CAR_Public/070305.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, March 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 45

                            Headlines


3M CO: 2007 Hearing Set for Cottage Grove, Minn. Pollution Suit
3M CO: Amended Complaint Filed in Decatur, Ala. Pollution Suit
3M CO: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Lawsuit in N.J.
3M CO: Claim Dismissed in Minn. Age Discrimination Lawsuit
3M CO: Still Faces Suit Related to Alleged Pollution at ACME

AMERADA HESS: April Hearing Set for $9M Securities Suit Deal
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Face AWP Litigation in Massachusetts
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces N.J. Consumer Fraud Litigation Over PLAVIX
BRISTOL-MYERS: Mo. Court Dismisses "Channel-Stuffing" Litigation
BRISTOL-MYERS: Ohio Court Mulls Transfer of PLAVIX Suits to N.Y.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Parties File Dismissal Stipulation for "Starkman"
BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Calif. PHSA Suit
CONAGRA INC: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Contaminated Peanut Butter
DIRECT GENERAL: Settles Tenn. Securities Fraud Suit for $14.94M
DRAM LITIGATION: April 18 Hearing Set for $143.25M Settlement

GILEAD SCIENCES: Dismissed Calif. Securities Suit Under Appeal
GROUP 1: Tex. Antitrust Law Violations Lawsuit Dismissed
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: No Ruling Yet in Wis. Cam Bearing Lawsuit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Faces Security Breach Lawsuit in New York
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Investors Suit

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Files Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
KING MILL: Parent Settles Suit Over Pension Fund for $600,000
LENOVO INC: Recalls Batteries for ThinkPad Notebook PCs
NOBLE ENERGY: Settles Colo. Litigation Over Royalty Payments
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Ends April 2

PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Settles Nev. Securities Litigation for $2.8M
REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Suit in Calif. for Alleged FATA Violations
SOUTHERN CO: Claims Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Under Appeal
SOUTHERN CO: Settles Suit Over Employees Savings Plan for $15M
SPEAR & JACKSON: May Hearing Set for $775T Securities Suit Deal

STATE FARM: No Ruling Yet on Class Status Request in "Guice"
STATE FARM: No Ruling Yet on $50M "Woullard" Suit Settlement
STATE FARM: Affirms Plan to Pay $50M in Katrina Suit Settlement
TAKE-TWO: In Talks to Settle "Grand Theft Auto Sex" Lawsuit
TEXAS: Court Lifts Order to Monitor Hobb Police Activity

TRIBUNE CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ill. ERISA Litigation
TRIBUNE CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit
TRIBUNE CO: Still Faces Suits for Alleged Advertising Overcharge
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Health Insurance Policies
WELLPOINT INC: Resolves Calif. Health Insurance Policies Suits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GREAT AMERICAN: Investors File Securities Suit Over AFG Merger
NEW CENTURY: Dreier LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Dreier LLP Files Securities Lawsuit in Mo.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Mo. Securities Fraud Suit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Yourman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing

QUANTA CAPITAL: Brualdi Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.


                           *********


3M CO: 2007 Hearing Set for Cottage Grove, Minn. Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative 2007 hearing is scheduled for the purported class
action pending in the District Court of Washington County,
Minnesota against 3M Co. over perflourooctanyl contamination.

Two residents of Washington County, Minnesota, filed in October
2004, a purported class action on behalf of Washington county
residents whose properties were allegedly harmed and who have
allegedly suffered personal injury from emissions from the
company's former perfluorooctanyl production facility at Cottage
Grove, Minnesota.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per
plaintiff and class member.   After the District Court granted
the company's motion to dismiss the claims for medical
monitoring and public nuisance in April 2005, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations
involving other perfluoronated compounds manufactured by the
company.  

The amended complaint is alleging additional legal theories in
support of their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking
relief based on alleged contamination of the City of Oakdale
municipal water supply and certain private wells in the vicinity
of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding two additional plaintiffs.  The two original plaintiffs
thereafter dismissed their claims against the company.

Plaintiffs' counsel has amended their definition of the
purported class.  The current (and fourth) definition includes
all individuals whose residential drinking water in Minnesota is
or has been supplied by one or more wells containing one or more
carboxylated perfluorochemicals at a concentration exceeding 1.0
part per billion, or containing one or more sulfonated
perfluorochemicals at a concentration exceeding 0.6 part per
billion.

Pretrial proceedings are in progress and the court has scheduled
a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the action as a class
action for the spring of 2007.

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.

3M Co. on the Net: http://www.mmm.com/.


3M CO: Amended Complaint Filed in Decatur, Ala. Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class action filed
against 3M Co. in an Alabama state court over alleged
perflourooctanyl pollution, 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.

A former employee filed one of the suits in 2002 in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama.  It seeks unstated compensatory
and punitive damages and alleges that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, sub-clinical injuries and property damage
from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemical at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.  

The complaint also alleges that the company acted improperly
with respect to disclosures to workers concerning such chemical.  

The court in 2005 granted the company's motion to dismiss the
named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis
that the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act bar such claims.  

Plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006,
limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
granted the company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the action described above filed in the
same court in 2002.

The second suit was filed by three residents of Morgan County,
Alabama seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages
involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly produced those compounds.

3M Co. on the Net: http://www.mmm.com/.


3M CO: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Lawsuit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. remains a defendant in a purported age discrimination
class action pending in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The suit alleges that 3M violated New Jersey's Law Against
Discrimination by policies, practices and patterns of decisions
related to performance appraisals, training, promotion, pay and
termination that discriminate against employees over the age of
45.  It is anticipated that the class will include about 100
current and former salaried exempt and non-exempt employees.  

On Nov. 2, 2005, John Pinkowski, a 3M employee, filed the suit
against his employer in the Superior Court of Essex County, New
Jersey on behalf of a class of New Jersey-based employees of the
company.  

On Dec. 2, 2005, the company filed a Notice of Removal and the
case was transferred to federal court in New Jersey.  The
company then filed its answer to the complaint on Dec. 23, 2005.

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 Pinkowski Complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?5da

The suit is "Pinkowski v. 3M Co., Case No. 2:05-cv-05668-KSH-
PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.  

Representing the plaintiff is Bennet Dann Zurofsky of Reitman
Parsonnet, 744 Broad Street, Suite 1807, Newark, NJ 07102,
Phone: (973) 642-0885, E-mail: bzurofsky@reitpar.com, Web site:
http://www.sprengerlang.com/cases/case-list/3m/about/#NJ.  

Representing the defendants are Michael T. Bissinger, Pitney
Hardin and Gregory C. Parliman of Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch,
LLP, Phone: (973) 966-6300 and 973-966-8401, E-mail:
mbissinger@pitneyhardin.com, acastronovo@pitneyhardin.com and
gparliman@pitneyhardin.com.


3M CO: Claim Dismissed in Minn. Age Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
One claim has been dismissed in an age discrimination class
action that was filed in the District Court of Ramsey County in
Minnesota against 3M Co., 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.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of
all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M
Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46 or
older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the court.

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."  

It also alleges that the company disproportionately selects
younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six
Sigma" (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2004).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs suffered
various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age
in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  It seeks
injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory -- up to triple
actual damages -- and punitive damages in excess of $50,000,
including back and front pay and attorneys' fees.  

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

3M Co. on the Net: http://www.mmm.com/.


3M CO: Still Faces Suit Related to Alleged Pollution at ACME
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. and a number of other companies that allegedly were
customers of ACME Barrel Co. remain as defendants in a purported
class action filed in Illinois over ACME Barrel's storage drum
reconditioning facility, according to 3M's Feb. 23 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Several hundred plaintiffs who claim to have lived in the
vicinity of the ACME Barrel's facility in Chicago, Illinois,
filed the lawsuit in the third quarter of 2003 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for personal injuries
allegedly caused by the plaintiffs' exposure to chemicals
migrating from ACME Barrel's drum reconditioning operations.  It
also asserts that a class should be certified on behalf of all
persons similarly situated.  

3M Co. on the Net: http://www.mmm.com/.


AMERADA HESS: April Hearing Set for $9M Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on April 16, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Amerada
Hess Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-03359-JAG-
MCA."

Generally, the suit alleged that defendants sold shares of the
company's common stock in advance of its acquisition of Triton
Energy Ltd. (Triton) in 2001 in violation of federal securities
laws.  

The settlement covers all persons who purchased Amerada Hess
CORP. (now known as Hess Corp.) common stock during the period
beginning Feb. 14, 2001 through July 11, 2001.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before April
2, 2007.  Claims forms must be submitted on or before May 21,
2007.

The settlement hearing will be held before the Judge Peter G.
Sheridan, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey, at the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Hess Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator c/o
         Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA  94977-
         5100, Phone: 415-461-0410, E-mail:
         classact@gilardi.com; and
     (2) Keith F. Park and Arthur C. Leahy of Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway,
         Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4297, (San
         Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax:
         619-231-7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Face AWP Litigation in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Non-jury trial in a consolidated suit relating to the pricing of
drugs by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is currently ongoing for
certified classes of insurance companies and health and welfare
funds in Massachusetts.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, together with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, remains a defendant in private
class actions, as well as suits brought by the Attorneys General
of several states and by numerous New York Counties and the City
of New York relating to the pricing of the company's products.  
The suits are pending in federal and state courts.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege defendants caused the
Average Wholesale Prices of their products to be inflated,
thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who
reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs.

The federal cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes under
the caption, "In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456," in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

The pleadings in the private class action have been amended over
the course of the AWP MDL in response to the court's rulings on
both class certification and merits issues.

The court in the AWP MDL has certified three classes of persons
and entities who paid for or reimbursed for seven of the
company's physician-administered drugs.  

The non-jury trial for Classes 2 and 3 (insurance companies and
health and welfare funds in Massachusetts) commenced November
2006 and is currently ongoing, according to the company's Feb.
26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  A trial
date for the claims of Class 1 (Medicare Part B beneficiaries
nationwide) has not yet been set for the company.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. on the Net: http://www.bms.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces N.J. Consumer Fraud Litigation Over PLAVIX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. was named a defendant in a purported
consumer fraud class action over its PLAVIX drug, according to
the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Nov. 3, 2006, defendants were served with a purported class
action complaint, subsequently amended to include various Sanofi
entities, and captioned, "Skilstaf, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., et al., Case No. 3:06 CV 04965."

The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the safety
and effectiveness of PLAVIX, both alone and in combination with
aspirin, and that third-party payors were misled, causing them
to pay more for PLAVIX prescriptions for their insureds,
compared to lower cost alternatives.  

Plaintiffs assert, among other things, violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.  

The suit is "Skilstaf, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-04965-FLW-TJB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L.
Wolfson with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiff is Michele Anne Dimartino of Miller &
Associates, 555 East City Avenue, Suite 910, Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004, US, Phone: (610) 660-0622, E-mail:
mdimartino@doctoratlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Michael A. Tanenbaum of Sedgwick
Detert Moran & Arnold, Esqs., One Gateway Center, Eleventh
Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 242-0002, E-mail:
michael.tanenbaum@sdma.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Mo. Court Dismisses "Channel-Stuffing" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
dismissed a purported class filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. over alleged improper "channel-stuffing" agreements with D&K
Health Care Resources, Inc.

On Nov. 18, 2004, the class action complaint was filed against
the company, D&K, and several current and former D&K directors
and officers on behalf of purchasers of D&K stock between Aug.
10, 2000 and Sept. 16, 2002.

The complaint alleged the company participated in fraudulently
inflating the value of D&K stock by engaging in improper
"channel-stuffing" agreements with D&K.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss this case on Jan. 28,
2005.  In June 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Plaintiff's time to appeal the decision, if any such appeal is
lodged, will begin to run when the litigation against D&K and
its officers and directors is finally resolved.  

The suit is "Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00147-SNL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of the Eastern District of Missouri
under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William S. Lerach of Lerach & Coughlin, LLP, 655 West
         Broadway, Phone: Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
         Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         billl@lcsr.com; and

     (2) Guri Ademi of Ademi and O'reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton
         Avenue, Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax:
         414-482-8001.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jessica R. Buturla and Evan R. Chesler of Cravath,
         Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide
         Plaza, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax:
         212-474-3700, E-mail: jbuturla@cravath.com and
         echesler@cravath.com; and

    (ii) Glenn E. Davis Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, One
         Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO 63102-
         2740, Phone: 314-621-5070, Fax: 314-612-2241, E-mail:
         gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Ohio Court Mulls Transfer of PLAVIX Suits to N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on a motion to transfer to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York two consolidated PLAVIX
antitrust class actions filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and
purported class actions have been filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Ohio by various
plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains (individually and as
assignees, in whole or in part, of certain wholesalers), various
health and welfare benefit plans/funds and individual residents
of various states, since the announcement of a proposed
settlement with Apotex Corp. in March 2006 of the pending PLAVIX
patent litigation, which failed to receive the required
antitrust clearances.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Apotex
settlement violates the Sherman Act and related laws.  They are
seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive relief barring
the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers have been
consolidated under the caption, "In re: Plavix Direct Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation," and the class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers have been consolidated under the caption,
"In re: Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation."

Amended complaints have been filed in each of the consolidated
class actions and in the individual actions.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the companies filed a motion to transfer all 18
lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, where the Apotex matter and similar PLAVIX-related
patent infringement cases are pending.

The motion is still pending before the court.  The court also
will be considering whether to stay the litigation pending the
outcome of the patent infringement litigation, according to the
company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. on the Net: http://www.bms.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Parties File Dismissal Stipulation for "Starkman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and the plaintiff in a purported
securities fraud class action against the company have submitted
a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice for the case.

On Sept. 21, 2005, certain of the company's current and former
officers were named in the purported class action, which was
originally filed in New York State Supreme Court.  

The suit asserted common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
claims on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's
stock before Oct. 19, 1999 and held their stock through March
10, 2003.

On Oct. 7, 2005, the company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In
November 2005, the plaintiff moved to remand the matter to state
court.

The matter was stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court, in March
2006, entered its decision in another case, which held that
holder class actions asserting securities fraud claims under
state law, like "Starkman," are preempted under federal law.

Following oral argument, the court denied plaintiff's motion to
remand in September 2006.  On Nov. 8, 2006, the company and the
plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal (without
prejudice), which was approved by the court, according to the
company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Starkman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-08604-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lawrence Walner of Lawrence
Walner & Associates, Ltd., 150 North Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL
60606, Phone: (312) 201-1616.

Representing the defendants are Evan R. Chesler and Elizabeth L.
Grayer of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-
mail: echesler@cravath.com and egrayer@cravath.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Calif. PHSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of a purported class
action filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. over its pricing
of drugs under Section 340B of the Public Health Services Act
(PHSA).

PHSA requires prescription drug manufacturers to offer discounts
to qualified medical providers generally those who
disproportionately service poor people.

The case, filed in a California court, alleged that the company
and other counties and cities in the state have had to provide
more financing to local hospitals than otherwise would have been
necessary had the company and the other defendants provided the
appropriate discounts.

In July 2006, an order was entered dismissing the California
case with prejudice.  Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal,
according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. on the Net: http://www.bms.com.


CONAGRA INC: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Contaminated Peanut Butter
--------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action was filed against the international
food conglomerate ConAgra, Inc. in the U.S. District Court in
Rome, Georgia.

The lawsuit was filed in behalf of named plaintiffs Grady and
Francis Ware of Chatsworth, Georgia, and Ricky Bunn of
Nashville, Tennessee.  The Wares and Mr. Bunn allege that they
were infected with Salmonella Tennessee from eating Peter Pan
brand peanut butter produced by ConAgra.

They filed a motion seeking an order from the court to require
ConAgra to preserve all evidence related to the contamination
and recall.

The Center for Disease Control has reported that over 370 cases
of Salmonella poisoning are known to have occurred from
contaminated Peter Pan or Great Value peanut butter produced by
ConAgra, with at least 51 persons requiring hospitalization.

"My wife and I both were really sick from eating this peanut
butter that we thought was fine to eat.  We hope nobody ever has
to go through anything like this," said Grady Ware.  "We had
diarrhea so bad that we both had to be in the hospital for two
days and I still feel sick over a week later.  I won't ever eat
peanut butter again, but I hope this lawsuit will make ConAgra
make sure that all of its food products are safe for others."

Kathryn E. Barnett, counsel for plaintiffs, advised, "If you
have suffered symptoms of contaminated peanut butter do not
discard the evidence; instead mark the peanut butter with 'Do
Not Eat' or 'Contaminated' and make certain the jar is stored in
safe place that is beyond the reach of children.  The peanut
butter can be tested for the presence of Salmonella."

"All the of contaminated peanut butter was manufactured and
packaged in a single location, ConAgra's plant in Sylvester,
Georgia, which is why we filed this lawsuit in Federal court in
Georgia," stated Clay Jenkins, co-counsel for plaintiffs, and
the lawyer who filed the first suit in the country.

"The same peanut butter from the same plant caused the harm.  In
proceeding with this class action we will strive to protect the
individual rights of all consumers stricken by the Salmonella
outbreak while resolving the claims in a more efficient and
expeditious manner."

"Salmonella poisoning causes fever, diarrhea, severe stomach
cramps and can be life threatening persons with weakened immune
systems or seniors like the Wares," stated Robert Smalley of
Dalton, Georgia, co-counsel for plaintiffs.  "ConAgra should be
a responsible corporate citizen and promptly agree to pay the
medical expenses and compensate all people stricken by
Salmonella poisoning after eating its peanut butter."

Consumers stricken by Salmonella poisoning who wish to learn
more about the lawsuit and report their experiences to
plaintiffs' counsel should visit
http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.comor contact injury  
attorney Kathryn E. Barnett toll free at 1-866-313-1973.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kathryn E. Barnett of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
         Bernstein, LLP, One Nashville Place, 150 Fourth Ave. N.
         Ste.1650, Nashville, TN 37219-2415, Phone: (615) 313-
         9000, Fax: (615) 313-9965;

     (2) Clay B. Jenkins of the Jenkins Law Office, 45 East
         Loucks, Suite 208, Sheridan, WY 82801-6330, Phone:
         (307) 674-8847, Fax: (307) 674-7333, Web site:
         http://clayjenkinslaw.lawoffice.com;and

     (3) Robert H. Smalley III of McCamy, Phillips, Tuggle &
         Fordham, LLP, 411 West Crawford St., Dalton, GA 30722-
         1105, Phone: (706) 278-4499, Fax: (706) 278-5002.


DIRECT GENERAL: Settles Tenn. Securities Fraud Suit for $14.94M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Direct General Corp. (Nasdaq: DRCT) entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle a consolidated securities class action
filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division.

The stipulated settlement amount is $14.94 million, which is
apportioned to the defendants, and the plaintiffs agree to
dismiss with prejudice all claims against all defendants to the
action.

Four putative class actions were initially filed against the
company between Jan. 31, 2005 and Feb. 8, 2005.  In each of
these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the company and
certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading
statements with respect to liabilities that had been recorded
for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses.  

Plaintiffs allege that the company's reported results did not
fairly and adequately represent its financial position, that
certain legislation in Florida which became effective in October
2003 negatively impacted the company's business and increased
its liability and risk of litigation and that the company failed
to adequately strengthen its loss reserves to account for this
increased risk.
   
The lawsuits further allege that certain officers and directors
sold shares of Company stock while they knew of the negative
impact of the change but before it was publicly released.  The
plaintiffs in the case seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of company stock during a class period to be
determined and attorneys' fees on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated.

These cases have been consolidated and lead plaintiffs have been
appointed.  Lead plaintiffs allege that the company and certain
of its officers and directors made false and misleading
statements with respect to liabilities that had been recorded
for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 12, 2005).  Lead plaintiffs assert claims under
the U.s. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933.

Lead plaintiffs generally contend that the company and certain
of its officers and directors knew that certain legislation in
Florida, which became effective in October 2003, would
necessarily negatively impact its business by increasing its
liability and risk of litigation and that the company failed to
timely strengthen its loss reserves to account for this alleged
known increased future risk.

Lead plaintiffs further assert that certain officers and
directors sold shares of Company stock while they were aware of
the allegedly known future negative impact of the legislation,
but before the reserves were strengthened.  Lead plaintiffs seek
to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of company stock
during a class period to be determined and attorneys' fees.

The memorandum of understanding is subject to several
conditions, including approval by the court.  The parties to the
action intend to submit a stipulation of settlement to the court
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.

The suit is "In Re: Direct General Corp. Securities Litigation
case no. 3:05-cv-00077," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Todd J. Campbell.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, X. Jay Alvarez, Brian O. O'mara, Darren  
         J. Robbins of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman &  
         Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA  
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:  
         ramzia@lerachlaw.com, jaya@lerachlaw.com,  
         briano@lerachlaw.com;   

     (2) Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, Bank of America Center,  
         550 Main Avenue, Suite 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone:  
         (865) 525-7028; and   

     (3) Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,  
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis,  
         MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900.  


DRAM LITIGATION: April 18 Hearing Set for $143.25M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on April 18, 2007 for the proposed
$143,247,000 settlement with certain defendants in the matter,
"In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, Master
Files No. M-02-1486 PJH (JCS), MDL No. 1486."

The settlement, which is in relation to all direct purchaser
actions, covers all persons or entities that directly purchased
DRAM in the U.S. from the defendants during the period of APRIL
1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.  Any objections to the settlement
must be made on or before March 26, 2007.

The settling defendants are:

      -- Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.;

      -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.;

      -- Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics
         Corporation America; and

      -- Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor
         Products, Inc. through its Crucial Technology division.

These are the second group of settlements reached in this
litigation, which will continue against the remaining
defendants.  

The court has granted final approval to the first group of
settlements with

      -- Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies
         North America Corp.;

      -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; and

      -- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor
         America, Inc.

                         Case Background

Plaintiffs in the suits generally allege that defendants
unlawfully agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of DRAM and/or to allocate among themselves major
customers and accounts in violation of the federal antitrust
laws during the period of April 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.

They also allege that, as a result of defendants' unlawful
conduct, they and members of the class paid more for DRAM than
they would have in the absence of defendants' wrongful conduct.

Defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations and have asserted
numerous affirmative defenses.  On June 5, 2006, the court
certified the class described above.

For more details, contact:

     (1) DRAM Antitrust Litigation c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
         P.O. Box 24657, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 866-
         483-9938, E-mail: dram@rustconsulting.com, Web site:
         http://www.dramantitrustsettlement.com;

     (2) Guido Saveri and R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri &
         Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 217-6810, Phone:
         (415) 217-6813;

     (3) Fred Taylor Isquith Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600, Fax: (212) 545-4653; and

     (4) Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Dismissed Calif. Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud complaint against
Gilead Sciences, Inc. are appealing the dismissal of the case by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in
its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint associated with a purported class action against:

     -- Gilead, and
     -- the company's
        * chief executive officer,
        * chief financial officer,
        * former executive vice president of operations,
        * executive vice president of research and development,
        * senior vice president of manufacturing, and
        * senior vice president of research,

alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, by making certain
alleged false and misleading statements.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal.

The company reported no development in the case at its 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 Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case  
No. 03-CV-4999."  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:  

     (1) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite  
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:  
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;  

     (2) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), 100  
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,  
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:  
         info@kaplanfox.com;   

     (3) Lori G. Feldman and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss  
         Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 206-839-0730 and 212-  
         594-5300, Fax: 206-839-0728 and 212-868-1229, E-mail:  
         lfeldman@milberg.com and sschulman@milbergweiss.com;  

     (4) Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275  
         Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:  
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;  

     (5) Jack G. Fruchter of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,  
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone:  
         212-279-5050, Fax: 212-279-3655,  

     (6) David Jude George and Robert Jeffrey Robbins of Lerach  
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins, LLP, 197 South  
         Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432,  
         Phone: (561) 750-3000, Fax: (561) 750-3364, E-mail:  
         dgeorge@lerachlaw.com and rrobbins@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (8) James M. Orman of Law Offices of James M. Orman, 1845  
         Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103,  
         Phone: 215-523-7800,  

Representing the defendants are John C. Dwyer and Grant P.  
Fondo of Cooley Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El  
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650-843-5000, Fax:  
650-857-0663, E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com and gfondo@cooley.com.


GROUP 1: Tex. Antitrust Law Violations Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
A federal court dismissed a class action filed against
subsidiaries of Group 1 Automotive Inc. by Texas dealers
claiming the subsidiaries deceived customers with respect to a
vehicle inventory tax, and violated federal antitrust laws.

The Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and certain new
vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA,
including a number of the company's Texas dealership
subsidiaries, were named in two state court class actions and
one federal court class action.

The three actions alleged that since January 1994, Texas dealers
deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and
violated federal antitrust laws.  In April 2002, the state court
in which two of the actions were pending certified classes of
consumers and the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's order of class certifications in October 2002.

The defendants requested that the Texas Supreme Court review
that decision, and the Court declined that request on March 26,
2004.  The defendants petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to
reconsider its denial, and that petition was denied on Sept. 10,
2004.

In the federal antitrust action, in March 2003, the federal
district court also certified a class of consumers.  Defendants
appealed the district court's certification to the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals, which on Oct. 5, 2004, reversed the class
certification order and remanded the case back to the federal
district court for further proceedings.

In February 2005, the plaintiffs in the federal action sought a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain
review of the 5th Circuit's order, which request the Court
denied.  In June 2005, the company's Texas dealerships and
certain other defendants in the lawsuits entered settlements
with the plaintiffs in each of the cases.

The settlement of the state court actions was approved by the
state court in August 2006.  The court dismissed the state court
actions in October 2006.  

As a result of that settlement, the state court certified a
settlement class of certain Texas automobile purchasers.  
Dealers participating in the settlement, including all of the
company's Texas dealership subsidiaries, agreed to issue
certificates for discounts off future vehicle purchases, refund
cash in some circumstances, pay attorneys' fees, and make
certain disclosures regarding inventory tax charges when
itemizing such charges on customer invoices.

In addition, participating dealers have funded certain costs of
the settlement, including costs associated with notice of the
settlement to the class members.  The federal action did not
involve the certification of any additional classes.

The federal court action was dismissed Dec. 29, 2006.  The
company paid the remaining expenses of its portion of the
settlements in December 2006, which were approximately $1.1
million.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: No Ruling Yet in Wis. Cam Bearing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has yet to rule on a motion by
Harley-Davidson, Inc. to review a ruling in a consumer class
action filed against it over its 1999 and early-2000 model year
Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin
Cam 88B engines.  

In January 2001, the company, on its own initiative, notified
each owner of 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson
motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines
that the company was extending the warranty for a rear cam
bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.  

Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class
action was filed against the company in state court in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, which was amended by a complaint filed Sept.
28, 2001.  The complaint alleged that this cam bearing is
defective and asserted various legal theories.  

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for affected owners, an order compelling the company to
repair the engines and other relief.  On Feb. 27, 2002, the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted by
the court and the amended complaint was dismissed in its
entirety.  An appeal was filed with the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals.  

On April 12, 2002, the same attorneys filed a second putative
nationwide class action against the company in state court in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue
and asserting different legal theories than in the first action.  
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, an order
compelling the company to repair the engines and other relief.

On Sept. 23, 2002, the company's motion to dismiss was granted
by the court, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and
no appeal was taken.  

On Jan. 14, 2003, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's Feb. 27, 2002 dismissal of the complaint in the
first action, and the company petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme
Court for review.  

On March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the
Court of Appeals and dismissed the remaining claims in the
action.  On April 12, 2004, the same attorneys filed a third
action in the state court in Milwaukee County, on behalf of the
same plaintiffs from the action dismissed by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.  This third action was dismissed by the court on
July 26, 2004.  

In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to reopen
that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes of action.  
On Sept. 9, 2004, Milwaukee County Circuit Court refused to
allow the reopening or amendment.  Plaintiffs again appealed to
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and on Dec. 13, 2005, the Court
of Appeals again reversed the trial court.  

On Jan. 12, 2006, the company filed a petition for review with
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Oral arguments were heard on Sept.
7, 2006 and the company is awaiting a decision from the court.  

The company believes that the 5-year/50,000 mile warranty
extension it announced in January 2001 adequately addressed the
condition for affected owners, and the company intends to
continue to vigorously defend this matter.

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


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Faces Security Breach Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York against Harley-Davidson, Inc. and the Harley
Owners Group on Jan. 22, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that the company was negligent in failing
to properly safeguard, protect and keep confidential the
personal "Customer Identifiable Information" that was stored on
a company laptop computer that was lost on or about Aug. 14,
2006.  

The complaint also alleges that Harley-Davidson breached
fiduciary duties and made false and fraudulent representations
and warranties to its customers that it would keep confidential
and safeguard and protect the personal customer information in
its possession.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages.  The company believes
the allegations in the lawsuit are without merit and it intends
to vigorously defend against them.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Investors Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson, Inc. and certain of its officers filed a motion
to dismiss in its entirety a consolidated federal derivative,
securities and Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violations suit filed against them.

A number of shareholder class actions were filed between May 18,
2005 and July 1, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.  On Feb. 14, 2006, the court consolidated
all of the actions into a single case, captioned "In re Harley-
Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the
lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
which names the company and Jeffrey L. Bleustein, James L.
Ziemer, and James M. Brostowitz, who are company officers, as
defendants.  

The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
April 13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term
production growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments
from 317,000 units in 2004 to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units
(compared to its original target of 339,000 units).  

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety.  Briefing of the motion
to dismiss is anticipated to be completed in April 2007.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Raymond  
Kadagian, et al. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-  
CV-00547," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Wisconsin under Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 W Broadway - Ste. 1900, San  
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-  
         7423; and   

     (2) Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton   
         Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-  
         482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com.    

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Sari M. Alamuddin of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77
         W.  Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         312-324-1158, Fax: 312-324-1001, E-mail:  
         salamuddin@morganlewis.com; and  

     (2) Nancy J. Sennett of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 777 E.   
         Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300, Phone: 414-  
         297-5522, Fax: 414-297-4900, E-mail:   
         nsennett@foley.com.  


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Files Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a class action alleging Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations by Harley-Davidson, Inc. and certain of
its officers filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in its entirety.  

On Aug. 25, 2005, a class action alleging violations of ERISA
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.  

As noted above, on Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered the ERISA
action consolidated with the federal derivative and securities
actions for administrative purposes.  

Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the
ERISA plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which
named as defendants:

     * the company,
     * the Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Retirement Plans Committee,
     * the company's Leadership and Strategy Council, and

current or former company officers or employees:

     * Harold A. Scott,
     * James L. Ziemer,
     * James M. Brostowitz,
     * Gail A. Lione,
     * Joanne M. Bischmann,
     * Karl M. Eberle,
     * Jon R. Flickinger,
     * Ronald M. Hutchinson,
     * James A. McCaslin,
     * W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr., and
     * Donna F. Zarcone.

In general, the ERISA complaint includes factual allegations
similar to those in shareholder class actions filed against the
company and alleges on behalf of participants in certain Harley-
Davidson retirement savings plans that the plan fiduciaries
breached their ERISA fiduciary duties.  

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
ERISA complaint in its entirety.  Briefing of the motion to
dismiss is anticipated to be completed in April 2007.

The suit is "Bosman v. Harley-Davidson Inc., et al., Case No.   
2:05-cv-00912-CNC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Charles N. Clevert,   
Jr.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Noah M. Golden-Krasner of Law Offices of Noah Golden-  
         Krasner, 354 W. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, Phone:   
         608-441-8924, Fax: 608-442-9494, E-mail:   
         noah@mainstreetjustice.com;

     (2) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 5th Ave. -   
         3rd Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-983-1300; and  

     (3) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &   
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave. - 10th Fl., New York, NY   
         10016, Phone: 212-545-4762, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-mail:  
         rifkin@whafh.com.  

Representing the defendants are:   

     (i) Charles C. Jackson of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77   
         W. Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-  
         324-1156, Fax: 312-324-1001, E-mail:   
         charles.jackson@morganlewis.com; and   

    (ii) Nancy J. Sennett and Rebecca E. Wickhem of Foley &   
         Lardner, LLP, 777 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI   
         53202-5300, Phone: 414-297-5522 and 414-297-5681, Fax:   
         414-297-4900 and 414-297-4900, E-mail:   
         nsennett@foley.com and rwickhem@foley.com.


KING MILL: Parent Settles Suit Over Pension Fund for $600,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Mill's parent company Spartan International Inc. reached a
settlement with King Mill employees who filed a class action to
get access to their retirement fund, The Augusta Chronicle
(Georgia) reports.  The account held $1.6 million in long-term
disability funds.

Court documents were filed last week announcing the $600,000
settlement with workers laid off when the mill abruptly closed
in 2001 after Spartan was forced into bankruptcy.

The settlement was reached through mediation.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys are to receive $150,000 in fees and $15,000 for
expenses.  The attorneys are John Long, James T. Wilson Jr., Jay
M. Sawilowsky and Louis Saul.

King Mill was reopened after Cincinnati-based Standard Textile
Co. bought it for $4.1 million.


LENOVO INC: Recalls Batteries for ThinkPad Notebook PCs
-------------------------------------------------------
Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 100,000 battery packs, with an additional
105,000 battery packs sold worldwide that were manufactured by
Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd. of Japan.

The company said if the battery in the laptop is struck
forcefully on the corner, such as from a direct fall to the
ground, the battery pack can overheat and pose a fire hazard to
users.  This is not an internal battery cell defect.

Lenovo has received four reports of batteries overheating and
damaging the notebook.  This caused damage to the notebook
computers, minor property damage and, in one case, minor eye
irritation to one consumer.

Lenovo sold these extended-life batteries with new ThinkPad
notebook PCs or as optional or replacement batteries for the
following ThinkPad notebook models: R Series (R60 and R60e), T
Series (T60 and T60p) and Z Series (Z60m, Z61e, Z61m, and Z61p).  
The recalled 9-cell batteries have the following part number,
which can be found on the battery label: FRU P/N 92P1131.

These recalled battery packs were manufactured in China and are
being sold through Lenovo's Web sites, telephone and direct
sales, and Lenovo authorized distributors nationwide between
November 2005 and February 2007, as an accessory for about $180,
and as part of a ThinkPad notebook computer for between $750 and
$3,500.

Picture of recalled battery packs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07118.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled batteries and
contact Lenovo for additional information and to receive a free
replacement battery.  Consumers should use only ThinkPad
batteries obtained from either Lenovo or an authorized reseller.

Customers should contact Lenovo at (800) 426-7378 anytime, or
log on to http://www.lenovo.com/batteryprogramto determine if  
the battery is part of the recall and to order a replacement
battery.

Note: In September 2006, Lenovo conducted a recall of batteries
manufactured by another firm for a different problem.


NOBLE ENERGY: Settles Colo. Litigation Over Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in two class actions filed in the
District Court for Weld County, Colorado against Noble Energy,
Inc., and Patina Oil & Gas Corp.  Patina Oil previously merged
with Noble Energy.

                        Holman Litigation

One of the class actions is "Jack Holman, et al. v. Patina Oil &
Gas Corp., Case No. 03-CV-09," which was initially filed in
January 2003.  

Plaintiff sought to certify the case as a class action based
upon the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in "Rogers v. Westerman
Farm Co."  The suit alleges that the company had improperly
deducted certain costs in connection with its calculation of
royalty payments relating to its Colorado operations.  

Essentially, the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in
"Rogers," back in July 2001 resulted in uncertainty regarding
the deductibility of certain post-production costs from payments
to be made to royalty interest owners.

In May 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint narrowing
the class of potential plaintiffs, and thereafter filed a motion
seeking to certify the narrowed class as described in the
amended complaint.   

The class certification motion was heard on Sept. 22, 2005 and
granted on Oct. 13, 2005.  The Colorado Supreme Court denied the
defendant's petition for review on Nov. 23, 2005.  The matter
has been set for trial scheduled to commence April 24, 2007.

                        Wardell Litigation

In October 2006, the company received service in an additional
lawsuit, "Wardell Family Partnership and Glen Droegemueller v.
Noble Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-CV-734," which was filed
in District Court, Weld County, Colorado, involving royalty and
overriding royalty interest owners in the same field and not a
member of the "Holman" class.

Plaintiffs sought to certify the lawsuit as a class action and
allegations were made of a similar nature as the "Holman"
lawsuit.  An answer was timely filed.  

Through a mediation process, the company and the attorneys
representing the "Holman" class, and "Wardell" putative class
have entered into an agreement in principle to settle both
cases, and the April 24, 2007 trial date in "Holman" has been
vacated.  

Such a settlement will have to be approved by the court with
notice of the settlement going to all members of the "Holman"
class, and "Wardell" putative class.

Noble Energy, Inc. in the Net: http://www.nobleenergyinc.com/.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Ends April 2
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, reminds all persons
and institutions who purchased the common stock of Powerwave
Technologies Inc. between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006,
inclusive of the April 2, 2007 deadline for lead plaintiff
appointment.

Earlier, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Powerwave
Technologies (Nasdaq:PWAV) (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7,
2007).

The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of the company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements concerning Powerwave's
operations and financial performance caused the company's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors.  Powerwave supplies wireless solutions for wireless
communications networks worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public and misrepresented or failed to disclose adverse facts,
including:

     (i) problems with the implementation of the company's
         Enterprise Resource Planning system;

    (ii) that defendants had overstated Powerwave's
         profitability and understated the company's expenses
         and acquisition and integration costs;

   (iii) that the company did not have an adequate system of
         internal operational or financial controls; and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing problems, among other
         things, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim
         that the company was operating according to plan or
         that Powerwave could achieve the guidance issued and/or
         endorsed by defendants.

As a result, defendants' class period statements concerning
Powerwave's operations, financial performance, and internal
controls were materially false and misleading.

On Oct. 9, 2006, Powerwave issued a press release announcing
preliminary financial results for third quarter 2006.  The press
release announced that the company expected revenue for the
quarter to be in the range of $155-$160 million -- approximately
$50 million below the company's previous revenue guidance for
the quarter.

This news shocked the market, causing shares of Powerwave to
plummet that same day by 17.7%, or $1.38 per share, to close on
Oct. 9, 2006 at $6.41 per share -- nearly $9.00 below the Class
Period high of $15.33, which was before disclosure of the
company's problems.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

For more information, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael
Goldberg, both of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA,
Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com, Website: http://www.glancylaw.com.


PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Settles Nev. Securities Litigation for $2.8M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikohn Gaming Corp., d/b/a Progressive Gaming International  
Corp., reached an agreement to settle a consolidated securities
class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.

The case, "In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ," has been pending since November
2005.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agree to
dismiss with prejudice all claims against all defendants,
including the company and its current and former officers and
directors, in exchange for a payment in the amount of $2.8
million, virtually all of which is being provided pursuant to
the company's insurance coverage.  Substantially all of the
company's costs related to the litigation will be reflected in
the financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Also under the terms of the settlement, all defendants continue
to deny any wrongdoing, and the parties agree that the
settlement is not to be deemed an admission of the validity of
any of the plaintiffs' claims.

The settlement is contingent on the satisfaction of several
conditions, including the completion by the plaintiffs of
limited confirmatory discovery and approval by the court
following notice to class members.

Commencing on Nov. 28, 2005, four similar purported class action
complaints were filed, naming the company and two of its
officers as defendants, and seeking unspecified money damages
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The complaints all alleged that during a class period beginning
in early 2005 and ending on Oct. 19, 2005, the defendants misled
the company's investors concerning the company's financial
condition, specifically the prospective application of Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards 153 to the company's financial
statements for the third quarter of 2005.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action, and
a consolidated amended complaint was filed on or about April 13,
2006.  

The amended complaint names additional defendants who are one of
the company's vice presidents and four members of its board of
directors.

"We are gratified to put this lawsuit behind us," said Rob
Ziems, Executive Vice President and General Counsel.  "While we
have always been confident that we would prevail if the case
were brought to trial, this settlement removes the burden and
uncertainties associated with ongoing litigation, and for that
reason is in the best interest of our shareholders."

The suit is "In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with
referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Albright of Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright,
         801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4, Las Vegas, NV 89106,
         Phone: (702) 384-7111, Fax: (702) 384-0605, E-mail:
         gma@albrightstoddard.com;

     (2) Ike L. Epstein of Beckley Singleton, Chtd., 530 Las  
         Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, E-mail:
         ecf@beckleylaw.com;

    (3) Joni S. Jacobs of McCracken, Stemerman, Bowen &
        Holsberry, 1630 S. Commerce St., Suite A-1, Las Vegas,  
        NV 89102, E-mail: jjacobs@dcbwash.com; and  

    (4) Maya Saxena of Saxena White, P.A., 5200 Town Center  
        Circle, Tower One, Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486,
        US, Phone: (954) 701-3965, Fax: (888) 782-3081, E-mail:
        msaxena@saxenawhite.com.


REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Suit in Calif. for Alleged FATA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Cinemas, Inc., faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Transaction Act (FATA), for
allegedly printing expiration dates and credit card numbers on
customer receipts, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2006.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, under the caption, "Bateman, et
al. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. and United Artists Theatre Circuit,
Inc., et al."  It seeks to represent a class of individuals
allegedly harmed by the alleged practice.  

The complaint seeks actual damages and/or statutory damages of
at least one hundred dollars or up to one thousand dollars per
violation, and attorney fees and costs.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing the plaintiffs are Gregory N. Karasik and Ira Spiro
of Spiro Moss Barness, 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, E-mail:
greg@spirmoss.com and ira@spiromoss.com.

Representing the defendants is David E. Novitski of Thelen Reid
Brown Raymans and Steiner, 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900,
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048, Phone: 213-576-8097, Fax: 213-576-
8080.


SOUTHERN CO: Claims Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against The
Southern Co. in relation to Mirant Corp.'s initial public
offering are seeking reconsideration of the court order
dismissing certain claims in the case.

In November 2002, Southern Co., certain former and current
senior officers of Southern Co., and 12 underwriters of Mirant's
initial public offering were added as defendants in a class
action that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against
Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002.

Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were
consolidated into this litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  The amended complaint is
based on allegations related to alleged improper energy trading
and marketing activities involving the California energy market,
alleged false statements and omissions in Mirant's prospectus
for its initial public offering and in subsequent public
statements by Mirant, and accounting-related issues previously
disclosed by Mirant.

The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant
securities between Sept. 26, 2000 and Sept. 5, 2002.

In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's
alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities
involving the California energy market.  The remaining claims do
not allege any improper trading and marketing activity,
accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the
part of Southern Co. but seek to impose liability on Southern
Co. based on allegations that Southern Co. was a "control
person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date.

Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class
action complaint in September 2003.  Plaintiffs have also filed
a motion for class certification.

During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation
was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery.  Since
Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay
has been lifted.  On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that
portion of its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims based upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and
marketing activities involving the California energy market.

Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the
plaintiffs' motion.  The plaintiffs have also stated that they
intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend
the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted
against Southern Co. in the MC Asset Recovery litigation.

Under certain circumstances, Southern Co. will be obligated
under its bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former
Southern Co. officers who served as directors of Mirant at the
time of its initial public offering through the date of the
spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit.
The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined.

The company reported no development in the case at its 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 Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Abrams, Gustavo Bruckner, Fred Taylor Isquith,  
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, E-
         mail: isquith@whafh.com; and  

     (2) David Andrew Bain, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood &  
         Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II  
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail:  
         dab@classlaw.com or mdc@classlaw.com   

Representing the defendants are, Kirk Quillian, Thomas Edward  
Reilly, Jaime L. Theriort, Christi A. Cannon, Troutman Sanders  
Bank of America Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200  
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216, Phone: 404-885-3000, E-mail:  
kirk.quillian@troutmansanders.com,  
thomas.reilly@troutmansanders.com,   
jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com.


SOUTHERN CO: Settles Suit Over Employees Savings Plan for $15M
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Co. reached agreement to settle for $15 million the
Employee Savings Plan Litigation filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

In June 2004, an employee of a Southern Co. subsidiary filed a
complaint, which was amended in December 2004 and November 2005
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on behalf of a purported class of participants in or
beneficiaries of The Southern Co. Employee Savings Plan at any
time since April 2, 2001 and whose Plan accounts included
investments in Mirant Corp. common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act against defendants Southern Co., Southern Co.
Services, Inc. (SCS), the Employee Savings Plan Committee, the
Pension Fund Investment Review Committee, individual members of
such committees, and the SCS Board of Directors during the
putative class period.

The plaintiff alleges that the various defendants had certain
fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding the Mirant shares
distributed to Southern Co. shareholders in the spin-off and
held in the Mirant Stock Fund in the Plan.

The plaintiff alleges that the various defendants breached
purported fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
adequately determine whether Mirant stock was appropriate to
hold in the Plan and failing to adequately inform Plan
participants that Mirant stock was not an appropriate investment
for their retirement assets based on Mirant's alleged improper
energy trading and accounting practices, mismanagement, and
business conditions.

The plaintiff also alleges that certain defendants failed to
monitor Plan fiduciaries and that certain defendants had
conflicting interests regarding Mirant, which prevented them
from acting solely in the interests of Plan participants and
beneficiaries.  The plaintiff seeks class-wide equitable relief
and an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

On Oct. 4, 2005, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for
certain types of equitable relief, but allowed the remainder of
the ERISA claims to proceed. The defendants filed answers to the
second amended complaint in January 2006 and filed motions for
summary judgment and to stay discovery in February 2006.

In April 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of Southern Co. and
all other defendants in the case.  The plaintiff filed an appeal
of the ruling.  

On Dec. 19, 2006, the parties executed a written settlement term
sheet, to be followed by a formal settlement agreement.  On the
same day, the parties waived oral argument in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, where the case was pending, and
moved to remand the matter to the district court.  The motion
was granted on Dec. 20, 2006.

The settlement term sheet admits no liability and provides for a
payment of $15 million, to be made by the company's insurance
carrier, to the Plan, after deduction of any award for
plaintiff's attorneys fees and certain other expenses if
approved by the district court.  Because the case is a putative
class action, the settlement requires court approval.  The
district court will consider all matters related to the
settlement.  

The suit is "Woods v. Southern Co., et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01912-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.  Representing  
the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Tobias J. Kammer, Cari C. Laufenberg and Derek W.  
         Loeser of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200,  
         Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, E-mail:  
         tkammer@kellerrohrback.com,  
         claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com and  
         dloeser@kellerrohrback.com; and  

     (2) Joseph H. Meltzer of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of  
         Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,  
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com.   

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) James P. Baker of Jones Day, 26th Floor, 555 California  
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-626-3939,  
         Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: jpbaker@jonesday.com; and  
    
    (ii) Bridget Bobick of Troutman Sanders, Bank of America  
         Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200, Atlanta,  
         GA 30308-2216, Phone: 404-885-3000, E-mail:  
         bridget.bobick@troutmansanders.com.


SPEAR & JACKSON: May Hearing Set for $775T Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on May 11, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. for
the proposed $775,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Spear &
Jackson Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-80375-CIV-
MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON."

The settlement covers persons or entities that purchased common
stock of Spear & Jackson, Inc. during the period between Feb. 1,
2002 and April 15, 2004.

The settlement hearing will be held before Judge Linnea R.
Johnson, U.S. Magistrate Judge, at the Southern District of
Florida, West Palm Beach Division, 701 Clematis Street, 3rd
Floor, Courtroom 6, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before April 27, 2007.  Proof of claim forms must be
submitted by July 13, 2007.

                        Case Background

Defendants in the case are Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis
Crowley, and Sherb & Co. LLP.  The lead plaintiffs are Charles
J. Rozenas, First Mirage Inc., Profit Concepts Ltd., Generation
Capital Associates, American Merchant Press, Inc., and Faye
Morgenstern, Trustee of Morningstar Trust.

The settlement arises out of numerous actions that, on or after
April 20, 2004, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Spear & Jackson and certain
of its former officers and directors and affiliates:

      -- "Lee v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., William Fletcher, and
         Dennis Crowley, Case No. 04-80375;"

      -- "Jacobus v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         William Fletcher, Joseph Piscitelli, PNC Tools Holdings
         LLC, and Sherb & Co., LLP, Case No. 04-80393;"

      -- "O'Dell v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., William Fletcher, and
         Dennis Crowley, Case No. 04-80404;"

      -- "Friedman v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         William Fletcher, and Sherb & Co., LLP, Case No. 04-
         80409;" and

      -- "Rodriguez v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley,
         and William Fletcher, Case No. 04-80419."

These cases were consolidated for all purposes by an order dated
May 18, 2004.  Subsequently, on Nov. 2, 2004, the court affirmed
the appointment of Charles J. Rozenas, First Mirage Inc., Profit
Concepts Ltd., Generation Capital Associates and American
Merchant Press, Inc. (collectively, the High Capital Funding
Group), and Faye Morgenstern, Trustee of Morningstar Trust as
lead plaintiffs pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, and the Law
Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. as co-lead counsel pursuant to
Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Exchange Act.

On Feb. 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder naming as
defendants Spear & Jackson, Inc., Dennis Crowley, William
Fletcher, and Sherb & Co., LLP.  

The consolidated complaint alleges defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in press releases, public
statements, and public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning Spear & Jackson.  

The consolidated complaint further alleges that these
misrepresentations and omissions began on Jan. 30, 2002 and
artificially inflated Spear & Jackson's stock price until the
truth was revealed on April 16, 2004, when the artificial
inflation was removed and Spear & Jackson's shareholders were
damaged.

For more details, contact Spear & Jackson/Celebrity Settlements
c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 24684, West Palm
Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-877-567-4296, E-mail:
SJCelebrityInfo@CompleteClaimSolutions.com, Web site:
http://www.spearjacksoncelebritysettlements.com/.


STATE FARM: No Ruling Yet on Class Status Request in "Guice"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge L.T. Senter of the U.S. District Court of Southern
Mississippi heard on Feb. 28 a suit by Judy Guice, a homeowner
from Ocean Springs, who wants her case certified as a class
action against State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.

Ms. Guice's attorneys told the judge all slab cases that State
Farm denied because of water exclusion in its contract should
become one class action in order to speed up the process.  The
judge issued no ruling after the hearing and did not indicate
when he might, according to WLOX-TV Biloxi.

In 2006, Judge Senter denied class status to the suit filed by
State Farm policyholders claiming full compensation for
Hurricane Katrina damages (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2006).

The suit seeks to represent those policyholders with "slab" or
"foundation only" claims in Harrison, Hancock and Jackson
counties.  It further seeks to represent homeowners in cases in
which a State Farm adjuster requested an engineering report that
the company subsequently cancelled.  

The point in contention in the case is whether water damage is
covered by the insurance policy offered by State Farm.  State
Farm maintains that the water damage exclusion, as well as the
weather conditions provision, unambiguously bar coverage caused
by a combination of wind and water.  Plaintiff argues that since
she suffered a total loss to her home, caused in part by wind,
then State Farm is liable for the full policy limits
notwithstanding the fact that water damage is excluded from
coverage.

Plaintiff is asking more than $1 million over the loss of her
home.

The suit is "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00001-LTS-RHW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L.T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Robert H. Walker.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Robert C. Galloway at Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
         Canada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248, Gulfport, MS 39502-
         4248, Phone: 228864-1170, E-mail:
         bob.galloway@butlersnow.com; and

     (2) William N. Reed at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
         Berkowitz, PC, P.O. Box 14167, Jackson, MS 39236-4167,
         Phone: (601) 351-2400.

Representing the plaintiff is Richard Taylor Phillips at Smith,
Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, P.O. Drawer 1586, Batesville, MS
38606, Phone: 662/563-4613, E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com.


STATE FARM: No Ruling Yet on $50M "Woullard" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr., held a hearing to get
further information regarding a settlement of a class action,
"Woullard v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.," on Feb. 28,
WLOX-TV Biloxi reports.

In January, plaintiffs Norman and Genevieve Broussard reached a
settlement but Judge Senter refused to approve it saying he
didn't have enough information to make a decision.  He did not
rule after the recent hearing.

Under the settlement, State Farm will pay $50 million to 35,000
State Farm policyholders who have not filed suit or received
payment post-Katrina.  The policyholders are homeowners, rental
and commercial policyholders in the coastal Mississippi counties
of Jackson, Harrison and Hancock.

Former Attorney General Mike Moore, who's serving as co-counsel
for the policyholders, expects the amount could go up to $400
million, according to the report.

Class action members who are not satisfied with State Farm's
offers may enter an arbitration process.  Both sides expect
Judge Senter to likely appoint a special master or magistrate
judge to oversee the arbitration process.

The case is one of hundreds of lawsuits filed by Pascagoula,
Mississippi-based attorney Richard F. Scruggs against
property/casualty insurers on behalf of Gulf Coast residents
whose claims for catastrophic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina
were partly or completely denied.

The case is "Dennis R. and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State
Farm, Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-1057-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court of Southern Mississippi.

The Scruggs Katrina Group on the Net:
http://www.scruggskatrinagroup.com. The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A.  
is at 120A Courthouse Square, P.O. Box 1136, Oxford, Mississippi
38655, Phone: 662-281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.


STATE FARM: Affirms Plan to Pay $50M in Katrina Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. has informed U.S. District
Court L.T. Senter Jr. that it is committed to paying a minimum
aggregate amount of $50 million to settle the case, "Dennis R.
and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State Farm," BestWire reports.

The settlement is with approximately 36,200 homeowners, rental
and commercial policyholders in the coastal Mississippi counties
of Jackson, Harrison and Hancock.  It is being led by the law
firm of Pascagoula, Mississippi-based attorney Richard F.
Scruggs.

Attorneys for State Farm filed a memorandum the federal court in
advance of a Feb. 28 hearing designed to clarify the terms of
the proposed settlement between State Farm Insurance and
Mississippi policyholders concerning disputed claims.

State Farm said the settlement is structured so that a majority
of lab cases (total payment including loss of use and contents
coverage) should equal 50% of the policyholder's limits on
structural coverage, less any previous private or federal flood
insurance payments, according to the report.  It did not provide
specifics on evaluating the proposed settlement against the
coverage limits of the policies in question.  

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a motion to
intervene or participate in the Feb. 28 hearing on behalf of the
plaintiffs.  Mr. Hood contends State Farm failed to establish an
acceptable procedure for the re-evaluation of claims that could
be approved by the court.

The case is "Dennis R. and S. Imani Woullard, et al. v. State
Farm, Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-1057-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court of Southern Mississippi.

The Scruggs Katrina Group on the Net:
http://www.scruggskatrinagroup.com. The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A.  
is at 120A Courthouse Square, P.O. Box 1136, Oxford, Mississippi
38655, Phone: 662-281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.


TAKE-TWO: In Talks to Settle "Grand Theft Auto Sex" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Video game publisher Take-Two Interactive has begun settlement
negotiations in the suit "In Re Grand Theft Auto Video Game
Consumer Litigation v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv- 06734-SWK-MHD," Digital Media Wire
reports.

In 2005, video game company Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
faced investigations from the Federal Trade Commission and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over the controversial
"hot coffee" sex scene found in the video game "Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas" (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).

Sen. Hillary Clinton and other lawmakers, raised complaints
after hearing that players of GTA: San Andreas can unlock a
secret "sex scene" using a so-called "hot coffee mod," an
unauthorized third party modification that alters the retail
version of the game.

The controversy caused the Entertainment Software Rating Board
(ESRB) to change the rating of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on
all platforms from "Mature 17+" (M) to "Adults Only 18+."  

In Oct. 2006, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied Take-Two's
dismissal motion (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2006).

Earlier the judge signed an order that stays the lawsuit while
the settlement talks proceed, with a progress report scheduled
for March 12.

The suit is "In Re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-06734-SWK-MHD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram,
with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East  
         42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: 212-
         867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:  
         ljacobs@pipeline.com;

     (2) David Jonathan Meiselman of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman,  
         Carton & Eberz P.C.(WPl), 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, White  
         Plains, NY 10605, Phone: (914)-517-5000, Fax: (914)-
         517-5055, E-mail: meiselman@mdpcelaw.com; and

     (3) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East  
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:  
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:  
         classattorney@aol.com.


TEXAS: Court Lifts Order to Monitor Hobb Police Activity
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vazquez has dismissed a
stipulated agreement that the Hobbs police department entered
into after facing complaints of prejudicial treatment toward
blacks, the Odessa American (Texas) reports.

The agreement required the police department to track and review
officer activity and use-of-force incidents.  The agreement was
in place since June 2001 after a class action was filed on
behalf of seven people who claimed the police department was
treating blacks differently than others.

Plaintiff attorney Richard Rosenstock was not available for
comment, according to the report.


TRIBUNE CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ill. ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which was filed
against The Tribune Co., and certain of its officers, are
appealing the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Originally, four current or former employees of Tribune Co., the
parent company of Newsday, filed separate lawsuits -- later
consolidated -- over the company's handling of its retirement
savings programs.

The employees allege the Tribune Co. Employee Benefits
Committee, which administers the company's retirement savings
plans, inappropriately invested retirement savings in Tribune
stock, according to a Jun 24, 2005 article by Heather Fletcher
of The Long Island Business News.

The suits were filed between May 18 and June 8 in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  All claim the
Newsday and Hoy circulation scandals caused their investments to
lose money.

Generally, the suit alleged plaintiffs lost tens of thousands to
hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the retirement
fund's investment in Tribune stock.  

They lost money from the stock's decline and failed to benefit
from potential gains in the best-performing alternative
available under the plan.

The suits also seek payback of losses that may arise if
additional wrongdoing is revealed.  

They have varying periods under which they claim the losses
occurred, but go back as far as October 2001 to the present.

In addition, the suits claim that Tribune failed in its
fiduciary responsibility to the retirement plans by not ensuring
the Tribune stock was a suitable investment.  

The consolidated ERISA class action was dismissed with prejudice
on Sept. 29, 2006, and the dismissal is currently being appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according
to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Murray, et
al. v. The Tribune Co., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02927," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge William T. Hart.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Charles Robert Watkins of
Futterman Howard Watkins Wylie & Ashley, Chtd., 122 S. Michigan
Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-3600, Fax:
(312) 427-1850, E-mail: cwatkins@futtermanhoward.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David F. Graham of Sidley Austin, LLP, One South
         Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-
         7000, E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com; and

     (2) Craig Christopher Martin of Jenner & Block, LLP, 330
         North Wabash, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350,
         E-mail: cmartin@jenner.com.


TRIBUNE CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against The Tribune Co. and certain of its officers are
appealing the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Initially, several suits -- that were later consolidated -- were
filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's securities from Jan. 24,
2002 through July 15, 2004.

The complaints alleges that the company and certain of its
officers and directors knowingly or recklessly overstated the
company's circulation numbers throughout the class period, and
thereby caused the company's stock price to trade at
artificially inflated prices in violation of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the true facts, which were known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the class period,
were as follows:

      -- since at least fiscal year 2001, defendants were
         inflating the circulation of Tribune's Hoy and Newsday
         publications;
   
      -- as a result of said inflation, the company's financial
         results during the class period were artificially
         inflated (including revenue, earnings per share
         and accounts receivables), and the company's
         liabilities were understated;

      -- the company's revenue and income was grossly overstated
         by millions of dollars;

      -- defendants had knowingly established extremely weak, if
         not purposeless, circulation controls which allowed for
         the circulation overstatements and did not require that
         circulation managers certify the claimed circulation;
         and

      -- as a result, defendants' ability to continue to achieve
         future earnings per share and revenue growth would be
         severely threatened and would and did result in $95
         million in costs, fines, refunds and investigation
         expenditures.

The consolidated securities class action was dismissed with
prejudice on Sept. 29, 2006, and the dismissal is currently
being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit,
according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Margaret K.
Hill, Trustee of Kelk Irrevocable Trust, et al. v. Tribune Co.,
et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
         200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173;

     (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com;

     (5) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100;

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

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

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


TRIBUNE CO: Still Faces Suits for Alleged Advertising Overcharge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. remains defendant in two class actions filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York over
allegations it overcharged for advertising as a result of
inflated circulation numbers at its "Newsday" and "Hoy"
publications.

Newsday is a morning newspaper published seven days a week and
circulated primarily in Long Island, New York, and in the
borough of Queens in New York City.  Hoy, New York, is a Spanish
language newspaper that is also published seven days a week.

On Feb. 11, 2004, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court in New York by certain advertisers of "Newsday"
and "Hoy," New York.  The purported class action also alleges
that entities that paid a "Newsday" subsidiary to deliver
advertising flyers were overcharged.  The suit is captioned,
"Crab House of Douglaston Inc., et al. v. Tribune company, et
al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00558-DRH-WDW."

In July 21, 2004, another lawsuit was filed in the same court by
certain advertisers of "Newsday" alleging damages resulting from
inflated "Newsday" circulation numbers as well as federal and
state antitrust violations.  The suit is captioned, "Arnold
Chevrolet, LLC, et al. v. Tribune Co., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-
03097-DRH-WDW."

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 26
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For more details, contact:

    (1) [Crab House - Plaintiff] Joseph O. Giaimo of Giaimo &
        Vreeburg, LLP, 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, NY
        11415, Phone: 718-261-6200, Fax: 718-261-0316, E-mail:
        giaimovreeburgpc@aol.com;

    (2) [Crab House - Defendant] Judd Burstein of Judd Burstein,
        P.C., 1790 Broadway, Suite 1501, New York, NY 10019,
        Phone: 212-974-2400, Fax: 212-974-2944, E-mail:
        Jburstein@burlaw.com;

    (3) [Arnold Chevrolet - Plaintiff] Leonard A. Bellavia of
        Bellavia Gentile & Associates, LLP, 200 Old Country
        Road, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (516) 873-3000, Fax:
        516-873-9032, E-mail: lbellavia@bellavialaw.com; and

    (4) [Arnold Chevrolet - Defendant] Alan M. Unger of Sidley
        Austin, LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019,
        Phone: 212-839-5785, Fax: 212-839-5599, E-mail:
        aunger@sidley.com.


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Health Insurance Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California, and BC
Life & Health Insurance Co. were named as defendants in a
California suit filed by a non-contracting hospital over alleged
wrongful rescission of individual health insurance policies.

The suit seeks to recover payment of claims denied where the
member was rescinded, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s Feb. 26
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

WellPoint, Inc. on the Net: http://www.wellpoint.com.


WELLPOINT INC: Resolves Calif. Health Insurance Policies Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., and subsidiaries Blue Cross of California, and
BC Life & Health Insurance Co. have tentatively resolved two
purported class actions filed in California state courts over
the wrongful rescission of individual health insurance policies.

The suits generally allege breach of contract, bad faith and
unfair business practices in a purported practice of rescinding
new individual members following the submission of large claims.

In December 2006, the California Medical Association filed a
motion to intervene in one of the class actions.  The motion has
not been heard.

The parties have agreed to mediate most of these lawsuits and
the mediation has resulted in the resolution of some of these
lawsuits, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

WellPoint, Inc. on the Net: http://www.wellpoint.com.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


GREAT AMERICAN: Investors File Securities Suit Over AFG Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Strauss & Troy and The Weiser Law Firm announce the filing of a
class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County,
Ohio on behalf of all persons who currently own the common stock
of Great American Financial Resources, Inc.

The suit seeks to enjoin the merger proposal of American
Financial Group, Inc.

The complaint alleges that AFG's unsolicited offer for GFR to
purchase all outstanding shares of GFR's common stock for $23.50
a share, and to thereafter merge with AFG, is unfair to GFR's
minority shareholders and that GFR's board of directors, and AFG
as GFR's majority shareholder, have breached fiduciary duties
owed to GFR's minority shareholders.

For more information, contact Richard S. Wayne, Esq., or Thomas
P. Glass, both of Strauss & Troy, 150 East Fourth Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Phone: 800-669-9341 or (513) 621-2120,
E-mail: rswayne@strauss-troy.com, Website:
http://www.strausstroy.com.


NEW CENTURY: Dreier LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock and/or call options and sellers of put
options of New Century Financial Corp. during the period April
7, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and financial results and
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the company was under-reserving for loan losses as
         conditions in the sub-prime industry deteriorated;

     (2) the company failed to take timely write-downs for
         residual interests in securitizations;

     (3) the company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls;

     (4) the company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principals; and

     (5) the company's statements about its financial well-being
         and future business prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of these false
statements and omissions, New Century securities traded at
artificially inflated or distorted prices.

On Feb. 7, 2007, after the close of trading, New Century shocked
investors when it announced that it would have to restate its
2006 financial statements, since they were not prepared in
accordance with GAAP.

In reaction to this news, the price of the company's stock
declined $10.92 per share, or 36%, to close on Feb. 8, 2007 at
$19.24 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all members of
the proposed Class.

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

New Century is a real estate investment trust and mortgage
finance company headquartered in Irvine, California.

For more information, contact Daniel B. Scotti of Dreier LLP,
Phone: 1-800-952-8897, E-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com, Website:
http://www.dreierllp.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Dreier LLP Files Securities Lawsuit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock and/or call options and/or sellers of put
options of NovaStar Financial, Inc. from May 4, 2006 to Feb. 20,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

     (i) NovaStar's reported financial results during the Class
         Period were falsely inflated;

    (ii) defendants misrepresented the quality of the company's
         mortgage loan portfolio and its ability to pay
         dividends;

   (iii) defendants failed to disclose that the company's
         reported financial results and projections were based
         upon faulty assumptions because of inadequate internal
         controls; and

    (iv) defendants failed to disclose that the company lacked a
         reasonable basis to make projections regarding its
         ability to maintain its status as a REIT.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of these false
statements and omissions, NovaStar's securities traded at
artificially inflated or distorted prices.

On Feb. 20, 2007, after the close of trading, NovaStar shocked
the market by announcing disappointing fourth quarter and year
end 2006 financial results and warning that the company expected
to make very little, if any, REIT taxable income for the next
four years.

In reaction to this news, the price of the company's stock
declined more than 30% on extremely high trading volume. The
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all members of
the proposed Class.

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

NovaStar is a real estate investment trust that is headquartered
in Kansas City, Missouri.  The company describes itself as a
specialty finance company that originates, invests in and
services residential nonconforming loans.

For more information, contact Daniel B. Scotti, of Dreier LLP,
Phone: +1-800-952-8897, E-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com, Website:
http://www.dreierllp.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Mo. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri against
NovaStar Financial, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of NovaStar
between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that on Feb. 20, 2007, after the close of
trading, the company disclosed, among other things, that:

     (i) its credit performance deteriorated during the fourth
         quarter (ended December 31, 2006), resulting in
         impairments on mortgage securities and additional loss
         provisions for loans;

    (ii) that the company experienced a greater level of loan
         repurchase requests due to early payment defaults than
         it had historically;

   (iii) that the company expected to recognize little, if any,
         taxable income for 2007 through 2011 and that
         management was currently evaluating whether it was in
         shareholders' best interest to retain the company's
         REIT status beyond 2007; and

    (iv) that the company was "tightening" its underwriting
         guidelines.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period,
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business
and financial results, thus causing NovaStar's publicly traded
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that, unknown to investors,
during the class period, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded:

     (i) that the company lacked adequate internal controls,
         and, as a result, the company's guidelines and
         appraisal review process were inadequate to gauge to
         risk involved in the company lending practices;

    (ii) that the company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading due to the company's failure to
         properly account for its allowance for loan losses;

   (iii) that due to the deterioration of the credit performance
         of the company's portfolio, the company would be forced
         to:

             (a) record impairments on mortgage securities and
                 additional loan provisions; and

             (b) to repurchase a greater level of loans due to
                 defaults; and

    (iv) that, as a result of the adverse conditions set forth
         above, the company could not reasonably expect to
         report taxable income for the period 2007 through 2011,
         thus endangering the company's dividend and continued
         status as a REIT.

On Feb. 21, 2007, in reaction to NovaStar's surprising
disclosure, its shares declined from $17.56 per share at the
close of trading on Feb. 20, 2007, to close at $10.10 per share,
a one-day decline of approximately 42%, on heavier than usual
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact Joel B. Strauss and Jeffrey P.
Campisi, both of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Avenue,
22nd Floor, New York, New York  10022, Phone: (800) 290-1952 or
(212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com;
or Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 555
Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, California  94111,
Phone: (415) 772-4700, Fax:  (415) 772-4707.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Yourman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP announces that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. from Sept. 30, 2002 to Oct. 26,
2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing statements, concerning the company's grants of stock
options to company executives, that were materially false and
misleading when made.

It is further alleged that these stock option grants were
improperly accounted for because they were backdated to provide
company executives with unreported benefits.

Openwave has allegedly admitted to improperly backdating certain
of its option grants and, thus, must take additional company
charges of $182 million in order to correct its previously
reported finances.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020 (toll-
free), Website: http://www.yaplaw.com.


QUANTA CAPITAL: Brualdi Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm announces that a securities class action
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 class period in previously filed class actions filed by
Quanta shareholders, or announced by other law firms, commences
on Dec. 15, 2005.

Brualdi's lawsuit, filed against Quanta and certain officers and
directors, contains a class period commencing seven months
earlier, on May 14, 2004.  The class period ends on March 2,
2006, the same end date of the other filed actions.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that 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 Tali Leger, Director of
Shareholder Relations of The Brualdi Law Firm, Phone: (877) 495-
1877, E-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.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  * * *