificially high levels
        the prices at which the defendants would sell Gem Grade
        Diamonds in Canada including in British Columbia and to
        manufacturers, wholesalers and jewelers, for inclusion
        in products sold in Canada including in British
        Columbia;

     -- exchange information in order to monitor and enforce
        adherence to the agreed-upon prices for Gem Grade
        Diamonds; and

     -- allocate the market share or to set specific volumes of
        Gem Grade Diamonds that the defendants would manufacture
        and supply in Canada including in British Columbia and
        elsewhere.

Further, the suit alleges, that at times and places, some of
which are unknown to the plaintiff, the defendants wrongfully,
unlawfully, maliciously and lacking bona fides conspired and
agreed together, the one with the other or others of them and
with their servants and agents:

     -- to suppress and eliminate competition in the sale of Gem
        Grade Diamonds in British Columbia, Canada and
        elsewhere, by fixing the price of Gem Grade Diamonds at
        artificially high levels and allocating the market share
        and volume of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     -- to prevent or lessen unduly, competition in the
        manufacture, sale and distribution of Gem Grade Diamonds
        in British Columbia, Canada and elsewhere by reducing
        the supply of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     -- to allocate among themselves the customers for Gem Grade
        Diamonds in British Columbia, Canada and elsewhere;

     -- to allocate among themselves and others market shares of
        Gem Grade Diamonds in British Columbia, Canada and
        elsewhere; and

     -- to allocate among themselves and others all or part of
        certain contracts to supply Gem Grade Diamonds in
        British Columbia and elsewhere.

The defendants were allegedly motivated to conspire and their
predominant purposes and predominant concerns were:

     (a) to harm the plaintiff and other class members by
         requiring them to pay artificially high prices for Gem
         Grade Diamonds and for products containing Gem Grade
         Diamonds; and

     (b) to illegally increase their profits on the sale of Gem
         Grade Diamonds.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, the following acts were
allegedly done by the defendants, their servants, agents and co-
conspirators:

     (a) they agreed to fix, increase and maintain at
         artificially high levels the price of Gem Grade
         Diamonds and to coordinate price increases for the sale
         of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     (b) they agreed to allocate the volumes of sales of, and
         customers and markets for Gem Grade Diamonds among
         themselves;

     (c) they agreed to reduce the supply of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     (d) they met secretly to discuss prices and volumes of
         sales of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     (e) they exchanged information regarding the prices and
         volumes of sales of Gem Grade Diamonds for the purposes
         of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-
         upon prices, volumes of sales and markets;

     (f) they instructed members of the conspiracy at meetings
         not to divulge the existence of the conspiracy; and

     (g) they disciplined any party which failed to comply with
         the conspiracy.

In addition, defendants allegedly used threats and promises and
entered into agreements with sightholders and other resellers of
Gem Grade Diamonds to fix the resale price of Gem Grade Diamonds
at artificially high levels.  The defendants also refused to
supply Gem Grade Diamonds and/or supplied inferior quality Gem
Grade Diamonds to sightholders who had low pricing policies.

In particular, the defendants used their dominant and
controlling market share to, among other things:

     (a) control the rate of production and supply of Gem Grade
         Diamonds;

     (b) control distribution of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     (c) manage prices of Gem Grade Diamonds;

     (d) fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of Gem
         Grade Diamonds at non-competitive levels;

     (e) arbitrarily exclude and discriminate against purchasers
         of Gem Grade Diamonds; and

     (f) tying low-carat, lower quality diamonds to high
         quality, high carat diamonds and using its monopoly
         power to force purchasers to either accept or reject
         the tied purchase or be completely cut off as a
         purchaser.

Plaintiff, on its behalf, and on behalf of the class members,
asks:

     -- an order certifying the action as a class proceeding and
        appointing the plaintiff as representative plaintiff;

     -- general damages and costs for conspiracy, tortious
        interference with economic interests and conduct that is
        contrary to the Competition Act;

     -- a declaration that the defendants have been unjustly
        enriched at the expense of the plaintiff and the other
        class members by their receipt of the illegal
        overcharge;

     -- a declaration that the defendants hold the illegal
        overcharge in a constructive trust for the benefit of
        the plaintiff and the other class members;

     -- an order directing the defendants to disgorge their
        illegal overcharge;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- prejudgment interest; and

     -- such further and other relief as the court may seem
        just.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a7c

The suit is "Fairhurst et al. v. Anglo American Plc et al, Case
No. S-071265," filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Representing plaintiff is J.J. Camp, Q.C of Camp Fiorante
Matthews, 4th Floor, Randall Building, 555 West Georgia Street,
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 1Z6, Phone: (604) 689-7555, Fax: (604)
689-7554, E-mail: info@cfmlawyers.ca.


DOMINION RESOURCES: Oct. Trial Set in W.V. Royalty Owners Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia natural gas producers Dominion Resources and
Equitable Resources are facing a suit filed by royalty owners
claiming the companies defrauded them out of natural gas
royalties, it emerged in a Daily Mail report.

The cases were filed in Roane County in August 2006.  The cases
were moved to U.S. District Court in Charleston because Dominion
and Equitable have headquarters outside of the state and federal
law therefore applies.  They are currently in discovery before
Judge Joseph Goodwin, who has set an Oct. 28, 2008, trial date,
according to the report.

The complaint against Dominion alleges that the company
"intentionally failed and refused to pay royalties to plaintiffs
at a rate calculated on the fair value of the natural gas
produced and marketed" from leases.

It also claims Dominion "entered into a scheme and design to
intentionally mislead plaintiffs into believing they were being
paid all the royalty due them," and charges the company with
"fraudulent misconduct."

The plaintiffs ask that the suit be considered a class action to
include "hundreds of oil and gas lessors."  More than two-thirds
of the purported class is comprised of West Virginia citizens,
plaintiffs claim.  They request unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, plus attorney fees and interest.

The lawsuits against Dominion Resources and Equitable emerged as
a similar case against Chesapeake Energy Corp. and NiSource Inc.
resulted to a $404.3 million jury verdict on Jan. 27.  The case
was filed in 2003.  The jury ruled that NiSource, Chesapeake
Energy and Columbia Natural Resources had cheated the royalty
owners out of $134.3 million in natural gas royalties.  The jury
also said the companies had committed fraud and awarded the
landowners $270 million in punitive damages.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00671," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin.

Representing plaintiff Dominion Transmission, Inc. is Thomas J.
Allen at Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 445 West Main
Street, Clarksburg, WV 26301, Phone: 304/627-3332, Fax: 304/627-
3305, E-mail: Thomas_J_Allen@dom.com.

Representing plaintiff Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc.
is W. Henry Lawrence, IV at Steptoe & Johnson, P.O. Box 2190
Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190, Phone: 304/624-8000, Fax: 304/624-
8183, E-mail: lawrenwh@steptoe-johnson.com.

Representing plaintiff McDowell Pocahontas Coal Co., Inc. are:

     (1) Michael W. Carey at Carey Scott & Douglas, P.O. Box 913
         Charleston, WV 25323, Phone: 304/345-1234, Fax: 342-
         1105, E-mail: mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com; and

     (2) Marvin W. Masters at The Masters Law Firm, 181 Summers
         Street, Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-3106, Fax:
         342-3189.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Calif. Court Denies Class Status for "Jimenez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied class-action status for a lawsuit filed by a former
general manager.

Filed on Aug. 19, 2004 in Orange County Superior Court, the
suit, "Jimenez v. Domino's Pizza LLC," is alleging that the
company misclassified the position of general manager.  It also
alleges that the company did not provide meal/rest periods and
overtime pay as required by state law for hourly employees.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Sept. 17, 2004 and the motion for
class certification was heard on June 5, 2006.  

On Sept. 26, 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The federal suit is "Wilber Jimenez v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, et
al., Case No. 8:04-cv-01107-JVS-RC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge James
V. Selna with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew Roland Bainer and Scott Edward Cole of Scott
         Cole and Associates, World Savings Tower, 1970
         Broadway, Suite 950, Oakland, CA 94612, US, Phone: 510-
         891-9800, E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com and
         scole@scalaw.com;

     (2) Timothy D. Cohelan, Isam C. Khoury, Kimberly Dawn
         Neilson and Michael D Singer of Coheland and Khoury,
         605 C. Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-595-3001, Fax: 619-595-3000, E-mail:
         kneilson@ck-lawfirm.com and
         msinger@californiaclassactions.com; and

     (3) Jose R. Garay of Jose Garay Law Office, 2030 Main St.,
         Ste. 1300, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-260-9193.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Timothy M. Freudenberger, Ursula R. Kubal and Jehan N
         Jayakumar of Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger, 2600
         Michelson Dr., Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612, Phone: 949-
         622-1661, Fax: 949-622-1669; and  

    (ii) Jennifer White-Sperling of Morgan Lewis and Bockius,
         300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA     
         90071, Phone: 213-612-7205, E-mail:
         jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Coordination of Calif. Labor-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, LLC, is seeking to coordinate two similar class
actions in Orange County Superior Court in California that are
related to employment practices and wage and hour complaints
brought by former employees.

On June 10, 2003, a suit, "Vega v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was
filed, in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that the
company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to the company's
employees.  No determination with respect to class certification
has been made.

On Aug. 2, 2006, "Roselio v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was filed, in
Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging similar claims as
set out in the Vega lawsuit.  

The company is seeking to coordinate these two actions in Orange
County Superior Court, according to its Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Domino's Pizza, LLC on the Net: http://www.dominos.com/.


FEDEX GROUND/HOME: Nev. Drivers Suit Consolidated with Ind. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit by FedEx Ground/Home Delivery drivers in Nevada has been
consolidated into a federal class action being litigated in U.S.
District Court in South Bend, Indiana.

The suit alleges that for years the company has intentionally
misclassified its employees as independent contractors in a
scheme allowing it to substantially reduce operating costs while
boosting corporate profits at the expense of its drivers and the
taxpaying public.

The suit, which includes a count alleging violations of Nevada's
False Claims Act provisions requiring accurate tax returns, is
projected by FedEx as calling for more than $5 million in
various reimbursements.

The Nevada case was originally filed in August 2006 by attorney
Andrew J. Kahn of McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry, on behalf of
a group of FedEx Ground/Home Delivery drivers in the state.

FedEx has had approximately 50 drivers at a time within Nevada,
but with turnover the number in the Nevada class is projected by
FedEx at over 200 persons.  They are now among the thousands
nationwide represented in more than 40 lawsuits filed in over 30
states challenging the company's embattled independent
contractor model.

Nevada's suit is the latest to be consolidated into the federal
class action being litigated in U.S. District Court in South
Bend, Indiana.

As in the other cases, the Nevada drivers are alleging that
FedEx Ground/Home Delivery is in violation of applicable State
and Federal laws by:

     -- misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors
        despite the fact it exercises all but complete control
        from their schedules of work, the type and appearance of
        truck they drive, even the color and style of uniform
        they wear;

     -- failing to provide them, as employees, with a host of
        benefits including sick pay, workers compensation
        insurance benefits, unemployment insurance, and family
        and medical leave benefits; and

     -- barring them from working for any other delivery
        business, despite classifying them as independent
        contractors.

The Nevada lawsuit also claims FedEx is in violation of the
state's False Claims Act by which, it alleges, the company "made
false records and statements to conceal, avoid, and decrease
their obligation to pay or transmit money" in the form of
various taxes, including wage taxes.

The suit seeks reimbursement to the drivers of all their
business expenses that should have been the responsibility of
the company, including but not limited to employment taxes,
unemployment compensation and workers compensation, and
contributions to a retirement plan.

FedEX Lawsuits on the Net: http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com

The suit is "In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment
Practices Litigation, MDL-1700," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana.


FLORIDA: Seasonal Homeowners Sue State Over "Save Our Homes"
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Alabama residents with second homes in Florida's
Walton and Okaloosa counties filed a purported class action
against the state over its Save Our Homes property-assessment
cap, The Tallahassee Democrat reports.

The suit was filed in Leon County Circuit Court.  It is asking
that back taxes be refunded to thousands of Florida's non-
homesteaded homeowners.

Plaintiffs contend that the assessment cap passed by voters in
1992 unconstitutionally shifted "more than a reasonable and fair
share of the infrastructure demands of Florida" onto them.

According to Jerome K. Lanning, one of the plaintiffs, the
property taxes have increased fairly significantly over the last
few years.   He pointed out that he is unsure of whether "that
comports with our constitutional scheme."

Besides the retired real-estate lawyer from Birmingham
(Alabama), other plaintiffs in the suit included, Mr. Lanning's
wife, Joyce, Diana Slaughter, whose husband is a high-school
classmate of Jerome Lanning, and Marlow Reese of Montgomery,
(Alabama).

The suit asks the court to refund non-homesteaded homeowners for
the taxes they've been assessed since 2003 above what they would
have paid with the same Save Our Homes protection as full-time
residents.

It is believed to be the first of its kind challenging the legal
standing of the Save Our Homes amendment, which limits assessed
value increases on the homes of full-time homeowners, according
to the report.

They ask the court to order Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint a
"special master" who would oversee the calculation of refunds
for all seasonal homeowners.

For more details, contact Jerome K. Lanning of Johnston Barton
Proctor & Powell LLP, 2900 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza, 1901 Sixth
Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2618, Phone: 205-458-
9418, Fax: 205-458-9500, E-mail: jlanning@johnstonbarton.com,
Web site: http://www.johnstonbarton.com.


HALLIBURTON CO: Court Throws Out Securities Lawsuit Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas granted the Motion to Substitute Counsel filed
by The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF), the lead
plaintiff in the securities fraud lawsuit against Halliburton
Co., CNNMoney.com reports.  

Judge Lynn ordered the removal of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP and replaced the firm with Boies Schiller &
Flexne LLP.  She also removed Lerach's co-lead counsel, Scott +
Scott LLC.

On Dec. 27, 2006, AMSF filed its Reply Brief on its Motion to
Substitute Counsel, citing numerous reasons for its request to
remove the firms of Scott + Scott, and Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins as lead counsel in the class action
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 8, 2007).

One reason for the request to change counsel is the failure of
the lead counsel to keep AMS Fund fully informed about the
status of the case in violation of Pre-trial Order Number Two.

The Reply Brief also states that the Department of Justice's
ongoing criminal investigation of Bill Lerach and his former
firm, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP, which has led
to the indictment of two of Mr. Lerach's former partners and his
predecessor firm, has brought to light facts not disclosed to
the court or lead plaintiff.

In removing Lerach Coughlin as lead counsel, Judge Lynn wrote,
she was not intimating that Mr. Lerach or his firm had done
"anything unethical, immoral, or otherwise improper."  She was
merely recognizing, rather, that the lead plaintiff AMS Fund's
relationship with his firm was "no longer productive," according
to the report.

                        Case Background

In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002.

Defendants in the suit are Halliburton Co., David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved
in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.

In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class
actions were filed against the company.  Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the
company's independent accountants for the period covered by the
lawsuits, and several of the company's present or former
officers and directors.

The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint was named, "Richard Moore,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," which was filed and served
upon the company in April 2003.

In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a
written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon
which the Moore class action would be settled.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated
complaint, which was granted by the court.

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes
claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (Dresser claims).

The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by
the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore
class action and the derivative action.  The memorandum of
understanding called for Halliburton Co. to pay $6 million,
which would be funded by insurance proceeds.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement, the court entered an order in September 2004 holding
that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate,
denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the
Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to
mediate.

After the court's denial of the motion to approve the
settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it
believes that it is entitled to do by its terms.  The mediation
was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be
at an impasse with no settlement having been reached.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new
lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated
amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss.
The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at
which time the court took the motion under advisement.

On March 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising
prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to
certain other claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead
those claims to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint.

With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied
the motion, the company requested that the court certify its
order for interlocutory appeal.

On April 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss
those portions of the complaint that have been repled.

A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss in July 2006.

Mr. Lerach got involved in the case in 2005 after three other
law firms withdrew amid fierce criticism of the $6 million
settlement they negotiated without consulting AMSF, which was
supposedly in control of the litigation.

As late as June 2006, Mr. Lerach still had the support of the
AMSF.  At that time, Judge Barbara Lynn asked the firm to
explain why Mr. Lerach sought to add pension funds affiliated
with the laborers and plumbers and pipefitters unions, as well
as the City of Dearborn Heights, Michigan -- all frequent Lerach
Coughlin clients -- as "non-Lead plaintiffs."

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor,   
         280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-  
         667-7706, Fax: 610/667-7056;  

     (2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello     
         Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301,   
         Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and  

     (3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270   
         Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:   
         212/545-4600.

Representing the company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek,   
1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:   
713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.

For more details, contact David Boies of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504,
(Westchester Co.), Phone: 914-749-8200, Fax: 914-749-8300, Web
site: http://www.bsfllp.com.


INSURERS: Fla. Homeowners Sue Over Roof Repair, Replacement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Floridian Insurance Co., Citizens Property Insurance
Corp., and State Farm Florida Insurance Co., were named as
defendants in similar class actions that were filed on behalf of
Floridians whose homes were insured by the firms during the past
five years and who suffered roof damage caused by a hurricane or
other natural disaster.

The Hurricane Law Group, which brought the suit against the
three large insurers in different Florida courts, is seeking
class-action status for all three cases.  

Homeowner Steven Schlegel filed the Citizens case in Miami-Dade
County, homeowner Tracy Healy filed State Farm in Broward
County, and homeowner William Clinard filed the Allstate case in
Hendry County.

According to the law group, the common allegation in each
lawsuit is that the named insurance provider failed to pay
and/or properly adjust claims in Florida by ignoring
requirements to obtain a building permit prior to commencing
roof repair or replacement.

The result of this failure is that policyholders were
undercompensated for their losses by not being paid for
permitting costs.

In a recently statement released, the law group said, "The three
suits combined will impact an estimated 200,000 policyholders
who were not paid for building permits for damages suffered
during the various hurricanes which ravaged Florida over recent
years."

The suits seek to have the homeowners reimbursed, with interest,
for permits and have their attorneys fees covered.  

For more details, contact Paul Berger of The Hurricane Law
Group, Box 970263, Boca Raton, FL 33497, Phone: 1-888-352-2524
or 1-561-414-4570, E-mail: paul@hurricanelawgroup.com, Web site:
http://www.hurricanelawgroup.com.


MIRRACO LLC: Recalls Bicycles with Wheel Fork That Could Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mirraco LLC, of Carlsbad, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
11,000 units of Mirraco Bicycles.

The company said the front wheel forks on these bicycles could
have been welded improperly.  This poses a risk that the weld
could fail, and the rider could lose control and fall.

The firm has received four reports of steer tube rotation and
one report of a fork separation due to failure of the welds.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves BMX bicycles.  The model name is printed on
the bicycle.  Recalled models include the following:

                         Mirraco Models

             Blend 3    Black Pearl 3    Fivestar Park
             Blend 2    Black Pearl 2    Icon Moto
             Blend 1    Black Pearl 1    Icon 20Forty
             Blend 1s     
             Blend 16     

These recalled bicycles were manufactured in China and are being
sold at authorized Mirraco dealers nationwide from November 2006
through January 2007 for between $265 and $550.

Pictures of recalled bicycles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07116a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07116b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07116c.jpg

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and have
them inspected by a Mirraco dealer.  If the inspection shows
that the bicycle is part of the recall, the fork will be
replaced free of charge.

For more information, contact Mirraco toll-free at (888) 431-
7653 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or on
Saturday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.mirrabikeco.com


NICOR GAS: Settlement in Ill. Plant Cleanup Case Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------
An objection was lodged against the settlement that was reached
in a class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois against Nicor Gas Co. and others, which claim that
ongoing cleanup of a former manufactured gas plant site in Oak
Park, Illinois is inadequate.

In December 2001, a purported class action was filed against
Exelon Corp., Commonwealth Edison Co. and the company.  Since
then, additional lawsuits have been filed related to this same
former manufactured gas plant site.  

These lawsuits seek, in part, unspecified damages for property
damage, nuisance, and various personal injuries that allegedly
resulted from exposure to contaminants allegedly emanating from
the site, and punitive damages.

An agreement in principle to settle the purported class action
has been reached and, as of Dec. 31, 2006, the company has a
$2.25 million liability recorded in connection with this matter.  

The trial court approved the proposed class action settlement.
One objector filed an appeal and conclusion of the proposed
settlement will depend on the resolution of that appeal,
according to Northern Illinois Gas Co.'s Feb. 23 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


NUMED INC: Patients' 2004 Suit Over Cardiac Stents Still Alive
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stent manufacturer NuMed Inc. of Hopkinton, New York, continues
to face a suit filed in 2004 by the parents of several children
allegedly implanted the 'experimental' device, it emerged in a
report by the Watertown Daily Times (New York).

The parents of three children treated for a heart defects
initiated a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the
Delaware-based Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children and its
doctors claiming that they had implanted an experimental device
in their children without informing them of the procedure's
dangers, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 19, 2004).

The parents, who filed the suit in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia contends that they were not told that the stent
lacked federal approval and were misled into thinking that it
was safer than standard surgery.  They further contend that a
medical consent form was forged to indicate that a parent had
signed for the procedure.

Named in the suit were world-renowned cardiac surgeon William I.
Norwood, who directed the Wilmington hospital's cardiac center,
and former chief cardiologist John D. Murphy.  They were both
dismissed from the hospital in light of the allegations about
the stent's use.  

The three children, Teague Conway of Wayne, Molly Guinan of
Vineland (New Jersey), and Mark Aaron Hess of Bridgeton (New
Jersey), underwent the procedure in 2002 and 2003, were all born
with a deadly heart defect that normally is treated with three
stages of surgery.

The suit, which was filed by attorneys James E. Beasley Jr. and
Andrew J. Stern alleges that the doctors did not tell parents
that the second-phase surgery might be modified, preparing the
way for a stent instead of a third surgery.  Furthermore, the
suit alleges that the stent, which was not approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, was used by the doctors without
the approval of the hospital's Institutional Review Board, the
overseer of hospital research.

The Delaware Division of Public Health has demanded
institutional reforms to improve oversight on the part of the
hospital.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Defers Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New York indicated
that it would defer consideration of final approval of the
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against ON Semiconductor Corp., according to the company's Feb.
23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In July 2001, three stockholder class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, certain of its former officers, current and
former directors and various investment banking firms who acted
as underwriters in connection with the company's initial public
offering in May 2000.  

In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended
complaint that supercedes the individual complaints originally
filed.  

The amended complaint generally alleges that the company's
offering documents failed to disclose certain underwriting fees
and commissions and underwriter tie-ins and other arrangements
with certain customers of the underwriters that impacted the
price of the company's common stock in the after-market.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.

In July 2002, together with other issuer defendants, the company
filed a collective motion to dismiss the class action.

In February 2003, the court dismissed claims brought against the
company under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws
with prejudice.  However, the court denied the motion to dismiss
claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws.  

In addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal without prejudice of claims brought against the
current and former directors and officers who were named as
individual defendants in the litigation.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the company's Board of Directors, the company
elected to participate in a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs in this litigation.  Consummation of the proposed
settlement is conditioned upon obtaining final approval by the
court.  

In April 2006, the court took under advisement whether to grant
final approval to the proposed settlement.  Ultimate court
approval would result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all
claims in the litigation against the company and against any of
the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the
proposed settlement, together with the current or former
officers and directors of participating issuers who were named
as individual defendants.

However, in December 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a decision that six purported class
actions containing allegations substantially similar to those
asserted against the company may not be certified as class
actions.  

The impact, if any, of this ruling on the viability of the
proposed settlement has not yet been determined.  

In January 2007, the plaintiffs in the cases asked the 2nd
Circuit to reconsider its December 2006 decision that none of
the cases could be certified as class actions.  This request for
reconsideration is still pending.

The court had earlier stayed all activity in the cases,
including further consideration of the proposed settlement,
until the 2nd Circuit decides whether it is willing to
reconsider its ruling.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


POTLATCH CORP: Still Faces Pa. Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Potlatch Corp. and other companies remain defendants in a
consolidated antitrust class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In March, April and May 2006, a series of private antitrust
lawsuits were filed against the company and seven other
manufacturers of oriented strand board (OSB).  Plaintiffs, who
claim that they purchased OSB at artificially high prices, filed
the suits.

The cases purport to be class actions brought on behalf of
direct and indirect purchaser classes.  The complaints allege
that the defendant OSB manufacturers violated federal and state
antitrust laws by purportedly conspiring from mid-2002 to the
present to drive up the price of OSB.  The indirect purchaser
complaints also allege that defendants violated various states'
unfair competition laws and common law.

The cases generally have been consolidated into two Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaints in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption, "In Re
OSB Antitrust Litigation."

Each consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages to be trebled as provided under the antitrust
laws and other relief.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PSD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) William P. Butterfield of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500,
         Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: 202-408-4600, E-mail:
         wbutterfield@cmht.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey J. Corrigan of Spector Roseman and Kodroff,
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Mary Kay Christodoulou, David
L. Comerford and Edward F. Mannino of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, LLP, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market St., Suite 2200,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-965-1200, E-mail:
mchristodoulou@akingump.com.


SABRE HOLDINGS: Amended Complaint Filed in Lawsuit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class action filed
against Sabre Holdings Corp. in relation to the pending sale of
the company to affiliates of Texas Pacific Group and Silver Lake
Partners, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The company was a party to separate lawsuits arising from the
pending sale.  On Dec. 12, 2006, the purported shareholder class
actions were before the Tarrant County District Court for the
State of Texas on behalf of the holders of the company's Common
Stock in connection with the merger.

The suits are:

      -- "Jack McBride v. Sabre Holdings Corp., et al., Case No.
         236-221611-06,"and

      -- "Lillian Chait v. Sabre Holdings Corp., et al., Case
         No. 067-221619-06."

Both complaints name as defendants Sabre Holdings and its Board
of Directors.  

The complaints allege that Sabre Holdings' directors breached
their fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement and
approving the merger.

They purport to seek declaratory relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger, the recovery of unspecified
damages, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 22, 2007, Ms. Chait voluntarily dismissed her complaint.
On Feb. 7, 2007, an amended complaint was filed in the McBride
action.

The amended complaint contains similar allegations to the
original complaint and adds allegations that Sabre Holdings'
directors have not fully and fairly disclosed all material
information relating to the merger.

Sabre Holdings Corp. on the Net: http://www.sabre.com.


SCCP PAINTING: Immigrant Workers Sue to Claim Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four Latino immigrant workers are suing Maryland-based company
SCCP Painting Contractors Inc. for alleged non-payment of
overtime, The Washington Post reports.

The workers allegedly routinely worked 60 hours or more a week
without receiving overtime pay.  The four plaintiffs named in
the suit also claim they were not paid for their final two weeks
of work.  One of the workers is Ivan Aplicano, 34, of
Gaithersburg.  He was fired in April.  Also named plaintiff is
Manuel Carrera, a 49-year-old Mexican immigrant who lives in
Northern Virginia.  Other plaintiffs are Giovanni (Henry)
Montoya, and Alexander Figueroa.

The lawsuit was filed last week in U.S. District Court by the
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
and lawyers with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

They plan to ask a federal judge to certify the suit as a class-
action, said Laura E. Varela, a lawyer with the lawyers'
committee.  The workers could be able to claim compensation as
far as three years back, she said.

The suit is "Montoya et al. v. S.C.C.P. Painting Contractors,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00455-RDB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Richard
D. Bennett.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan E. Huhta at Washington Lawyers Committee for        
         Civil Rights and Urban Aff, 11 Dupont Circle NW Ste 400
         Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 12023191000, Fax:
         12023191010, E-mail: sue_huhta@washlaw.org;

     (2) Anne Elizabeth Langford at Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N St
         NW, Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 12026638000, Fax:
         12026638007; and

     (3) Laura Elena Varela at Washington Lawyers Committee for
         Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, 11 Dupont Circle NW Ste
         400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 12023191000, Fax:
         12023191010.


SOUTH AFRICA: Suit Over Pension Eligibility for Men Gets Support
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pretoria High Court Judge Lettie Malopa granted an order
admitting two human rights organizations as friends of the court
in a class action over the constitutionality of legislation
setting age limits for pension eligibility for men, Citizens
(South Africa) reports.

Wits University's Centre for Applied Legal Studies and the
Western Cape University's Community Law Centre were granted
friends of the court status in a suit against the Minister and
Director-General of Social Development, the Minister of Finance
and the Eastern Cape's Social Development Member of the
Executive Council.

The Social Development authorities are opposing an application
that seeks to declare as unconstitutional any regulation or Act,
which excluded men between 60 and 64 who, but for their age,
qualified for old age pensions.  Any regulation promoting such
is allegedly discriminatory and infringed on the aged men's
constitutional right to social security, equality and human
dignity.

The organizations support the applications.  It finds the
differentiation in the provision of social security benefits to
men and woman as unjustifiable.


SOUTH AFRICA: Robbery Victim Plans "Multi-Million-Dollar" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Johannesburg man is organizing a class action to hold the
government accountable for the prevalence of crime in the
country, Citizen (South Africa) reports.

Neville Huxham, 64, is pursuing what is valued as a ZAR100
billion ($138 million) lawsuit against the state for gross
violations of constitutional rights.

In December, robbers entered Mr. Huxham's home in Victory Park
where he was entertaining guests.  He was shot four times and
suffered a broken bone in his left arm during the incident.

Because of his injuries, Mr. Neville can't work and is unable to
drive.  He and another victim have launched a Web site Victims
in the Republic of South Africa (VIRSA) to call on South
Africans to join them in the suit.  They are also collecting
three million signatures for a March Against Crime petition, and
are leading a demonstration in relation to it on March 10.


SPORTCRAFT LTD: Recalls Bounce Houses to Replace Defective Fan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sportcraft Ltd., of Mt. Olive, New Jersey, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,600 inflatable bounce houses.

The company said the fan and the plastic housing surrounding the
fan can break apart during use of the inflatable bounce house,
posing a risk of impact injury to consumers.

Sportcraft has received three reports of the fan unit breaking
apart during use.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves large, inflatable bounce houses inside which
children can jump and play.  The recall includes the following
models: "Castle Kingdom," "Jump 'N' Kingdom," and "Bounce 'N'
Playhouse."

The bounce houses are inflated by a yellow, horizontal fan.  The
fan's model number, FJ4-330C or FJ4-330C2, is printed on a
silver sticker on the fan's housing.  Bounce houses with an "N"
at the end of either model number on the fan are not included in
this recall.

The Castle Kingdom and Jump 'N' Kingdom are approximately 10
feet long, 8 feet wide and 8 feet long.  The Bounce 'N'
Playhouse is about 8 feet long, 11 feet wide, and 9 feet high.

These recalled inflatable bounce houses were manufactured in
China and are being sold at Academy Sports and Outdoors and
Sport Chalet stores nationwide from September 2006 through
January 2007 for between $200 and $300.

Pictures of recalled inflatable bounce houses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07115a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07115b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07115c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07115d.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
bounce houses and contact Sportcraft to receive a free
replacement fan.

For additional information, contact Sportcraft at (800) 511-0675
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.sportcraft.com


TARGET CORP: Paying $775,000 to Settle Racial Harassment Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp., the Minneapolis-based retail sales giant, has
agreed to pay $775,000 to a group of black workers as part of a
litigation settlement of a race discrimination and retaliation
case brought by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  
The settlement also includes employer training and other
remedial relief.

The EEOC charged that Target violated Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act by creating and condoning a racially hostile
work environment at its Springfield, Pennsylvania, store for a
class of African American employees.  The racial harassment
included inappropriate comments and verbal berating based on
race.  Further, when one of the black employees objected to this
treatment, he was allegedly retaliated against, leaving him no
choice but to resign.

EEOC said in the suit that Michael Hill, a senior merchant at
the Springfield store (an apprentice in training to become a
store manager) and others were subjected to racial harassment by
a white store manager, whom they reported for the unlawful
conduct.  Mr. Hill ultimately left the job due to the negative
health effects of the discrimination and the lack of effective
response to his internal complaints.  EEOC charged that Hill's
resignation was forced upon him, amounting to a constructive
discharge.

The consent decree settling the lawsuit provides Hill and a
class of 13 African American employees with $775,000 and
requires that all managers and supervisors at the Springfield
store will receive training in the company's equal employment
opportunity policies.  The decree also requires Target to post a
notice about the settlement; ensure that its complaint procedure
is effectively communicated to the workforce; and take remedial
action if an employee violates its equal employment opportunity
policy.

According to its Web site Target -- http://www.target.com--
"operates approximately 1,500 stores in 47 states, including
more than 175 SuperTarget stores that add an upscale grocery
shopping experience."

"We are pleased that the parties could reach an amicable
resolution of this matter," said EEOC Regional Attorney
Jacqueline McNair.  "We expect the proposed training and
emphasis on anti-discrimination policies to create a more
employee-friendly work environment at Target's facility."

Title VII makes it illegal to deny a person any employment
opportunity because of that person's race or color, sex,
religion or national origin.  A work environment free from
illegal harassment and different treatment based on race are
included in the range of such employment opportunities.  In
addition, Title VII recognizes that persons made to work in an
intolerable environment may be constructively discharged, or
compelled to resign their employment.  Finally, it is illegal to
retaliate against someone because he has made a complaint of
illegal discrimination.

EEOC on the Net: http://www.eeoc.gov.


TEMPLE-INLAND: Settles Meal Break Law Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland, Inc. reports that at the end of 2006, the company
was defending three class action claims in California state
court alleging violations of that state's on-duty meal break
laws.

The company settled one of these cases in February 2007 and the
remaining cases are currently pending, according to its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

Temple-Inland Inc. on the Net: http://www.templeinland.com/.


T-MOBILE: Could Face Suit Over Proposed Cell Site in Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------------
A homeowner in North Shore Oahu, Hawaii is planning to file a
class action to block a plan by T-Mobile to build a new cell
phone site in the area, KHNL-TV (Hawaii) reports.

Homeowner Eddie Black says the proposed project is going to
devalue property values, and "affect some people's ocean views."  
He also cites health concerns about the radio frequency
emissions, according to the report.  He also raises concerns on
the noise from a generator that would be installed for the
project.

T-mobile's planned cell site is in addition to one it already
has in the lowland.  It says it needs another, to meet federal
rules requiring wireless carriers to provide 'Enhanced 911'
service.

Mr. Black and his wife Tracy plan to file the suit should T-
Mobile proceeds with its original plan.  They said they already
have 10 other people supporting it.


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: 3rd Motion to Advance Fees for ERISA Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Automotive, Inc. (and its debtor-affiliates or Debtors)
sought and obtained approval of Bankruptcy Judge Allan L.
Gropper (Southern District of New York) to advance up to an
aggregate of $1,500,000 in legal defense fees, costs and related
expenses incurred by the Debtors' current and former officers,
directors and employees to defend alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act Class Action.

The Debtors maintain that resolution of the ERISA Litigation is
an important aspect of their efforts to reorganize.

The Debtors and the individual defendants have been negotiating
a settlement of the Class actions that resolves all potential
liability of the Debtors or the Individual Defendants, Richard
M. Cieri, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, relates.

While the Settlement will be subject to review and approval by
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
Debtors come before Judge Gropper seeking authority to make a
provisional payment pursuant to the Settlement, Mr. Cieri notes.
If the request is granted, the Debtors would execute a fully
documented settlement agreement and make the Provisional
Settlement Payment.

The salient terms of the Settlement term sheet provides that:

    (a) Upon approval of the Settlement by the District Court,
        the Debtors will deposit $2,000,000 in a segregated
        account;

    (b) The stipulated liability under the ERISA Litigation will
        be capped at $14,000,000, which is within the policy
        limits under the ERISA Policy;

    (c) The Debtors and the Individual Defendants would agree to
        assign to the plaintiffs in the Class Action Lawsuits
        the right to pursue the Debtors' and the Individual
        Defendants' claims against Federal Insurance Co. --
        the Debtors' insurance carrier -- up to $14,000,000, at
        the Plaintiffs' sole expense; and

    (d) If the Plaintiffs prevail against Federal in the
        Coverage Litigation, the first $4,000,000 of any
        recovery would go to the Plaintiffs, the next $2,000,000
        would go to the Debtors to reimburse them for the
        Provisional Settlement Payment, and the balance of any
        recovery would go to the Plaintiffs.  Thus, so long as
        there is more than $6,000,000 in coverage for the ERISA
        Litigation, the Debtors will be entitled to a full
        refund of the Provisional Settlement Payment upon the
        Plaintiffs' receipt of funds from Federal.

Against this backdrop, the Debtors seek the Court's permission
to make the Provisional Settlement Payment as part of the
Settlement.

The Debtors submit that the Settlement is beneficial to their
estates and creditors, fair and equitable, and falls well within
the range of reasonableness.

Mr. Cieri also notes that in exchange for the Provisional
Settlement Payment, the Debtors will receive several important
benefits from the Settlement, including that:

    (1) The Debtors will realize significant savings by not
        continuing to fund the litigation costs associated with
        the Coverage Litigation and the ERISA Litigation.  The
        Coverage Litigation and the ERISA Litigation are both in
        relatively early stages, and given the tenor to date,
        would be very costly to conclude, and would likely
        involve significant appellate litigation;

    (2) The Settlement will provide much needed certainty to the
        Debtors and the Individual Defendants at a crucial time
        in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases.  The ERISA Litigation
        and the Coverage Litigation have been a distraction for
        the Debtors and for the Individual Defendants, and the
        Debtors believe that their reorganization efforts would
        benefit from putting an end to this distraction and
        allowing the Debtors and the Individual Defendants to
        more fully focus on the considerable challenges at hand
        related to the Debtors' planned emergence from Chapter
        11;

    (3) The Settlement will remove a significant obstacle to the
        Debtors' ability to retain the services of the
        Individual Defendants going forward.  The Debtors expect
        that the future owners of, or investors in, their
        businesses, whomever they may be, may want to retain
        some or all of the Individual Defendants, and that the
        ERISA Litigation could be a barrier to that goal; and

    (4) The Debtors and the Individual Defendants will receive a
        full release of all claims arising out of, or in any way
        related to, directly or indirectly, any or all of the
        acts, omissions, facts, matters, transactions or
        occurrences during the Class Period that are, were, or
        could have been alleged, asserted or set forth in the
        ERISA Litigation related to alleged violations of ERISA.
        The release is significant because there's a risk that
        If the Individual Defendants were held liable in the
        ERISA Litigation, their liability would be as agents of
        the Debtors, exposing the Debtors to both vicarious
        liability under the theory of "respondeat superior" and
        the risk of being collaterally estopped from denying
        liability for the actions of the Individual Defendants.

                            Responses

(a) Silver Point

Silver Point Capital Fund, L.P., asserts that it neither takes
issue with the economic structure of the Settlement nor
maintains that the Settlement falls outside the "range of
reasonableness."

However, Silver Point believes that consideration of the request
should be deferred until a better understanding of the Debtors'
ability to fully satisfy the claims of their senior creditors --
specifically, the Second Lien Lenders -- in cash can be
ascertained.

James C. Tecce, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in
New York, argues that the Debtors' bankruptcy cases have reached
a critical point, and paying junior creditors' prepetition
claims outside of a Chapter 11 plan before the satisfaction of
the Second Lien Lenders' claims simply is inappropriate.

"This is especially true when the $2 million provisional payment
will not be used to satisfy claims asserted against the
Debtors," Mr. Tecce argues.

Mr. Tecce adds that at best, the Debtors may be obligated with
respect to indemnification claims asserted by the Individual
Defendants relating to the ERISA Litigation.  These claims would
arise under the Debtors' by-laws and employment agreements, and
relate to alleged prepetition misconduct.

Accordingly, Silver Point asks Judge Gropper to sustain its
objection and defer consideration of the Debtors' request.

(b) Creditors Committee

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors asks the
Bankruptcy Court to deny the Debtors' request because:

    * The Plaintiffs' claims arose from the sale of securities,
      and the Bankruptcy Code mandates that the claims be
      subordinated to the claims of general unsecured creditors.
      Thus, payment of the Settlement, without a guarantee of
      insurance coverage, will in essence elevate the
      plaintiffs' claims above all other claims; and

    * The Settlement Payment will constitute the payment of a
      prepetition claim outside of a confirmed Reorganization
      Plan.  Courts have consistently held that payment of those
      claims should only be approved where it is essential to
      the debtors' reorganization efforts.

The Bankruptcy Court must not allow the Debtors to end run
around the bankruptcy priority scheme, and favor the Plaintiffs'
subordinate claims to the detriment of all other claimants, Ira
S. Dizengoff, Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in
New York, emphasizes.

Under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, courts must
subordinate bankruptcy claims "for damages arising from
purchases and sales of securities of a debtor," including claims
for "reimbursement or contribution" based on those claims, Mr.
Dizengoff notes.

According to Mr. Dizengoff, even if the Plaintiffs' claims are
not subordinated pursuant to Section 510(b), they are still
merely general unsecured claims that should be paid pursuant to
a confirmed Plan.  Multiple provisions in the Bankruptcy Code
envision and demand that similarly situated creditors receive
equal treatment.

Moreover, as required by the Bankruptcy Court's prior orders,
the Debtors must be directed to seek reimbursement from Federal
of all amounts advanced, including amounts already paid, to the
Individual Defendants if the Debtors prevail in the ERISA
Coverage Litigation, Mr. Dizengoff argues.  It is premature to
allow the Debtors to pay any more amounts, including the
Settlement Payment, if there is no basis to recover those
amounts from Federal, he says.

Mr. Dizengoff maintains that the Debtors should know first if
they can recover the Settlement Payment -- plus the amounts
previously paid -- from Federal.  If the Debtors or their
assigns are successful in the ERISA Coverage Litigation, then
the proposed Settlement would have no impact on the estate.  
(Tower Automotive Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 54; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


UST INC: Faces Suit in W.Va. in Relation to "Davis" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
UST, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Virginia that accuses it of
breaching the settlement agreement in a previously settled
litigation in Tennessee, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In "Robert A. Martin, et al. v. Gordon Ball, et al., Case No.
5:06-CV-85," the company deemed service of the complaint to have
been effective as of July 17, 2006 and filed an answer.

The action was brought by 15 individual plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of persons who filed claims for
coupons as part of the company's settlement of the action,
"Philip Edward Davis, et al. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., et al.,"
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Tennessee.

The Martin plaintiffs allege that the company breached the
Settlement Agreement in the Davis action, and has been unjustly
enriched, because it failed to distribute to each of the
purported class members a denomination of coupons with an
aggregate value equal to the aggregate value of the coupons
distributed as part of the settlement in another indirect
purchaser action.

Plaintiffs also allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and conversion against the counsel who
represented the class members in the Davis action.

Plaintiffs seek additional amounts purportedly consistent with
subsequent settlements of similar actions, estimated by
plaintiffs to be between $8.9 million and $214.2 million, as
well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Martin et al. v. Ball et al., Case No.  
5:06-cv-00085-FPS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of West Virginia under Judge Frederick P.  
Stamp.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Allen D. Black at Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, 1835  
         Market St., 28th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.,  
         Phone: 215-567-6565, Fax: 215-568-5872, E-mail:  
         ablack@finekaplan.com; and

     (2) Jennifer L. Giordano at Latham & Watkins, LLP - DC, 555  
         11th St., NW, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-637-
         2200, Fax: 202-637-2201, E-mail:  
         jennifer.giordano@lw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) J. Scott Kessinger, 7304 Michigan Ave., St. Louis, MO  
         63111, U.S., Phone: 314-369-5115, Fax: 314-754-8370, E-
         mail: jskess@charter.net; and  

     (2) John J. Pentz, Class Action Fairness Group, 2 Clock  
         Tower Place, Suite 260G, Maynard, MA 01754, U.S.,  
         Phone: 978-461-1548, Fax: 707-276-2925, E-mail:  
         clasaxn@earthlink.net.


UST INC: Settles Some Tobacco-Related Suits, Still Faces Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
UST, Inc. has settled some tobacco-related class actions, but
still continues to face other similar litigation by indirect
purchasers of the company's smokeless tobacco products,
according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The company is named as a defendant in a number of purported
class actions, as well as class actions in the states of
California, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.

The latest of the suits was filed on Feb. 27, 2006.  The company
was served with a Summons and Class Action Complaint in an
action entitled, "Gregory Hunt, et al. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., et
al., Case No. 06-CV-1099," which was lodged in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Each of these actions are brought by indirect purchasers
(consumers and retailers) of the company's smokeless tobacco
products during various periods of time ranging from January
1990 to the date of certification or potential certification of
the proposed class.

Plaintiffs in those actions allege that, individually and on
behalf of putative class members in a particular state or
individually and on behalf of class members in the states of
California, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, the company violated
the antitrust laws, unfair and deceptive trade practices
statutes and/or common law of those states.

Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and statutory damages in
an amount not to exceed $75,000 per class member, or per
putative class member, and certain other relief.  The indirect
purchaser actions are similar in all material respects.

The company has entered into a settlement with indirect
purchasers, which has been approved by the court, in the states
of Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia and in the
District of Columbia.

Pursuant to the approved settlement, adult consumers receive
coupons redeemable on future purchases of the company's moist
smokeless tobacco products.  

The company will pay all administrative costs of the Settlement
and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  It also intends to pursue
settlement of other indirect purchaser actions not covered by
the settlement on substantially similar terms, with the
exception of Pennsylvania, for which the company believes there
is insufficient basis for such a claim.

On March 8, 2006, the court entered final approval of the
settlement of the Kansas class action and New York action.  An
evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for an additional
amount of approximately $8.5 million in attorneys' fees,
expenses and costs, plus interest, beyond the previously agreed-
upon amounts already paid by the company was held April 4-5,
2006.  

To date, the court has not ruled on the motion.  The company
believes, and has been so advised by counsel handling this case,
that it has meritorious defenses in this regard, and will
continue to vigorously defend against this motion.

UST, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ustinc.com/.


XCEL ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Nev. Natural Gas Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on
appeals regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada to dismiss certain lawsuits against Xcel
Energy, Inc., in relation to the sale of natural gas in the
U.S., according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

                  Texas-Ohio Energy Litigation

On Nov. 19, 2003, a class-action complaint, "Texas-Ohio Energy,
Inc. vs. Centerpoint Energy et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Texas-Ohio
Energy, Inc. was served on Xcel Energy naming e prime as a
defendant.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of large
wholesale natural gas purchasers, alleges that e prime falsely
reported natural gas trades to market trade publications in an
effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California.

The Multi-District Litigation Panel has conditionally
transferred the case to U.S. District Court of the District of
Nevada.

In an order entered April 8, 2005, the Nevada judge handling the
case granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on the
filed rate doctrine.  

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision to
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the
appeal were heard on Feb. 13, 2007.

                    Fairhaven Power Litigation

On Sept. 14, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Fairhaven Power
Co. v. Encana Corp. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Fairhaven Power
Co. and subsequently served on Xcel Energy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.  

This case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec.
19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the appeal is
pending.

                   Utility Savings Litigation

On Nov. 29, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Utility Savings and
Refund Services LLP v. Reliant Energy Services Inc.," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California by Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP and
subsequently served on Xcel Energy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.

The case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec.
19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the appeal is
pending.

                      Abelman Art Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Abelman Art Glass
v. Ercana Corp. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California by Abelman Art Glass and
subsequently served on Xcel Energy.  

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.

The case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec.
19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the appeal were heard on
Feb. 13, 2007.

Xcel Energy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.xcelenergy.com.


XCEL ENERGY: "Ever-Bloom" Suit Stayed, Awaits 9th Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc., reports that the litigation, "Ever-Bloom Inc.
v. Xcel Energy Inc. and e prime et al.," has been stayed,
pending the outcome of cases on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 21, 2005, Ever-Bloom, Inc., filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The lawsuit names as defendants, among others, Xcel Energy and e
prime.  Filed on behalf of a purported class of gas purchasers,
the suit alleges that defendants falsely reported natural gas
trades to market trade publications in an effort to artificially
raise natural gas prices in California, purportedly in violation
of the Sherman Act.  

The matter has been stayed pending the outcome of cases on
appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Ever-Bloom Inc. vs. Xcel Energy Inc. and e prime et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California under Judge Anthony W. Ishii with referral Judge
Dennis L. Beck.

Representing the plaintiffs is Dennis Stewart of Hulett Harper
Stewar, LLP, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619338-1133, Fax: 619338-1139, E-mail:
office@hulettharper.com.


XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. is defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi over carbon dioxide emission.

On April 25, 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of the lawsuit,
"Comer v. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.," which named as defendant
more than 45 oil, chemical and utility companies, including the
company.  

The suit alleges that defendants' carbon dioxide emissions "were
a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive
capacity of Hurricane Katrina."  

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence, and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the hurricane.  

On July 19, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carlos A. Zelaya of Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902 Julia
         Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, US, Phone: 504/569-8732,
         Fax: 504/525-6932;

     (2) Stephen M. Wiles and Randall Allan Smith of Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: smwiles@smithfawer.com and
         rasmith3@bellsouth.net; and

     (3) F. Gerald Maples F. Gerald Maples, PA, 902 Julia
         Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504/569-8732, E-
         mail: federal@geraldmaples.com.

Representing the company are John G. Corlew and Katherine K.
Smith of Watkins & Eager, P. O. Box 650, Jackson, MS 39205-0650,
Phone: (601) 948-6470, E-mail: jcorlew@watkinseager.com and
ksmith@watkinseager.com.


XCEL ENERGY: Appeals Certification of Minn. Customers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. has filed an appeal in the purported class
action, "Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.," which is pending
in the Minnesota state district court in Hennepin County against
company subsidiary Northern States Power Co.

Filed on March 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
Northern States Power-Minnesota's residential customers in
Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota for alleged breach of a
contractual obligation to maintain and inspect the points of
connection between NSP-Minnesota's wires and customers' homes
within the meter box.

Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an increased
risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on file with
the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  

They thus seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal
to the value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was
required to perform over the past six years.  

NSP-Minnesota has filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings,
which was heard on Aug. 16, 2006.  In November 2006, the court
issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota's motion.

On Nov. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota, the
court certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's original
motion as important and doubtful.  

This certification permits NSP-Minnesota to file an appeal, and
it has done so, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Xcel Energy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.xcelenergy.com/.


XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Kans. Natural Gas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss the purported class action,
"Learjet, Inc. vs. e prime and Xcel Energy et al."

On Nov. 4, 2005, the suit was filed in state court for Wyandotte
County of Kansas on behalf of all natural gas producers in
Kansas.  

The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Inc., Xcel Energy, Inc. and
other named defendants conspired to raise the market price of
natural gas in Kansas by, among other things, inaccurately
reporting price and volume information to the market trade
publications.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the defendants removed this matter to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.  Plaintiffs have
filed a motion for remand, which was denied on Aug. 3, 2006.  

Plaintiffs in this matter have moved the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for a separate MDL docket to be set up
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Xcel Energy's motion to dismiss the complaint is pending,
according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. ONEOK, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in the U.S. District of
District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to
Judge James P. O'Hara.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jennifer Gille Bacon of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC,
         Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Kansas
         City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax: 816-374-0509,
         E-mail: jbacon@stklaw.com; and

     (2) Donald D. Barry of Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., 5340 West
         17th Street, P.O. Box 4816, Topeka, KS 66604, Phone:
         785-273-3153, Fax: 785-273-3159, E-mail:
         dbarry@inlandnet.net.


* David Berger, Class Action Veteran, Dies at 94
------------------------------------------------
"People's lawyer" and class action pioneer David Berger died of
pneumonia in Palm Beach, Florida at the age of 94, reports say.

Mr. Berger won major cases in the Three Mile Island nuclear
power accident, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the Drexel
Burnham Lambert junk-bond scandal.

In 1971, he filed a nationwide class action against all major
oil companies, demanding that service station operators get the
right to sell any brand of gasoline.

In a 1984 settlement, his 50,000 clients won that right along
with $37 million in damages.

He also helped win $25 million for people who lived near the
Three Mile Island nuclear power plant following the partial
meltdown at the plant in March 1979.

Mr. Berger also won $5 million for a public health fund to study
the effects of low-level radiation exposure they had
experienced.

His firm won a $2 billion settlement from the government on
behalf of the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad and thousands of
shareholders.

He retired in 2004, when he began to suffer early stages of
Alzheimer's disease.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC announces
that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri against NovaStar Financial, Inc.

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of NovaStar Financial, Inc., from May 4,
2006 - Feb. 20, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, NovaStar Financial, Inc. shocked the market by
announcing disappointing fourth quarter and year-end 2006
results and further warned that NovaStar expected to earn little
or no taxable income in the next five years.

On the news of this announcement, NovaStar's stock dropped
approximately 42% on heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 24,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact S. Gene Cauley, of Cauley, Bowman
Carney & Williams, PLLC, 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box
25438 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-5438, Phone: 501-312-8500 or
1-888-551-9944, Website: http://www.cauleybowman.com.


QUANTA CAPITAL: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. between May 14, 2004 and March 2,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Quanta and certain officers and
directors violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented that it had failed to properly
account for losses and to set aside adequate reserves to account
for specific, weather related claims in order to maintain a
favorable rating from A.M. Best, Co..

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

For more information, contact Mark S. Goldman, of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *