CAR_Public/070306.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 6, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 46

                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Calif. Court Certifies "Med-Pay" Class of Insureds
21ST CENTURY: No Oral Argument Date Yet for Quintana Lawsuit
21ST CENTURY: Agrees to Dismiss Suit Over Valuation Software
ADOLOR CORP: Penn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
AK STEEL: Jan. 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Healthcare Litigation

AK STEEL: Ohio Court Certifies Class in Racial Bias Litigation
AK STEEL: Arguments on Appeal of $44.9M Judgment Starts March 16
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit by Financial Plan Buyers Remains Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer," "You"
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hearing Set for $100M Securities Suit Deal

AMERICAN HOME: Faces Customer Fraud Suit in Calif. Federal Court
AMERIGROUP CORP: Ill. Court Okays $5M Securities Suit Settlement
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss REIT Fees Suit Junked
ANCHOR GLASS: March Hearing Set for $5.5M Securities Suit Deal
AVISTA CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for Wash. Securities Litigation

CAREMARK RX: Del. Court Issues Injunction on Planned CVS Merger
C. R. BARD: Faces Mo. Antitrust Suit Over Urological Catheters
C. R. BARD: Faces Suit in R.I. Over Composix Kugel Mesh Patch
CONMED CORP: Former Sales Reps Ask to Certify N.Y. ERISA Suit
CORN PRODUCTS: Discovery Begins in Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: No Ruling Yet on Apartheid Litigation Appeal
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Foreign Investors Appeal Dismissal of Suit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Still Faces Antitrust Suits in Maine, Calif.
DETROIT DIESEL: Injunction in Healthcare Insurance Suit Upheld
FIRST BANCORP: Settles Securities Lawsuit in P.R. for $74.25M

GLOBALSTAR INC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 10
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set March 19
INTERSIL CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Initial Public Offering
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
MERCEDES-BENZ: Continues to Face Price Fixing Litigation in N.J.

POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Ends April 2
PURDUE PHARMA: Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit Over Painkiller
RURAL/METRO: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Wage Ordinance Violations
SCIELE PHARMA: Appeals Court Vacates Orders in Securities Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Further "Engle" Rulings

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Circuit Court's Ruling in "Scott" Appealed
TOBACCO LITIGATION: D.C. Court Refuses to Reverse "Simms" Ruling
TOBACCO LITIGATION: High Court Review of "Lowe" Dismissal Sought
VALERO ENERGY: Appeal to Reinstate $120M Clark Oil Suit Allowed
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Mutual Fund Investors File Suit in Calif.

* Baker & McKenzie LLP Elects New Partners in Chicago Office


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CELESTICA INC: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Announces N.J. Securities Suit
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Saxena White Files Shareholder Suit in Mo.
NUVELO INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                           *********


21ST CENTURY: Calif. Court Certifies "Med-Pay" Class of Insureds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court has certified a class in the
lawsuit filed by Thomas Theis, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against 21st Century Insurance
Co., according to the company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on June 17, 2002 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  Plaintiff seeks California class-action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.

The complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the company used a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area and the adjusted amount is "predetermined" and
"biased."

The case is consolidated with similar actions against other
insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.  On Jan. 11,
plaintiff's motion to certify a "med-pay" class was granted.

This matter is in the discovery state of litigation and no
reasonable estimate of potential losses in the event of a
negative outcome can be made at this time.

21st Century Insurance Group on the Net: http://www.21st.com.


21ST CENTURY: No Oral Argument Date Yet for Quintana Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments schedule is yet to be set in a purported class
action filed by Silvia Quintana against 21st Century Insurance
Co. over medical payments in relation to her insurance contract.

The case was filed on Nov. 16, 2005 in San Diego as a purported
class action.  It names the company in four causes of action:

     -- violation of Business & Professions Section 17200,
     -- conversion,
     -- unjust enrichment and,
     -- declaratory relief.

Ms. Quintana alleges that the company's demand for reimbursement
of the medical payments it made to her pursuant to her insurance
contract violates the "made-whole rule."

The company anticipates that if the matter survives the initial
pleading stage, it will be consolidated, for discovery and pre-
trial motions, with actions alleging similar facts against other
insurers.

The case is in the pleading stage and no reasonable estimate of
potential losses in the event of a negative outcome can be made
at this time.

In July 2006, the trial court denied the company's demurrer and
motion to strike and the company has filed a writ to the Court
of Appeal for review of this decision.

In November 2006, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to
show cause why the relief the company requested should not be
granted.

Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, according to the
company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

21st Century Insurance Group on the Net: http://www.21st.com.


21ST CENTURY: Agrees to Dismiss Suit Over Valuation Software
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action filed against 21st
Century Insurance Co., 21st Century Casualty Co., and 21st
Century Insurance Group in California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles has offered to dismiss his case.

Bryan Speck originally filed the suit on June 20, 2002.  It
seeks California class-action certification, injunctive relief,
and unspecified actual and punitive damages.

The complaint contends that the company uses "biased" software
to determine the value of total-loss automobiles.  It alleges
that database providers use improper methodology to establish
comparable auto values and populate their databases with biased
figures and that the company and other carriers allegedly
subscribe to the programs to unfairly reduce claims costs.  The
case is consolidated with similar actions against other insurers
for discovery and pre-trial motions.

A court-ordered appraisal of Mr. Speck's vehicle was favorable
to the company and Ramona Goldenberg was substituted as a
plaintiff, replacing Mr. Speck.

On Oct. 13, 2006, plaintiff's counsel offered to dismiss this
case, with prejudice, in exchange for the company waiving its
costs.

The company has accepted plaintiff's counsel's offer to dismiss
the matter and will support a motion, containing the agreed
terms, for the court to dismiss the action.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

21st Century Insurance Group on the Net: http://www.21st.com.


ADOLOR CORP: Penn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion by Adolor Corp. to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
director and certain officers.

On April 21, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the
company, one of its directors and certain of its officers,
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased common stock between Sept. 23, 2003 and
Jan. 14, 2004.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the announcement of the results of certain studies in the
company's Phase III clinical trials for Entereg(R), which
allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the company's common stock.

This suit has been consolidated with three subsequent actions
asserting similar claims under the caption, "In re Adolor
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."

On Dec. 29, 2004, the district court issued an order appointing
the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  The appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 28, 2005.

The complaint purported to extend the class period, so as to
bring claims on behalf of a putative class of Adolor
shareholders who purchased stock between Sept. 23, 2003 and Dec.
22, 2004.

The complaint also adds as defendants the board of directors,
asserting claims against them and the other defendants for
violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with the company's public offering of stock
in November 2003.

The company and its management and director defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on April 29, 2005.  The plaintiffs
responded to the motion to dismiss on June 28, 2005, and the
defendants' reply was filed on Aug. 12, 2005.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 27
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Adolor Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01728-RBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.  The consolidated suit is "In re
Adolor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Laura Andracchio, Nicholas J. Licato,
         Scott Saham, Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 401 B
         St., STE. 1700, San Diego CA, 92101, Phone: 619-231-
         1058, E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com; and

     (2) Marc S. Henzel, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
         Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd PA 19004,
         Phone: 610-660-8000, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael S. Doluisio, Jeffrey G. Weil, Dechert, Price &
         Rhoads, 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower,
         Philadelphia PA 19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-2749, Fax:
         215-994-2222, E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com; and

    (ii) John A. Ducoff, Allan E. Kraus, Jason Rockwell, Laurie
         B. Smilan, Latham & Watkins LLP, One Newark Center 16th
         floor, Newark, NJ 07101-3174, Phone: 973-639-1234.


AK STEEL: Jan. 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Healthcare Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 14, 2008 trial is set for a class action filed against AK
Steel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio over changes it implemented in existing healthcare
insurance benefits plan for certain employees.

On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its
current retirees who formerly were hourly and salaried members
of the Armco Employees Independent Federation (AEIF) that AK
Steel was terminating their existing healthcare insurance
benefits plan and implementing a new plan more consistent with
current steel industry practices which would require the
retirees to contribute to the cost of their healthcare benefits,
effective Oct. 1, 2006.

Subsequent to that notice, the AEIF stated publicly that it
would file a legal action against AK Steel challenging its right
to modify the retirees' healthcare benefits.

On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried
members of the AEIF filed a separate purported class action in
the, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes
to their healthcare benefits.

The named plaintiffs in the suit seek injunctive relief
(including an order retroactively rescinding the changes) and
unspecified monetary relief for themselves and the other members
of the putative class.

On Aug. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to prevent AK Steel from implementing the
previously announced changes to healthcare benefits with respect
to the AEIF-represented hourly employees.

AK Steel opposed that motion, but on Sept. 22, 2006 the trial
court issued an order granting the motion.  On that same day, AK
Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to grant
the preliminary injunction.

To date no discovery has been commenced in the suit.  The trial
in that action is scheduled to commence Jan. 14, 2008.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 27
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfa

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing the plaintiffs are David Marvin Cook and Stephen
A. Simon, 22 West Ninth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
513-721-6500 and 513-721-7500, E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com and
ssimon@dmcllc.com.


AK STEEL: Ohio Court Certifies Class in Racial Bias Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
conditionally certified two subclasses in a racial
discrimination class action filed against AK Steel Holding
Corp., according to the company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Seventeen individuals filed the suit on Jun. 26, 2002.  As
subsequently amended, the complaint alleges that the company
discriminates against African-Americans in its hiring practices
and that it discriminates against all of its employees by
preventing its employees from working in a racially integrated
environment free from racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory, injunctive and
unspecified monetary relief, including back pay, front pay, lost
benefits, lost seniority and punitive damages, for themselves
and unsuccessful African-American candidates for employment at
the company.

Defendants have responded to the complaint and discovery is
ongoing.  On Jan. 19, the court conditionally certified two
subclasses of unsuccessful African-American candidates.  No
trial date has been set.

The suit is "Bert, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00467-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Donald Kammer and Paul Henry Tobias of Tobias,
         Kraus & Torchia, Phone: 513-241-8137, Fax: 513-241-
         7863, E-mail: davek@tktlaw.com and tkt@tktlaw.com; and

     (2) Allison W. Lowell of Wiggin Childs Quinn &
         Pantazis, 301 19th Street, N. Birmingham, AL 35203,
         Phone: 205-314-0575, Fax: 205/254-1500, E-mail:
         awl@wcqp.com.

Representing the defendants are Lawrence James Barty, Patricia
Anderson Pryor and Gregory Parker Rogers of Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, 1800 Firstar Tower, 425 Walnut St., Cincinnati, OH
45202-3597, Phone: 513-381-2838, 513-357-9409 and 513-357-9344,
Fax: 513-381-0205, E-mail: barty@taftlaw.com, Pryor@Taftlaw.com
and Rogers@Taftlaw.com.


AK STEEL: Arguments on Appeal of $44.9M Judgment Starts March 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in an appeal of the $44.9 million award to
plaintiffs by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio in the class action, "West v. AK Steel Retirement, et
al.," is scheduled for March 16.

On Jan. 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed the
class action, claiming that the method used under the AK Steel
Corp. Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP) to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and
resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class
members.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the court entered a final judgment against the
defendants in the approximate amount of $37.6 million in damages
and $8.6 million in prejudgment interest, for a total of
approximately $46.2 million, with post judgment interest
accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until paid.

Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider the method by which prejudgment interest was
determined.

On March 29, 2006, the court granted the defendants'
motion and entered an amended final judgment, which had the
effect of reducing the prejudgment interest by approximately
$1.3 million.

After entry of the amended final judgment, the total liability
of the defendants was approximately $44.9 million, with post
judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until
paid.

The defendants have appealed and intend to continue to contest
this matter vigorously.  Subsequent to the filing of the
defendants' appeal, Congress enacted the Pension Protection Act
of 2006.

That legislation may impact the litigation appeal, since it
prospectively prohibits the use of the whipsaw method, which the
plaintiffs claim should be used to determine lump sum
distributions in connection with cash balance plan
distributions.

The potential impact of the legislation has been separately
briefed in the Court of Appeals.  Oral argument in the appeal
has been scheduled for March 16, according to the company's Feb.
27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "West v. AK Steel Retirement, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-00001-SSB-TSB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Black.

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas R. Theado of Gary, Naegele
& Theado, LLC, 446 Broadway, Lorain, Ohio 44052, (Lorain Co.),
Phone: 216-244-4809, Fax: 440-244-3462.

Representing AK Steel is Robert Wick of Covington & Burling,
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia
20004-2401, Phone: 202-662-6000, Fax: 202-662-6291.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit by Financial Plan Buyers Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
joint stipulation to stay a purported class action filed against
American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.

The suit, now captioned "Haritos et al. v. American Express
Financial Advisors Inc.," was filed in November 2002 by
plaintiffs who purport to represent a class of all persons that
have purchased financial plans from the company's advisors from
November 1997 through July 2004.  Plaintiffs allege that the
sale of the plans violates the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of
the investment advisor plans and restitution of monies paid for
such plans.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the court granted the parties joint stipulation
to stay the action pending the approval of the proposed
settlement in the putative class action "In re American Express
Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-
01773-DAB,"

Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a formerly a wholly owned subsidiary
of American Express, reported no development in the case at its
Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Haritos, et al. v. American Express Financial
Advisors, Inc., Case No. 2:02-cv-02255-PGR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Paul G.
Rosenblatt.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert C. Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan,
         Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 501,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 341-0400;

     (2) Barry Grant Reed, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Zimmerman
         Reed PLLP, 14646 N Kierland Blvd, Ste 145 Scottsdale,
         AZ 85254-2762, Phone: (480) 348-6400; and

     (3) Jon E. Drucker, Moss Gropen, Law Offices of Jon E
         Drucker, 8306 Wilshire Blvd, #638 Beverly Hills, CA
         90211, Phone: (323) 931-6363.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
         LLP, 2445 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone:
         (202) 663-6000;

    (ii) Robert S Stern, Esq, James P Maniscalco, Joseph T Hahn,
         Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los
         Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: (213) 892-5200;

   (iii) Peter K Vigeland, David W Bowker, Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave, 31st Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8800; and

    (iv) William J Maledon, Esq, Jeffrey Bryan Molinar, Osborn
         Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379,
         Phone: (602) 640-9000.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer," "You"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two lawsuits making similar allegations as in the
soon to be settled consolidated securities class action, "In re
American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," moved to remand both cases pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
state court.

The court's decision on the remand motion is pending.  The suits
are:

     -- "Beer v. American Express Company and American Express
        Financial Advisors," and

     -- "You v. American Express Company and American Express
        Financial Advisors."

Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a formerly a wholly owned subsidiary
of American Express, reported no development in the case at its
Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hearing Set for $100M Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set a June 4 final fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
in the matter, "In re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation."

In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004.

The settlement, under which the company denies any liability,
includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class
members.

The class members include individuals who purchased mutual funds
in the company's Preferred Provider Program, Select Group
Program, or any similar revenue sharing program, purchased
mutual funds sold under the American Express or AXP brand; or
purchased for a fee financial plans or advice from the company
between March 10, 1999 and through April 1, 2006.

On Feb. 14, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and
set a final fairness hearing for June 4, 2007, according to
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.  Ameriprise Financial is a former wholly
owned subsidiary of American Express.

For more information, contact Sanford P. Dumain of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 868-1229.

The suit is "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jules Brody, Aaron Lee Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6
         East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail:
         ssbny@aol.com;

     (2) Sharon M. Lee, Andrei V. Rado, Michael Robert Reese,
         Steven G. Schulman and Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg,
         Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P., One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         594-5300, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com,
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com, pseidman@milberg.com; and

     (3) Jonathan K. Levine, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo,
         L.L.P., 601 California Street Suite 1400, San
         Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800, Fax: (415)
         981-4846, E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Representing the company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


AMERICAN HOME: Faces Customer Fraud Suit in Calif. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed on March 1, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California accusing
American Home Shield Corp., the nation's largest seller of home
warranties, and its corporate parent, ServiceMaster, of
defrauding customers by offering illusory "upgrades" and using
false pretexts to delay and deny valid claims for repairs to
appliances and heating and air-conditioning systems, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff, Kathie Aamodt Ward, brings this action as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
behalf of herself and the following two classes of individuals:

     -- Class A - all persons who purchased a home warranty from
        AHS California from 2002 to the present which covers
        home systems and appliances located within the State of
        California and failed to receive any services despite
        paying a service fee; and

     -- Class B - all persons who purchased a 13 SEER home
        warranty upgrade from AHS and/or any of its subsidiaries
        as a result of defendants' representation that DOE
        regulations required customers to upgrade their current
        warranty in order to retain full coverage.

Plaintiffs claim defendants tried to sell more than 1 million
customers a useless "upgrade" for $30 apiece.  They claim
American Home's spring 2006 marketing campaign told customers
that recent changes to U.S. Department of Energy regulations
governing the fuel efficiency for newly manufactured air
conditioners impacted their right to obtain repairs on their
existing systems.  They did not.

The new federal regulations did not change the fuel efficiency
standards for existing systems nor did they address, in any
manner whatsoever, repairs of existing systems.  Nonetheless,
American Home deceptively misrepresented the impact of these new
regulations to concoct a basis for offering and charging its
customers, including (the named) plaintiff, a $30 upgrade to
their coverage they did not need, according to the suit.

Common questions of law or fact common to Class A, among others,
include:

     (a) whether American Home engages in a pattern or practice
         of denying legitimate customer complaints;

     (b) whether American Home uses pretextual reasons to delay
         or deny legitimate customer claims;

     (c) whether American Home negligently selected local
         contractors and/or failed to supervise their work;

     (d) whether American Home knowingly consented to, or
         facilitated, the denial of valid claims for repairs by
         its local contractors;

     (e) whether American Home offered incentives to its local
         contractors for denying claims;

     (f) whether American Home violated California Insurance
         Code Section 12740, et seq.;

     (g) whether, by its misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, American Home engaged in unfair, deceptive,
         untrue or misleading advertising;

     (h) whether the alleged conduct violated Business &
         Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq.;

     (i) whether American Home's conduct constitutes deceptive
         or unfair acts in violation of the Business &
         Professions Code Section 17500, et. seq.;

     (j) whether American Home's conduct constitutes fraudulent
         misrepresentation, concealment and failure to disclose;

     (k) whether American Home's conduct constitutes negligent
         misrepresentation; and

     (l) whether, as a result of American Home's misconduct,
         plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief and other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

Common questions of law or fact common to Class B, among others
include:

     (a) whether American Home made false and/or misleading
         statements of fact to the class concerning Department
         of Energy/Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (DOE/SEER)
         standards and their impact on American Home's
         contractual obligations;

     (b) whether American Home knew, or was reckless in not
         knowing, that its statements of fact to the class and
         the public regarding DOE/SEER standards and their
         effect on American Home's contractual obligations was
         misleading;

     (c) whether, by its misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, American Home has engaged in unfair,
         deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising;

     (d) whether the alleged conduct violated Business &
         Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq.;

     (e) whether American Home's conduct constitutes deceptive
         or unfair acts in violation of the Business &
         Professions Code Section 17500, et. seq.; and

     (f) whether, as a result of American Home's misconduct,
         plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief and other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

Plaintiff prays that this case be certified and maintained as a
class action and for judgment to be entered upon defendants:

     -- for economic and compensatory damages on behalf of
        plaintiff and all members of the class;

     -- for restitution;

     -- for punitive damages, as otherwise applicable;

     -- for injunctive and declaratory relief, as claimed;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of all
        costs for the prosecution of this action; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and appropriate.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ab2

The suit is "Ward et al. v. The Service Master Co., et al., Case
No. CV07-01380JFW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven N. Berk of Chavez & Gertler LLP, 1225 15th
         Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: (202) 232-
         7550, Fax: (202) 232-7556, E-mail:
         steven@chavezgertler.com; and

     (2) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Ailexandra Warren, both of Cuneo,
         Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, 507 C. Street N.E., Washington,
         D.C. 20002, Phone: (202) 789-3960, Fax: (202) 789-1813,
         E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com or awarren@cuneolaw.com.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Ill. Court Okays $5M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
approved a $5 million settlement for the class action, "Illinois
State Board of Investment v. Amerigroup Corp., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS."

Beginning on Oct. 3, 2005, five purported class-action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of persons who acquired the
company's common stock between April 27, 2005 and Sept. 28,
2005.

The suits purported to allege claims against the company and
certain of its officers for alleged violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the court issued an order:

      -- consolidating the suits;

      -- setting "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
         Amerigroup Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-
         701," as lead case for purposes of trial and all
         pretrial proceedings;

      -- appointing Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI),
         as lead plaintiff and its choice of counsel as lead
         counsel; and

      -- ordering that lead plaintiff file a consolidated
         amended complaint by Feb. 24, 2006.

On Feb. 24, 2006, ISBI filed the consolidated amended complaint,
which purports to allege claims on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased the company's common stock from Feb. 16,
2005 through Sept. 28, 2005.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants
Amerigroup Corp., Jeffrey L. McWaters, James G. Carlson, E. Paul
Dunn, Jr. and Kathleen K. Toth.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle
to resolve suits by executing a memorandum of understanding with
the lead plaintiff.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the
company's insurance carrier created a settlement fund of $5.0
million in cash to resolve all class claims against the company.

All claims asserted against the individuals named in the lawsuit
have been dismissed.  Accordingly, the company is the only
remaining defendant.

On Nov. 13, 2006, the company and the lead plaintiff executed
and filed the definitive settlement agreement with the court.
The definitive settlement agreement received approval by the
court on Feb. 5, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Illinois State Board of Investment v. Amerigroup
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under
Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge F. Bradford
Stillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500
         World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446-
         8600;

     (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento,
         PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA
         23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000; and

     (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580
         E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757)
         625-6787.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman & Canoles, PC, 150 W.
         Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone:
         (757) 624-3000; and

    (ii) Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
         LLP & Affiliates, Four Times Square, New York, NY
         10036, Phone: (212) 735-2628, Fax: (917) 777-2628, E-
         mail: jkasner@skadden.com.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss REIT Fees Suit Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a
motion to dismiss a purported class action filed against
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. for allegedly miscalculating
advisors' fees.

The lawsuit, "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," was filed in March 2006.  It has been
brought as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to
represent all of the company's advisors who sold shares of Real
Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships
between March 22, 2000, and March 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary
damages as well as injunctive relief, alleging that the company
incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of
these products.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss, and the matter
now proceeds to discovery, according to the company's Feb. 27
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral
to Judge Susan R. Nelson.

Representing the plaintiffs are Bryan L. Crawford, Samuel D.
Heins, Stacey L. Mills, Brian L. Williams of Heins Mills &
Olson, PLC, 80 S 8th St Ste 3550, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-
338-4605, Fax: 612-338-4692, E-mail: bwilliams@heinsmills.com,
sheins@heinsmills.com, smills@heinsmills.com,
magarian.edward@dorsey.com, bcrawford@heinsmills.com.

Representing the defendant is by Edward B. Magarian of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498,
Phone: 612-340-7873, Fax: 612-340-2807, E-mail:
magarian.edward@dorsey.com.


ANCHOR GLASS: March Hearing Set for $5.5M Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing on March 16, 2007, 8:30 a.m. for the
proposed $5.5 million settlement of the class action, "Davidco
Investors, LLC v. Anchor Glass Container Corp. et al., Case No.
8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ."

The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Anchor Glass Container Corp. between Sept. 5, 2003 and Nov.
4, 2004.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, in the courtroom of the
Honorable Susan C. Bucklew.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection was March 2, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is April 30, 2007.

                        Case Background

In 2004, shareholders of the bottle manufacturer sued the
company for securities fraud in connection with its loss of a
contract to manufacture and label bottles of Rolling Rock beer.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Anchor Glass Container Corp.;
     -- Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.;
     -- Cerberus Institutional Partners (America), L.P.;
     -- Cerberus Institutional Partners, L.P.; and
     -- Cerberus International, LTD.

The shareholders alleged that Anchor fraudulently failed to
disclose the loss of the Rolling Rock contract and its plan to
close the plant where the Rolling Rock work was done.

They brought claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The district court previously denied Anchor's motion to dismiss
the Exchange Act claims.  Anchor moved to dismiss the Sections
11 and 15 claims.

The district court ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations that
Anchor failed to disclose its troubles with Rolling Rock and the
plant were sufficient to support its Section 11 claims.

The district court denied Anchor's motion to dismiss, finding
that the Section 11 claims were adequately supported  (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 13, 2006).

Further, because the underlying Section 11 claim was sustained,
the district court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 15
claim.

The suit is "Davidco Investors, LLC v. Anchor Glass Container
Corp. et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle of District of Florida under Judge
Susan C Bucklew with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Richard Astley, Paul J. Geller, Jack Reise and
         Jonathan M. Stein all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal Highway - Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561/750-3000 Ext.
         148, Fax: 561/750-3364, E-mail: sastley@lerachlaw.com
         or pgeller@lerachlaw.com or jreise@lerachlaw.com or
         jstein@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Christopher S. Polaszek of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, Suite 600, 5200 Town Center
         Circle, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561-361-5000,
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Maya S. Saxena of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal
         Highway, Suite 307, Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781, Phone:
         800/361-5096, Fax: 888/782-3081, E-mail:
         msaxena@saxenawhite.com; and

     (4) Julie Prag Vianale and Kenneth J. Vianale both of
         Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112,
         Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/392-4750 ext 107, Fax:
         561/392-4775, E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Chris S. Coutroulis of Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221 West
         Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33607,
         Phone: 813/223-7000, Fax: 813/229-4133, E-mail:
         ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com;

     (2) John D. Mullen of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Suite 1900, 100 S
         Ashley Dr., Tampa, FL 33602, Phone: 813/472-7867, Fax:
         813/472-7570, E-mail: john.mullen@phelps.com;

     (3) Matthew M. Oliver, Lawrence M. Rolnick and Sheila A.
         Sadighi all of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston
         Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: 973/597-2500 or
         973/597-2468 or 973/597-6218, Fax: 873/597-2400 or 973-
         597-2469 or 973/597-6219, E-mail:
         MOliver@lowenstein.com or lrolnick@lowenstein.com or
         ssadighi@lowenstein.com; and

     (4) Samuel J. Salario, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221
         West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33607,
         Phone: 813/229-4337, Fax: 813/229-4133, E-mail:
         ssalario@carltonfields.com.


AVISTA CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for Wash. Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 13, 2007 hearing is set for a consolidated securities
class action pending against Avista Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

Several class action complaints were filed in September through
November 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against:

     -- the company,

     -- Thomas M.  Matthews, former chairman of the board,
        president and chief executive officer;

     -- Gary G. Ely, current chairman of the board and chief
        executive officer; and

     -- Jon E. Eliassen, former senior vice president and chief
        financial officer.

In February 2003, the court issued an order, which consolidated
the complaints and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

On June 13, 2005, the company filed a motion for reconsideration
of its earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part,
on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to the
pleading requirements surrounding a sufficient showing of loss
causation.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss this complaint.  The order to dismiss was issued without
prejudice, which allowed the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

On Nov. 10, 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed.
It alleges approximately $2.6 billion in damages due to the
decrease in the total market value of the company's common stock
during the class period.

These alleged losses stemmed from violations of federal
securities laws through alleged misstatements and omissions of
material facts with respect to the company's energy trading
practices in western power markets.

Plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions
regarding these matters were made in the company's filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other
information made publicly available by the company, including
press releases.

The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 23, 1999 and
Aug. 13, 2002.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss an
amended class action complaint asserting deficiencies in it,
including that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss
causation.

On June 2, 2006, the court entered an order denying the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  On Sept. 16, 2006,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On Feb. 13, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was heard
before the court.  Also, pending before the court is defendants'
motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims on the ground that they are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.

The matter is expected to proceed in the normal course of
litigation and a trial date is currently scheduled for Nov. 13,
according to the company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington under Judge Robert
H. Whaley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randi D. Bandman and Michael Reese, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - CA(SF), 100 Pine Street,
         Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111;

     (2) Karl P Barth, Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP, 1420 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (425)
         452-9800, Fax: (425) 452-9801, E-mail:
         kbarth@lmbllp.com; and

     (3) Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 12066230594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Curt Roy Hineline, David M. Jacobson and Evan L.
         Schwab, Dorsey & Whitney LLP - SEA, U S Bank Center,
         1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
         206-903-8800, Fax: 206-903-8820, E-mail:
         jacobson.david@dorsey.com and schwab.evan@dorsey.com;
         and

    (ii) Donald Gene Stone of Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke &
         Miller - SPO, 717 W Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200,
         Spokane, WA 99201-3503, Phone: 509-455-6000, Fax:
         15098380007, E-mail: don.stone@painehamblen.com.


CAREMARK RX: Del. Court Issues Injunction on Planned CVS Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered defendants in a class
action over a proposed merger between Caremark RX, Inc. and CVS
Corp. to provide shareholders with additional material
information to ensure a well-informed vote.

The court enjoined the shareholder from voting on the proposed
merger until after those disclosures are made.  The Court also
declared that Caremark's shareholders are entitled to assert
statutory appraisal rights and noted its "suspicions regarding
the integrity of the process underlying these merger
negotiations."

The injunction of the shareholder vote is the second time in
this case that the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System (LAMPERS), together with co-lead plaintiff
R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania, has
successfully forced defendants to provide more information to
Caremark's shareholders and obtained additional time for the
shareholders to process that information and assess the merits
of the CVS merger or any other alternatives.

On Nov. 1, 2006, CVS and Caremark Rx announced that their
respective boards of directors had entered into an agreement to
merge the two companies.

An initial complaint was filed on Dec. 21, 2006.  The suit was
filed by LAMPERS and the R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted
Masons of Pennsylvania against:

      -- Edwin M. Crawford;
      -- C.A. Lance Piccolo;
      -- Edwin M. Banks;
      -- C. David Brown, II;
      -- Colleen Conway-Welch;
      -- Harris Diamond;
      -- Edward L. Hardin, Jr.;
      -- Kristen E. Gibney-Williams;
      -- Roger L. Headrick;
      -- Juan-Pierre Millon;
      -- Michael D. Ware;
      -- Caremark Rx, Inc.; and
      -- CVS Corp.

On Dec. 18, 2006, a competing bidder (Express Scripts, Inc.)
publicly indicated its willingness to buy Caremark for a price
offering $5 billion in value to Caremark shareholders above the
deal offered by CVS.

The action, brought by plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated Caremark shareholders, seeks to hold the
directors of Caremark accountable for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties owed to the class in connection with the
proposed CVS/Caremark merger.

An amended class action complaint, filed on Jan. 5, 2007, seeks
to invalidate the deal protections and enjoin Caremark and the
company's board of directors from consummating a merger between
the company and CVS.

The merger agreement allegedly contained numerous "deal
protection" devices intended to ensure that the shareholder
approve the deal.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the Caremark
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Caremark
shareholders by putting their own personal interests ahead of
those of the class in the sale of control of Caremark and by
failing to maximize shareholder value in that sale.

The amended complaint further alleges that as a result of the
alleged breaches of duty, Caremark agreed to be acquired by CVS
for slightly over $20 billion -- a price that offers zero
premium to Caremark's shareholders.

Further, just one day after the Express Scripts offer, on Dec.
19, 2006, Caremark and CVS issued a preliminary joint proxy
statement announcing that the Caremark directors unanimously
recommended to the Caremark shareholders the adoption of the
merger agreement and the approval of the merger with CVS,
pursuant to the terms as announced on Nov. 1, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction until such time as the Caremark
Board has fully complied with its duties to fully and fairly
consider all offers for the company and to maximize shareholder
value in connection with any sale/ merger of the company.

Gerald H. Silk, a partner with Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, is co-lead counsel for the institutional investor
plaintiffs.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, N.Y. on the
Net: http://www.blbglaw.com. For more information, contact
Gerald Silk, Phone: (212) 554-1282; E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com;
or Salvatore Graziano, Phone: (212) 554-1538, E-mail:
sgraziano@blbglaw.com.


C. R. BARD: Faces Mo. Antitrust Suit Over Urological Catheters
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. is a defendant in an antitrust class action
that claims several companies colluded to monopolize the market
on urological catheter products.  The suit is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Named defendants in the suit are:

    -- C.R. Bard, Inc.
    -- Tyco International (U.S.), Inc. and
    -- Tyco Health Care Group.

The suit, filed Feb. 21, was brought on behalf of all persons or
entities, including hospitals and other healthcare providers in
the U.S. who directly purchased Urological Catheters produced,
promoted, sold, marketed and/or distributed by one or more of
the defendants, from Jan. 1, 2002 through the present (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2007).

Named plaintiff Southeast Missouri Hospital says the companies
use exclusionary compliance discounts, sole-source exclusive
dealing contracts and bundled discounts and rebates to restrict
and eliminate competition and charge inflated prices.

As a result of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiff and the
class allegedly paid prices for Urological Catheters that were
artificially inflated, and were foreclosed from the opportunity
to purchase more effective and innovatively advanced Urological
Catheters.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for itself and on behalf of
direct purchasers of Urological Catheters, as well as recurring
injunctive relief from these ongoing violations of federal
antitrust laws.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) Whether the defendants engaged in a contract,
         combination or conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, or allocate
         the market for Urological Catheters;

     (b) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators were
         participants in the contracts, combinations or
         conspiracies alleged herein;

     (c) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in conduct that violated Sections 1 and 2 of
         the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     (d) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in unlawful, unfair or deceptive contracts,
         combinations or conspiracies among themselves, express
         or implied, to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
         prices of Urological Catheters sold in and/or
         distributed in the U.S.;

     (f) Whether the anticompetitive conduct of the defendants
         caused prices of Urological Catheters to be
         artificially inflated to non-competitive levels;

     (g) Whether the defendants unjustly enriched themselves as
         a result of their inequitable conduct at the expense of
         the Class members;

     (h) Whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (i) Whether plaintiff and other class members were injured
         by the conduct of defendants and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages

     (j) What is the scope of the relative market for Urological
         Catheters; and

     (k) Whether defendants have market power in the Urological
         Catheter.

Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the class, respectfully
prays:

     (1) that this action may be maintained as a class action
         pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure, that plaintiff's counsel be appointed class
         counsel, and that reasonable notice of this action be
         given to the class;

     (2) that the acts alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to
         be unlawful restraints of trade in violation of
         Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of
         the Clayton Act;

     (3) that the class recover treble the damages determined to
         have been sustained by them, and that joint and several
         judgments be entered against defendants in favor of the
         class;

     (4) that defendants be enjoined from entering into the
         unlawful agreements discussed above;

     (5) that the class be granted the costs and expenses of
         suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided
         by law; and

     (6) that the class be granted such other and further relief
         as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper
         by the court.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a58

The suit is "Southeast Missouri Hospital v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00031-TCM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Thomas C.
Mummert, III.

Representing plaintiffs is J. Michael Ponder of Cook and
Barkett, 715 N. Clark Street, P.O. Box 1180, Cape Girardeau, MO
63702-1180, Phone: 573-335-6651, Fax: 573-335-6182, E-mail:
mike@semotriallawyers.com.


C. R. BARD: Faces Suit in R.I. Over Composix Kugel Mesh Patch
-------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island over the recalled Composix Kugel Mesh Patch, according to
the company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit, "Sonia Montiel and Carol Nunes-McNamara v. Davol Inc.
and C. R. Bard, Inc.," was filed on Feb. 14 on behalf of two
named plaintiffs and all U.S. patients who have had a recalled
Composix Kugel Mesh Patch implanted.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in deceptive trade
practices and request the creation of a medical monitoring class
and assessment of compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit is "Montiel et al. v. Davol, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00064-ML-DLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island under Judge Mary M. Lisi with referral
to Judge David L. Martin.

Representing the plaintiffs is Donald A. Migliori of Motley
Rice, LLC, 321 South Main Street, 2nd Floor, P.O. Box 6067,
Providence, RI 02940-6067, Phone: 457-7709, Fax: 457-7708, E-
mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com.


CONMED CORP: Former Sales Reps Ask to Certify N.Y. ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a purported class action
filed by a group of former sales representatives of CONMED
Corp.'s operating unit, CONMED Linvatec.

On April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint filed in
the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York on
behalf of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

The suit seeks to certify a class of all former sales
representatives terminated in March 2003 who did not receive
severance from the company

The complaint alleges that the former sales representatives were
entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when CONMED
Linvatec restructured its distribution channels.

The company believes that the maximum exposure related to this
complaint is $2.5 million to $3.0 million, not including any
interest, fees or costs that might be awarded if the five named
plaintiffs were to prevail on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of all members of the purported class.

The company said CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance
during the 2003 restructuring because the former sales
representatives were offered sales positions with CONMED
Linvatec's new manufacturer's representatives.

Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in the class
action, nearly all of CONMED Linvatec's former sales
representatives accepted such positions.

Four of the named plaintiffs submitted formal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance, and said
claims were forwarded to the Plan Administrator for review and
action.

By letters dated June 9, 2006, the Plan Administrator denied the
claims.  Although the four named plaintiffs were able to appeal
the initial decision of the Plan Administrator, none of the
plaintiffs submitted appeals.

On June 5, 2006, CONMED filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion, which was
submitted for decision on July 11, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a class of all former sales representatives terminated
in March 2003 who did not receive severance.

The company has filed motions, which, if granted, would result
in the dismissal of the case, subject to any appeals the
plaintiffs could pursue.

The court held a hearing on the company's motions on Jan. 5, and
took the matter under advisement.  There is no fixed time frame
within the court must rule on the motions, according to the
company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006

The suit is "Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case
No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York under Judge Neal P. McCurn
with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.

Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian
O'Neil Smith of Moukawsher, Walsh Law Firm, 21 Oak Street, Suite
209, Hartford, CT 06106, US, Phone: 860-278-7003 and 860-278-
7005, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com and
ismith@mwlawgroup.com.


CORN PRODUCTS: Discovery Begins in Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery has taken place in a consolidated securities
class action filed against Corn Products International, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Between May and June of 2005, the company, Samuel Scott and
Cheryl Beebe were named as defendants in five purported
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs are:

     -- Monty Blatt
     -- Dale Anderson
     -- Adam Shapiro
     -- Neil Hildebrand, and
     -- Philip Brust

The complaints, alleging violations of certain federal
securities laws, seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock between Jan. 25,
2005 and April 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company made false and misleading
statements and omissions of material facts based on its
disclosure regarding earnings projections and operating margins,
claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by
certain of the company's officers of Section 20A of U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In August 2005, all of these class actions were consolidated in
the matter of "Monty Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc.
(N.D. Ill. 05 C 3033)."

In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint containing essentially the same legal claims.  Cheryl
Beebe was not named as a defendant in the consolidated amended
complaint.

In August 2006, the company answered the consolidated amended
complaint and in October 2006 the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.  A limited amount of discovery has taken place to
date, according to the company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-03033," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge James B. Zagel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service
Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Nathan P. Eimer of Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP,
         224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL
         60604, Phone: (312) 660-7600, E-mail:
         neimer@eimerstahl.com; and

     (2) Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Chicago),
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: No Ruling Yet on Apartheid Litigation Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court has yet to rule on an appeal against the
dismissal of a federal class action over the practice of
apartheid in South Africa by numerous companies.

Several lawsuits, including putative class actions, were filed
in 2002 against a large number of companies from a wide variety
of industries and nationalities asserting claims relating to the
practice of apartheid in South Africa.

One of the lawsuits names DaimlerChrysler AG as a defendant and
another one named a U.S. subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler AG as a
defendant.

The lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for pretrial purposes.  On
Nov. 29, 2004, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed by a
group of defendants, including DaimlerChrysler.

Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the court's decision.  The
appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument was held in
January 2006, according to DaimlerChrysler AG's Feb. 27 Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

DaimlerChrysler AG on the Net: http://www.daimlerchrysler.com.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Foreign Investors Appeal Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action against DaimlerChrysler AG, who are
purportedly foreign shareholders of the company, are appealing
the dismissal of their federal case to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 3rd Circuit.

The purported class action was filed against the company and
some members of its board of management in 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of current
or former DaimlerChrysler shareholders who are neither citizens
nor residents of the U.S. and who acquired their DaimlerChrysler
shares on or through a foreign stock exchange.

The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated U.S.
securities law and committed fraud in obtaining approval from
Chrysler stockholders of the business combination between
Chrysler and Daimler-Benz in 1998.

On Jan. 24, 2006, the court granted DaimlerChrysler's motion to
dismiss the complaint, declining to exercise jurisdiction over
the case.

The complaint had not yet been served on any member of
DaimlerChrysler's board of management.  On Feb 17, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, according to
DaimlerChrysler AG's Feb. 27 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

DaimlerChrysler AG on the Net: http://www.daimlerchrysler.com.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Still Faces Antitrust Suits in Maine, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG remains a defendant in two consolidated
antitrust class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine, and the California Superior Court in San
Francisco County.

More than 80 purported class actions, alleging violations of
antitrust law are pending against the company and several of its
U.S. subsidiaries, six other motor vehicle manufacturers,
operating subsidiaries of those companies in both the U.S. and
Canada, the National Automobile Dealers Association and the
Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

Some complaints were filed in federal courts in various states
and others were filed in state courts.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to prevent
the sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers in Canada
in order to maintain new car prices at artificially high levels
in the U.S.  They seek injunctive relief and treble damages on
behalf of everyone who bought or leased a new vehicle in the
U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001.

The federal court actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine for purposes of
pretrial proceedings, and the state cases filed in California
have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in San
Francisco County.

In 2006, the federal court certified a nationwide class of
buyers and lessees for injunctive relief, and ruled that it will
certify a class for damages for six exemplar states after
discovery to determine the scope of the classes.

DaimlerChrysler AG on the Net: http://www.daimlerchrysler.com.


DETROIT DIESEL: Injunction in Healthcare Insurance Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Diesel Corp., a DaimlerChrysler AG unit, remains a
defendant in a purported class action filed by former employees
who retired from the company between 1993 and 2004.

The suit was filed on October 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.  It alleges that the
company is obligated to provide lifetime retiree health care
benefits at no cost to class members, and that the company's
notification to have them contribute toward the cost of their
healthcare insurance beginning in 2006 is invalid.

The court granted a preliminary injunction in December 2005 that
prohibits the company from requiring such contributions while
the lawsuit is pending.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the
injunction in January 2007.  The company continues to defend the
suit, according to DaimlerChrysler AG's Feb. 27 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Wood et al. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., Case No. 2:05-
cv-74106-DPH-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Denise Page Hood, with
referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs is Andrew A. Nickelhoff of Sachs
Waldman (Detroit), 1000 Farmer St., Detroit, MI 48226, Phone:
313-496-9429, E-mail: anickelhoff@sachswaldman.com.


FIRST BANCORP: Settles Securities Lawsuit in P.R. for $74.25M
-------------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims with lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to notice
being provided to the class and final approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, First BanCorp
will pay the plaintiffs $74,250,000.

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

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

As previously announced, in anticipation of the settlement,
First BanCorp recorded an accrual of $74,250,000 in its
financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.  First
BanCorp had been in discussions, led by a mediator, with the
lead plaintiff regarding a settlement.

"I am pleased with the speed and appropriateness of the
settlement that we reached with the plaintiffs," said Luis
Beauchamp, president and chief executive officer of First
BanCorp.  "[It] is another significant step in our efforts to
fully address our pending legal and regulatory matters, and we
look forward to continuing to build a leading banking franchise
for our customers, shareholders and employees."

                     Financial Reporting

First BanCorp plans to file its annual report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006 in the summer of 2007.  As
soon as practicable thereafter, First BanCorp expects to file
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the financial
information required for its fiscal quarters ended March 31,
2005, June 30, 2005, Sept. 30, 2005, March 31, 2006, June 30,
2006, Sept. 30, 2006 and the corresponding quarters for 2007.

The suit is "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations, Case
No. 3:05-cv-02148-GAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico under Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

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


GLOBALSTAR INC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that shareholders of
Globalstar, Inc. common stock who purchased in the initial
public offering or on the open market during the period
beginning on or about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 6, 2007, have
until April 10, 2007 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff
in a securities fraud class action currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Earlier, Kahn Gauthier announced that a securities fraud class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of shareholders of Globalstar,
Inc. common stock purchased in the initial public offering or on
the open market during on or about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 6,
2007 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set March 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that shareholders of Hornbeck
Offshore Services, Inc. common stock and other securities who
purchased during the period from Nov. 1, 2006 through Jan. 10,
2007 have until March 19, 2007 to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in a securities fraud class action currently pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

In January, KGS announced that Hornbeck Offshore Services
shareholders who purchased common stock and other securities of
the company from Nov. 1, 2006 to Jan. 10, 2007, may then move
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
for lead plaintiff appointment in the securities fraud lawsuits
filed against the company (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25,
2007).

The complaint charges Hornbeck and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions about the
company's operations and expected earnings for the 4th Quarter
2006, and for fiscal 2007.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the company shocked the market by announcing
that that it was revising its Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation and Amortization and earnings per share guidance
for the fourth quarter of 2006 and for fiscal 2006, materially
reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range between
$33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0 million to
$41.0 million.

The company announced it now expected per share earnings for the
fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63, down
from $0.72 to $0.77.  It also expected to reduce 2007 guidance
by 15 to 20 percent.

Hornbeck has admitted that it had knowledge over the previous
several months that operating issues had negatively impacted the
company's financial performance, including volatility in the
offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the shipyard delivery
schedules for new-builds and increased turnaround time for
regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and maintenance, as well as
increased costs for personnel and insurance.

As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck shares
slumped to a 52-week low in early trading on Jan. 11, 2007 and
the stock was down $7.11, or 21.2%, on markedly increased
volume.

For more information, contact Kevin Oufnac of Kahn Gauthier
Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 107, E-mail:
kevin.oufnac@kgscounsel.com.


INTERSIL CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Initial Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in relation to its 2000 initial public
offering.

The company and certain of its former directors as well as the
lead underwriter of its March 2000 initial public offering,
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., were named as defendants in
several lawsuits, the first of which is a class action filed on
June 8, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaints allege violations of Rule 10b-5 based on, among
other things, the dissemination of statements containing
material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the
commissions received by the underwriters of the initial public
offering, as well as failure to disclose the existence of
purported agreements by the underwriters with some of the
purchasers in these offerings to thereafter buy additional
shares of Intersil in the open market at pre-determined prices
above the offering prices.

These lawsuits against the company, as well as those alleging
similar claims against other issuers in initial public
offerings, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with a
of other related securities suits.  In April 2002, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the
company and certain of its officers and directors.  The
consolidated amended complaint pleads claims under both the 1933
U.S. Securities Act and under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

In addition to the allegations of wrongdoing described above,
plaintiffs also now allege that analysts employed by
underwriters who were acting as investment bankers for the
company improperly touted the value of the company's shares
during the relevant class period as part of the purported scheme
to artificially inflate the value of the company's shares.

In October 2002, the individual employee defendants were
dismissed from the class action.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, litigation costs and expenses.  A tentative
settlement has been reached between the plaintiffs and all
defendant stock issuers, with ongoing negotiations as to the
specific terms of the settlement agreement.

Under that agreement, the company would not be required to pay
any damages, expenses or litigation costs to the plaintiffs.
When negotiations are completed and the parties have agreed upon
the final terms of the settlement agreement, the agreement must
be approved by the court before dismissal of the company and
other parties to the agreement from the suit.

On Feb. 15, 2005 the judge preliminarily approved the issuers'
settlement agreement.  Final approval is subject to certain
revisions requested by the judge, notice to the affected class
members, and a final hearing.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the class certification of six "focus" cases that are part of
the 300 consolidated class actions.  It is unknown how this
ruling will affect the approval of the settlement.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint in
the securities class action filed against Investors Financial
Services Corp. and several of its officers, according to the
company's form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The company and certain of its officers were named as defendants
in three purported class action complaints that were filed on or
about Aug. 4, 2005, Aug. 15, 2005, and Sept. 30, 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston,
Massachusetts.

The U.S. District Court has consolidated those cases and
appointed lead plaintiffs, who filed a consolidated complaint
against the company and seven of its current and former officers
on Feb. 3, 2006.

Among other things, the consolidated complaint asserts that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period April 10, 2001
until July 15, 2005.

The allegations in the consolidated complaint predominantly
relate to: (1) the company's October 2004 restatement of the
company's financial results, and (2) the company's July 2005
revision of public guidance regarding the company's future
financial performance.  The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.

On May 14, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the consolidated complaint.  That motion is
currently pending before the court, according to the company's
regulatory filing.

The first identified complaint is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Support Fund, et al. v. Investors Financial Services Corp., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-11627," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay,
with referral to Judge Judith G. Dein.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com;

     (2) Pavel Bespalko of Law Office of Joel Eigerman, 50
         Congress Street, Suite 200, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-818-1982, Fax: 617-523-5612, E-mail:
         pavel@bespalko.com; and

     (3) Joel Z. Eigerman of Joel Z. Eigerman, Attorney-at-Law,
         Suite 200, 50 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-523-3050, Fax: 617-523-3050, E-mail:
         joel@eigerman.com.

Representing the defendants is Jason D. Frank of Bingham
McCutchen, LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-951-8153, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
jason.frank@bingham.com.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Continues to Face Price Fixing Litigation in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and its wholly owned subsidiary
Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc. remain as defendants in a class
that accuses them of participating in a price fixing conspiracy
among Mercedes-Benz dealers.

The class action was filed in 2002, and is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
according to DaimlerChrysler AG's Feb. 27 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

DaimlerChrysler AG on the Net: http://www.daimlerchrysler.com.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Ends April 2
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that shareholders who
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9,
2006 have only until April 2, 2007 to move for appointment as
lead plaintiff in KGS' securities fraud class action currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division.

Earlier, KGS initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Powerwave Technologies between May
2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2007).

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

The complaint alleges that Powerwave materially misrepresented
and failed to disclose numerous conditions that adversely
affected the company, permitting defendants to:

     (1) deceive shareholders concerning the business,
         operations, management and the intrinsic value of
         Powerwave common stock;

     (2) artificially inflate the price of the company's shares,
         ultimately purchased by misled shareholders;

     (3) register for sale with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission millions of shares of stock that were sold
         to the public or used to acquire assets of other
         unwitting companies;

     (4) make it possible for company insiders to sell millions
         of dollars of their privately held shares while in
         possession of material adverse non-public information.

On Oct. 9, 2006, investors learned that Powerwave's 2006 third
quarter results would be only $155 million, significantly lower
than the $230-$250 million previously forecast.

This sudden and shocking disclosure, in the face of repeated
company reports of "record" setting growth and profitability,
had an immediate impact on the price of Powerwave stock, which
declined almost 20% in the single trading day -- marking a
decline of almost $10 per share from the Class Period high
reached only several months earlier.

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn
Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 106 (Toll
Free), E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website:
http://www.kgscounsel.com.


PURDUE PHARMA: Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit Over Painkiller
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack granted a motion to
dismiss a suit pending against Purdue Pharma since September
2001 but has since remained at a very early stage, The Madison
St. Clair Record, reports.

Judy Cates of Korein Tillery filed the suit in 2001 for Allied
Services of Edwardsville.  Ms. Cates proposed to represent all
who suffered damages from abuse of the painkiller OxyContin,
claiming Purdue Pharma failed to prevent prescription abuse.
She did not pursue it, however.

In September 2004, Judge Stack declared it inactive.

In January 2006, Kenneth Brennan of SimmonsCooper filed an entry
of appearance in the Allied Services class action claim.  On
Dec. 22, lawyers Tor Hoerman of SimmonsCooper law firm and Troy
Bozarth of Purdue Pharma jointly dismissed a suit for lack of
significant progress.  They wrote that each party would bear its
own costs.

Judge Stack granted the motion.


RURAL/METRO: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Wage Ordinance Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rural/Metro Medical Services is facing a lawsuit in state
Supreme Court accusing it of violating Buffalo, New York's
Living Wage Ordinance for the past two years, The Buffalo News
reports.

The suit, filed by Rural/Metro emergency medical technicians:

     -- Michael Karalunas,
     -- Donald Page,
     -- Justyn Moore and
     -- Joe Wertman

was "on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and monetary award for
back pay or restitution, and an injunction forcing Rural Metro
to "pay the hourly wages required by" the city's Living Wage
Ordinance.

Plaintiffs' attorney Catherine Creighton, estimates more than
150 current and former Rural/Metro workers have been adversely
affected by the company's pay policies since it acquired its
exclusive contract with the city on March 1, 2005, to provide
emergency ambulance services.

She said the four listed EMTs all make less than the hourly wage
range allegedly mandated by that city ordinance: $9.03 per hour
if company health care benefits are provided and $10.15 per hour
with no health benefits.

Rural/Metro attorneys Adam W. Perry and Michael J. Gorman said
the company had not yet received the lawsuit and they were
unable to comment.

The case has been assigned to State Supreme Court Justice Gerald
J. Whalen.  Court hearings have yet to be scheduled.

Plaintiffs' attorney Catherine Creighton, Esq. is with Creighton
Pearce, Johnsen & Giroux, 560 Ellicott Square Building, 295 Main
Street, Buffalo, New York, 14203, Phone: 716-854-0007 Fax: 716-
854-0004, E-mail: ccreighton@cpjglaborlaw.com.

Representing defendants are Adam W. Perry of Hodgson Russ LLP,
One M&T Plaza, Suite 2000, Buffalo, NY 14203, Phone:  (716) 848-
1422, Fax: (716) 849-0349; and Michael J. Gorman of McDowell,
Rice, Smith & Buchanan, 605 West 47th Street, Suite 350, Kansas
City, Missouri 64112, Phone: 816-753-5400, Fax: 816-753-9996.


SCIELE PHARMA: Appeals Court Vacates Orders in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit vacated orders by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in
its decision to dismiss a securities fraud suit filed against
Sciele Pharma, Inc., fka First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp.

The company, certain former and current officers and directors
are defendants in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed on
Aug. 22, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

Plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the
company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  In an amended complaint, plaintiffs
claim that the company issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market in connection with the
company's public offering on April 24, 2002 and thereafter
relating to alleged "channel stuffing" activities.

The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability
on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class
action.  Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted
the plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs
pay all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing
the motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as permitted,
but instead filed a motion asking the District Court to
reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and lift the condition that
they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further
amendment.  On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion and gave them another opportunity to amend if
they pay defendants' fees and costs.  Once again, plaintiffs
chose not to file a second amended complaint.  Instead,
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint
was a "shotgun pleading" which did not satisfy the pleading
requirements under the federal rules.  The Court of Appeals,
however, disagreed with the remedy ordered by the District
Court.  Instead of dismissing the Amended Complaint with a right
to further amend if plaintiffs paid defendants' fees and costs,
the Court of Appeals held that the District Court should have
ordered plaintiffs to replead under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(e).

The Court of Appeals also held that plaintiffs' claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading
standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those
claims are based on alleged fraud.  Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals vacated the District Court's orders and remanded with
instructions to order a repleading.

The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.

Representing the plaintiffs is David Andrew Bain of Chitwood
Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade
II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail:
dab@classlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is John Patterson Brumbaugh of King
& Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763,
Phone: 404-572-5100, E-mail: pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Further "Engle" Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd District Court of Appeal denied a motion by defendants
in the "Engle" suit to rule on certain issues that were raised
by the parties, but not addressed by the court in its prior
rulings, Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in a regulatory
filing.

Trial began in July 1998 in "Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co." (a case filed in May 1994, and pending in Circuit Court,
Dade County, Florida), in which a class consisting of Florida
residents, or their survivors, alleges diseases or medical
conditions caused by their alleged "addiction" to cigarettes.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), seeking actual damages and
punitive damages in excess of $100 billion each and the creation
of a medical fund to compensate individuals for future health
care costs.

The plaintiffs alleged that their use of the defendants'
products caused their development of various illnesses and their
addiction.  On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco,
B&W and the other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the
initial phase, which included common issues related to certain
elements of liability, general causation and a potential award
of, or entitlement to, punitive damages.

The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of
three of the named class representatives, began on Nov. 1, 1999.
On April 7, 2000, the jury returned a verdict against all the
defendants.  It awarded plaintiff Mary Farnan $2.85 million, the
estate of plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023 million and
plaintiff Frank Amodeo $5.831 million.

The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the
trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide
basis.  On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive damages
verdict in favor of the "Florida class" of approximately $145
billion against all the defendants, with approximately $36.3
billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W,
respectively.

On Nov. 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial motions
and entered judgment.  In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and B&W
posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million each, the
maximum amount required pursuant to a Florida bond cap statute
enacted on May 9, 2000, and intended to apply to the Engle case,
and initiated the appeals process.

On May 21, 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court's final judgment and remanded the case
to the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court with instructions to
decertify the class.  The class appealed, and the Florida
Supreme Court accepted the case on May 12, 2004.

On July 6, 2006, the court issued its decision.  The court
affirmed the dismissal of the punitive damages award and
decertified the class, on a going-forward basis.  The court
preserved a number of class-wide findings from Phase I of the
trial, including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases,
that nicotine is addictive and that defendants placed defective
and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the market, and
authorized class members to avail themselves of those findings
in individual lawsuits, provided they commence those lawsuits
within one year of the date the court's decision becomes final.

The court specified that the class is confined to those Florida
residents who developed smoking-related illnesses that
"manifested" themselves on or before Nov. 21, 1996.  In
addition, the court reinstated the compensatory damages awards
of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023 million to Angie
Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo were
barred by the statute of limitations.  Finally, the court
reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's 2003 ruling that
class counsel's improper statements during trial required
reversal.

On Aug. 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a
rehearing motion arguing, among other things, that the findings
from the Engle trial are not sufficiently specific to serve as
the basis for further proceedings and that the Florida Supreme
Court's application of the class-action rule denies defendants
due process.

On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion
arguing that some smokers who became sick after Nov. 21, 1996,
and who are therefore not class members, should nevertheless
have the statute of limitations tolled since they may have
refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken belief that
they were Engle class members.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its July 6,
2006, decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it set
aside the jury's findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent and
clarified that the future plaintiffs could rely on the Engle
jury's findings on express warranty.  The court issued its
mandate on Jan. 11, 2007, which begins the one-year period for
individual class members to file lawsuits.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the defendants asked the Third District Court
of Appeal to rule on certain issues that were raised by the
parties, but not addressed by the court in its prior rulings.
That motion was denied on Feb. 21, 2007.  Reynolds American Inc.
anticipates that individual case filings in Florida will
increase as a result of the Engle decision.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Circuit Court's Ruling in "Scott" Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in "Scott v. American Tobacco Co." filed a motion for
rehearing after the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal
affirmed that defendants are responsible for funding smoking
cessation for eligible class members in the suit, Reynolds
American Inc. disclosed in a regulatory filing.

On Nov. 5, 1998, in "Scott v. American Tobacco Co." (a case
filed in May 1996, and pending in District Court, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana), an appeals court affirmed the certification
of a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana
residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc.  It seeks to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' products
caused them to become addicted to nicotine.  Opening statements
occurred on Jan. 21, 2003.  On July 28, 2003, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' claim
for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not
defectively designed.

However, the jury also made certain findings against the
defendants on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to
minors and smoking cessation.  Notwithstanding these findings,
this portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any
class member or class representative.

What primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim that
the defendants pay for a program to help people stop smoking.
On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address only
the scope and cost of smoking cessation programs.  On May 21,
2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591 million
on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond,
pursuant to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to
$50 million collectively for signatories of the Master
Settlement Agreement that RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers entered into with attorneys general
representing most U.S. states, territories and possessions.  The
MSA imposes a stream of future payment obligations on RJR
Tobacco and the other major U.S. cigarette manufacturers and
places significant restrictions on their ability to market and
sell cigarettes in the future.

The defendants also noticed their appeal.  RJR Tobacco posted
$25 million (i.e., the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W) towards
the bond.  The Louisiana Court of Appeal issued its opinion on
Feb. 7, 2007.

The court found that any class member who started smoking or
whose right to participate in the program accrued after Sept. 1,
1988, is not entitled to any recovery under Louisiana law.  The
court also rejected the award of pre-judgment interest and most
of the specific components of the smoking cessation program.
However, the court upheld the class certification and found the
defendants responsible for funding smoking cessation for
eligible class members.

The court also remanded the case to the trial court with
instructions to further reduce the $590 million jury award for
the program by more than $312 million (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 22, 2007).

On Feb. 21, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for rehearing.

The suit is "Gloria Scott, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,
et al., Case No. 96-8461."

In addition to the Scott case, two other medical monitoring
class-actions have been brought against RJR Tobacco, B&W, and
other cigarette manufacturers:

     -- "Blankenship v. American Tobacco Co." before a West
         Virginia state court; and

     -- "Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.," a case filed in November
        2001 and pending in Circuit Court, Multnomah County,
        Oregon.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: D.C. Court Refuses to Reverse "Simms" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Columbia denied plaintiffs'
motions for reconsideration and reversal of the order that
denied class certification in "Simms v. Philip Morris, Inc.,"
which was filed in May 2001, according to a regulatory filing by
Reynolds American Inc.
On Feb. 10, 2003, the court denied certification of a proposed
nationwide class of smokers who purchased cigarettes while
underage in an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W).

The suit seeks treble damages; disgorgement of unjust
enrichment; to enjoin defendants from engaging in marketing or
advertising campaigns that target and/or encourage under-age
youth to purchase cigarettes, and from making false, misleading
or deceptive statements concerning the health effects and
addictive natures of cigarettes; to require the defendants to
make corrective statements; and the recovery of attorneys fees,
expert fees and costs.

The action was brought to recover the purchase price paid by the
plaintiffs and class members for defendants' products while they
were underage, or in the alternative, to recover the unjust
enrichment obtained by the defendants from the plaintiffs and
class members while they were underage through the use of fraud,
deception, misrepresentation, and other activities constituting
racketeering, in violation of federal law.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration and reversal of the order that denied class
certification.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: High Court Review of "Lowe" Dismissal Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.," which names as
defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W) filed a petition with the Oregon Supreme
Court for review of the dismissal of the suit, Reynolds American
Inc. disclosed in a regulatory filing.

In addition to the case, "Scott, et al. v. American Tobacco Co.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 96-8461," two other medical monitoring
class actions have been brought against RJR Tobacco, B&W, and
other cigarette manufacturers.

In "Blankenship v. American Tobacco Co.," the first tobacco-
related medical monitoring class action to be certified and to
reach trial, a West Virginia state court jury found in favor of
RJR Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturers on Nov. 14,
2001.  The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on
May 6, 2004.

In "Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc." (a case filed in November 2001,
and pending in Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon), a judge
dismissed the complaint on Nov. 4, 2003, for failure to state a
claim in an action against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W.  The suit seeks
creation of a court-supervised program of medical monitoring,
smoking cessation and education, and recovery of attorneys'
fees.

The plaintiffs appealed, and on Sept. 6, 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
with the Oregon Supreme Court.  Briefing is underway, according
to Reynolds American Inc.'s form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


VALERO ENERGY: Appeal to Reinstate $120M Clark Oil Suit Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court allowed plaintiffs in a class
action against the owners of the former Clark Oil refinery in
Blue Island to appeal a decision by the Cook County Circuit
Judge Cheryl A. Starks to vacate a $120 million judgment they
won against the company, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The suit is "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et
al., Case No. 95-L 014703."  Valero Energy Inc. assumed this
class action after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a
merger agreement on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to
the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of heavy
metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery on
Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary evacuation
of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes:

      -- Class A: persons purportedly affected by the Oct. 7,
         1994  catalyst release, but with no permanent health
         effects;

      -- Class B: persons with medical expenses for dependents
         purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994 release; and

      -- Class C: local residents claiming property damage or
         who have suffered loss of use and enjoyment of their
         property over a period of several years.

Following three weeks of trial, on Nov. 21, 2005, the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiffs of $80.1 million in
compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages.

In January 2006, the company filed motions for new trial,
remittitur and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing,
among other things, rampant misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel
and improper class certification.

On Nov. 3, 2006, Judge Starks:

      -- upheld the jury's award of $100,000 for Class A and no
         damages for Class B;

      -- decertified Class C; and

      -- vacated the jury's award to Class C of $80 million in
         compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive
         damages.

The company urged plaintiffs to settle to forfeit future legal
action.  In January, Judge Starks stayed her decision to
decertify the class, and barred Valero from further attempts to
settle with members of the suit while efforts were made to
appeal.

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney Robert Wagner.

Valero Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.valero.com/.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Mutual Fund Investors File Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual Inc. investors filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and its subsidiaries, alleging that it
knowingly deceived retail investors by steering them to
Washington Mutual's own portfolio of mutual funds which were
less attractive than alternative funds.

The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers and sellers of
Washington Mutual's proprietary mutual funds, the WM Group of
Funds, between at least March 1, 2004, through March 1, 2005,
inclusive through WM Financial Services acting as broker.

It alleges that Washington Mutual and its subsidiary companies
had an undisclosed "preferred list" of funds, and issued
materially misleading disclosures and omissions regarding side
agreement (cash and non cash program) designed to improperly
incent WM Financial Services and its sales team to favor
Washington Mutual's proprietary funds, (the WM Group of Funds)
and thereby drive sales, regardless of alternatives for their
individual retail investor.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the putative
class members.

The suit is "Zapien v. Washington Mutual, Inc et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00385-DMS-CAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, under Judge Dana M. Sabraw,
with referral to Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

Representing plaintiffs is Jeffrey R. Krinsk of Finkelstein and
Krinsk, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3593,
Phone: (619) 238-1333, Fax: (619) 238-5425, E-mail:
jrk@classactionlaw.com.


* Baker & McKenzie LLP Elects New Partners in Chicago Office
------------------------------------------------------------
Baker & McKenzie LLP has 10 new partners in its Chicago office,
bringing the total number of partners in the office to 109.

The new partners are:

     (1) Narendra Acharya - Employment and Compensation --
         focuses his practice on matters relating to U.S. and
         international employee benefits and executive
         compensation, including global stock plans, pensions
         and employment issues in mergers and acquisitions.  He
         joined the firm in 2000.

     (2) Michael DeFranco - Corporate and Securities --
         his practice in the areas of mergers and
         acquisitions, corporate finance, and general corporate
         and securities matters. Mr. DeFranco represents buyers,
         sellers and their financial advisors in a wide variety
         of transactions, including negotiated and contested
         public acquisitions, private acquisitions and
         divestitures, and other strategic alliances.  He joined
         the firm in 2005.

     (3) Michael Donovan - Tax -- focuses his practice on tax
         planning for U.S. real estate projects, including
         tenancy in common structures under Section 1031,
         leveraged partnerships, and real estate investment
         trusts.  In addition, Mr. Donovan engages in a
         significant amount of tax planning for partnerships,
         corporations and tax-exempt entities.  He joined the
         firm in 2005.

     (4) Tom Hurka - Employment and Compensation -- focuses his
         practice on employment and labor litigation, employment
         and labor counseling, domestic and international
         employment law and employment regulation.  He regularly
         counsels employers on, and represents employers in
         litigation involving, federal, state and local
         employment and labor laws.  He joined the Firm in 2001.

     (5) Tomas Man - Corporate and Securities -- focuses his
         practice on the legal aspects of trade and investment
         in China.  He also assists U.S. companies in their
         business activities in China, including trade and
         direct investment.  He joined the Firm in 1996.

     (6) Helen Mantel - Corporate and Securities -- advises
         clients in the areas of cross-border and domestic
         mergers and acquisitions, global corporate
         reorganizations, outbound investments, and joint
         ventures.  Ms. Mantel also assists clients with the
         general management of their global operations.  She
         joined the Firm in 1995.

     (7) Erin Maus - Litigation -- concentrates her practice in
         international and domestic products liability and mass
         tort litigation.  Erin also has a commercial litigation
         practice, with a particular focus on contract,
         warranty, distribution, dealer, franchise, sales of
         goods, and Uniform Commercial Code litigation and
         related counseling.  She joined the Firm in 1998.

     (8) Shima Roy - Litigation -- focuses her practice on
         commercial litigation and international arbitration and
         she regularly appears before federal and state courts
         in matters involving commercial, intellectual property
         and other disputes.  She joined the firm in 1998.

     (9) Doug Sanders - Environmental -- concentrates his
         practice in the area of environmental litigation,
         enforcement and compliance. He represents both domestic
         and non-U.S. corporations in federal and state court in
         environmental class action and mass torts litigation.
         He also advises clients with respect to liabilities
         arising from government enforcement proceedings,
         current and historical land contamination,
         environmental audits and environmental compliance
         issues under a broad range of federal and state
         environmental, health and safety statutes. He joined
         the firm in 2001.

    (10) Erika Schechter - Tax -- focuses her practice on tax
         litigation and transfer pricing.  She works with
         clients at all stages of tax controversies, from the
         audit level to IRS Appeals to litigation in the Tax
         Court and Appellate Courts.  She also litigates state
         and local tax controversies.  Erika assists clients in
         negotiating Advance Pricing Agreements with the United
         States and foreign governments and is also a Certified
         Public Accountant.  She joined the firm in 1996.

"We are delighted to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of
these talented individuals.  We look forward to their continued
success, as we look to strengthen our capabilities in key
practice areas," said Phillip F. Suse, Managing Partner of Baker
& McKenzie's Chicago office.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


CELESTICA INC: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action
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 Celestica, Inc. between Jan. 27,
2005 and Jan. 30, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges Celestica, Stephen W. Delaney, former chief
executive officer and Anthony P. Puppi, former chief financial
officer of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' class
period earnings statements and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commision reports were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the truth regarding the problems
experienced by the company as a result of its restructuring.

In particular, unknown to investors, the company's Mexican
operations, which under the restructuring plan was to receive 16
new customers that previously were provided for at more
expensive locations, was simply not setup to handle the increase
in volume, resulting in massive cost overruns, productivity
delays, inventory management issues, and lost customer
confidence that undermined the company's credibility.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Celestica issued a press release warning that
it would be unable to meet its operational targets as stated in
its Oct. 26, 2006 press release.

The company stated that based upon its then current estimates,
revenue would fall in a range of $2.2 billion to $2.5 billion,
with adjusted net earnings falling in the range of $0.00 to
$0.06 per share.  The company's prior guidance was for revenues
of $2.25 billion to $2.45 billion in revenues and for $0.05 to
$0.23 in net earnings per share.

The reduction was attributed to demand reductions and inventory
write-offs in its Monterrey, Mexico operations.  Celestica
shares reacted negatively to the news, falling from $9.37 per
share to $8.23 per share on Dec. 12, 2006, a one-day decline of
12.1%.

Then, on Jan. 30, 2007, Celestica revealed that its net loss had
more than tripled to $150.6 million, or ($0.66) per share.  The
company attributed the increased loss to problems at its Mexican
facilities and warned of additional charges.

The company also announced that Defendant Puppi would be
stepping down from his role as Chief Financial Officer.  In
reaction to the news, Celestica shares fell from $7.73 per share
to $5.96 per share, a one-day decline of 22.9%, on Jan. 31,
2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 13,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Announces N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of shareholders who sold the common
stock of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (FFH) between Dec.
18, 2002 and July 25, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges a massive, illegal stock market
manipulation scheme that has targeted and severely harmed
shareholders of Fairfax, and has resulted in immense ill-gotten
profits for defendants S.A.C. Capital, Exis Capital, Third
Point, Rocker Partners and other extremely powerful hedge funds.

The complaint further alleges that Defendants launched a
manipulation scheme which was an abusive short selling strategy
coupled with a public relations campaign full of false and
misleading statements about Fairfax, its executives, its
business, and its common stock price designed to drive down the
price of Fairfax stock.

For more information, contact David Brower and Charles Piven,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone:
410/332-0030, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Saxena White Files Shareholder Suit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri against NovaStar Financial
Incorporated.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired NovaStar securities
from May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007.

The lawsuit claims that NovaStar, its chief executive officer,
Scott F. Hartman, its chief operating officer W. Lance Anderson,
and its chief financial officer, Gregory S. Metz violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing false and misleading statements to the investing
public.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants reported quarter after quarter of seemingly
strong financial results, despite a difficult operating
environment in the mortgage industry.

As a result, the stock traded as high as nearly $38 per share
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that the defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that NovaStar's underwriting criteria were inadequate,
         especially given deteriorating market conditions in the
         subprime mortgage industry;

     (2) the company's financial statements issued during the
         Class Period were materially overstated because of
         defendants' failure to properly account for loan
         losses;

     (3) that the company's internal controls and financial
         reporting were inadequate and failed to properly
         estimate the company's reserves for delinquent loans;

     (4) that the defendant's assurances that the company would
         continue to offer strong dividends to investors, one of
         the fundamental reasons that investors purchased
         NovaStar stock, were unrealistic and that the company's
         ability to maintain its status as a REIT was in
         jeopardy.

On Feb. 20, 2007, after the market closed, defendants shocked
the market by reporting financial results for the fourth quarter
and year end 2006.

The company shocked investors by reporting a huge fourth quarter
loss, due to deteriorating credit performance in NovaStar's loan
portfolio, impairments on mortgage securities, and additional
loan loss provisions. Shockingly, the company stated that it
expects to recognize little, if any, taxable income in 2007
through 2011, and is currently evaluating whether it is in
shareholders' best interest to retain the company's REIT status
beyond 2007.

NovaStar investors considered this belated disclosure to be
highly material. In response to the announcement, the price of
NovaStar common stock plummeted precipitously, closing at $10.10
per share on Feb. 21, 2007, down from $17.56 per share on Feb.
20, 2007 (the last trading day before the disclosure) -- a one
day drop of over 42% on unusually high trading volume of 22.5
million shares, far greater than the company's average trading
volumes of approximately 1.8 million shares.

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

Based in Kansas City, Missouri, the company is a residential
lender specializing in making loans to borrowers who generally
do not satisfy the credit or verification procedures of more
traditional mortgage companies.

For more information, contact Maya Saxena and Joseph White, both
of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca
Raton, FL 33431, Phone: (561) 394-3399, Fax: (561) 394-3382, E-
mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com or jwhite@saxenawhite.com,
Website: http://www.saxenawhite.com.


NUVELO INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, announces that class actions have been commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Nuvelo, Inc.
between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Nuvelo and one or more of its
officers and/or directors violated the federal securities law.
Nuvelo, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery,
development, and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular and cancer therapy.

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

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

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

     (3) that no reliable data existed to show that alfimeprase
         would meet the high standards for efficacy for FDA
         approval;

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

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

The complaint further alleges that on Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo
revealed, contrary to earlier positive reports provided by the
Defendants, that Nuvelo's clinical trials of alfimeprase did not
meet any of the primary or key secondary endpoints established
for success and that the company had temporarily suspended
enrollment in all other ongoing trials, pending discussions with
outside experts and regulatory agencies due to safety concerns
and the usefulness of alfimeprase.

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

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

For more information, contact Charles Piven and David Brower,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-
332-0030, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.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  * * *