CAR_Public/070307.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 47

                            Headlines


BRIDGE TERMINAL: OOIDA Lease Agreements Suit Settled for $6.25M
CAREMARK RX: Ala. High Court Remands "McArthur" to State Court
CAREMARK RX: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Stock Option Grants
CAREMARK RX: Discovery Continues in Ill. Antitrust Lawsuit
CAREMARK RX: Seeks to Junk Non-ERISA Health Plan Members' Suit

CAREMARK RX: Certification Motions in PBM Antitrust Suit Pending
CAREMARK RX: Tenn. Court Administratively Closes CVS Merger Suit
CAREMARK RX: Tenn. Court Refuses to Lift Stay in Merger Suit
CAREMARK RX: Sheetmetal's Bid to Transfer Suit Over Merger Nixed
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Sued for Allegedly Overpricing Overseas Calls

COLORADO: Discovery Starts in Lawsuit Against Garfield County
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointment Vacated
EPDM ANTITRUST: May 9 Final Hearing Set for $21M Suit Settlement
GEBAUER CO: Recalls Oral Moisturizers that Fail Quality Test
HEXION SPECIALTY: Settles Ky. Lawsuit Over Odors, Air Emissions

ILLINOIS: CBEC Sued Over Voters' Personal Information Disclosure
MICROSOFT CORP: Dutch Lawyer to File Suit Over Xbox 360 Problems
NEW CENTURY: Klafter & Olsen Extends Class Period in Calif. Suit
OHIO: Lawsuit Alleges Police's Excessive Force in "Taser" Use
PENNSYLVANIA: Local Officials, Prisons Face Suit Alleging Abuse

PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Faces Lawsuit Over Debt Collection Tactics
R.J. REYNOLDS: Lights Cases Remain Stayed Pending "Price" Ruling
R.J. REYNOLDS: "Huntsberry" Plaintiffs Pursue Certification Bid
R.J. REYNOLDS: "Lights" Case Against B&W Remanded to La. Court
R.J. REYNOLDS: Common Court Sought for Mo. "Lights" Cases

SAINT ANTHONY'S: Ill. Man Files Fraud Suit Over Lien on Proceeds
SIMPLY FRESH: Recalls Fruit Trays for Salmonella Contamination
TERMINIX INT'L: Madison County Lawsuit Removed to Federal Court
TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Price" Plaintiffs Seek to Keep Suit Alive
TOBACCO LITIGATION: No Oral Argument Schedule Yet in "Daniels"

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Review Ruling in "Brown"
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Further "Engle" Rulings
TRAVEL COS: Ark. City Sues to Recover Hotel Occupancy Taxes
UNITED AIRLINES: Suit Claims Abuse of Monopoly on Direct Flights
UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit

UNITED STATES: Rights Group Awaits Ruling in Medicaid Law Suit
WASHINGTON: Continues to Face Suit Over 2002 IMF Protest Arrests


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NEW CENTURY: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NOVASTAR: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Suit Filing in Mo.
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********


BRIDGE TERMINAL: OOIDA Lease Agreements Suit Settled for $6.25M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation firm Bridge Terminal Transport Inc. and the
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) have
agreed to settle a class action filed by the drivers'
association in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, eTrucker reports.

Under the terms of the settlement, filed March 5, Bridge
Terminal will pay $6.25 million to settle all claims raised in
the lawsuit, including attorneys' fees and costs.

The settlement class benefits approximately 6,000 owner-
operators who leased equipment and services to Bridge Terminal
from June 2000 through December 2005.

In addition, Bridge Terminal has agreed to revise its owner-
operator lease agreement to clearly state compensation terms and
disclose all administrative fees charged back to owner-
operators.

OOIDA and seven of its owner-operator members filed the case in
June 2004 alleging that Bridge Terminal violated federal truth-
in-leasing regulations by failing to disclose or properly
document compensation provisions in its lease agreements.  

In addition, OOIDA has accused Bridge Terminal of unlawfully
charging truckers for fuel and fuel-related transaction fees,
and illegally charging truckers for insurance-related
administration fees.

In 2006, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey certified the suit as a class
action (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).  

If the court approves the settlement, each class member will
receive a settlement award based on the number of days for each
truck that the driver had under lease to Bridge Terminal during
the class period, as a percentage of the aggregate amount of
days for all trucks leased to Bridge Terminal during the class
period.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc. et al v. Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-
02846-SRC-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

Representing plaintiffs are David A. Cohen of The Cullen Law
Firm, 1101 - 30th Street, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, DC 20007,
Phone: (202) 944-8600; and Grant W. McGuire of Tompkins,
McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry, LLP, Four Gateway Center, 100
Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102-4070, Phone: (973) 622-3000,
E-mail: gmcguire@tompkinsmcguire.com.

Representing defendants is Paul M. Tschirhart of Sher &
Blackwell, LLP, 48 Bi-State Plaza, PMB 281, Old Tappan, NJ
07675-7079, Phone: (201) 722-1100, E-mail:
ptschirhart@sherblackwell.com.


CAREMARK RX: Ala. High Court Remands "McArthur" to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court remanded the purported class action,
"McArthur v. Caremark Rx, et al.," back to the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama for further proceedings.

Initially, two similar purported class actions were served
against Caremark Rx, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama.

                       Lauriello Litigation

In October 2003, Caremark Rx, Inc. was served with a putative
class action filed by John Lauriello in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama.

This lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported class of persons
who were participants in the 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
Rx and others.

Also named as defendants are several insurance companies that
had provided coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the
settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment
approving the 1999 settlement.  After the court overruled the
defendants' joint motion to dismiss in July 2004, the defendants
filed their answers, which, among other things, denied all of
the material allegations of the complaint.  The parties then
filed pleadings setting out their respective positions as to how
this case should proceed.

In January 2005, the court signed an order on class
certification that, among other things, held that this case will
proceed as a class action and set out a schedule for challenging
the adequacy of John Lauriello to serve as class representative,
as well as the appointment of Mr. Lauriello's lawyers to act as
class counsel.

The defendants have filed papers with the Alabama Supreme Court
seeking immediate appellate review of the trial court's order.
The Alabama Supreme Court has consolidated the issues raised by
the parties to the appeal in "Lauriello" with those raised by
the parties to the appellate proceedings involving the McArthur
plaintiffs.

                     McArthur Litigation

In November 2003, a second putative class action was filed by
Frank McArthur in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
Rx and others.

This lawsuit was also filed on behalf of a purported class of
persons who were participants in the 1999 settlement, and named
as defendants Caremark Rx, several insurance companies that had
provided coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the
settlement, and a number of lawyers and law firms involved in
negotiating and securing the approval of the 1999 settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

In December 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the lawsuit,
filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss, abate or
stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a duplicative,
later-filed, class action complaint.

In January 2004, Caremark Rx and the other defendants filed
their own motion to dismiss, abate or stay the lawsuit as a
later-filed class action that is substantially similar to the
Lauriello lawsuit.

The defendants' motion to stay was granted by the court, and the
lawsuit was transferred to an administrative docket where it is
reviewed every 90 days.

In February 2005, the plaintiffs in the stayed McArthur case
filed motions in the Lauriello case seeking to intervene in that
litigation and asking for the right to challenge the adequacy of
John Lauriello as class representative and his lawyers as class
counsel.  The court denied the McArthur plaintiffs' motion to
intervene.

The McArthur plaintiffs appealed the trial court's order to the
Alabama Supreme Court, and the Alabama Supreme Court
consolidated the issues raised in that appeal with the issues
appealed by the defendants in Lauriello.

In August 2006, the Alabama Supreme Court granted the
defendants' petition for writ of mandamus, ordered the trial
court to vacate its order on class certification and directed
the trial court to analyze the appropriateness of the alleged
claims for class treatment.

The Alabama Supreme Court also concluded that the trial court
exceeded its discretion in denying the McArthur plaintiffs'
motion to intervene, reversed that ruling and directed the trial
court on remand to grant the McArthur plaintiffs' motion.

In October 2006, the Alabama Supreme Court withdrew its August
2006 opinion and issued a substitute opinion that modified
certain portions of the earlier decision but did not change or
alter any of the relief granted.

The case has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court's
decision, 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.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CAREMARK RX: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Stock Option Grants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint in the case, "In Re: Caremark RX, Inc. Stock Option
Litigation," which is pending in the Circuit Court of Davidson
County, Tennessee.

In January 2006, the City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters'
Retirement System, the Washtenaw County Employees Retirement
System, and Nicholas Weil filed a purported shareholder
derivative lawsuit against the company in the Circuit Court of
Davidson County, Tennessee.

The lawsuit states that it was filed for the benefit of Caremark
Rx, which is a nominal defendant.  The defendants are the
current members and one former member of the company's board of
directors.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing adequately to oversee
Caremark's operations with respect to, among other things,
providing pharmacy benefit management services under its
contract with the State of Florida.

The allegations appear to be based largely on allegations
asserted in other pending lawsuits against the company and in
media reports.

The complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages plus costs
and attorneys' fees from the individual defendants.  In May,
while the company's motion to dismiss was pending, the
plaintiffs filed a new complaint, purporting to add claims
relating to certain stock option grants and naming a number of
the company's former officers who, among other things, are
alleged to have received stock option grants.

Additionally, two other putative shareholder suits, one by Marie
Soffer and the other by Robert I. Garber, were filed in the
Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, naming Caremark Rx
as a nominal defendant and asserting similar claims and
allegations against certain of the company's current and former
directors concerning stock option grants.

These lawsuits likewise seek to recover damages plus costs and
attorneys' fees from the individual defendants.  

In September 2006, the judge presiding over these three state
derivative lawsuits consolidated all claims and allegations
concerning the stock option grants into a single suit, "In Re:
Caremark Rx, Inc. Stock Option Litigation," and ordered that the
claims and allegations not related to the stock option grants
contained in the original Dania Beach complaint must proceed
separately.

In October 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated options suit
filed a consolidated complaint, and the plaintiffs in the
separate Dania Beach suit filed an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated options suit filed a
purported second amended shareholder derivative and class action
complaint purportedly on behalf of Caremark stockholders in Nov.
2006.

The purported second amended complaint includes class action
allegations challenging a proposed merger with CVS Corp. and
adds that company as a defendant.  

Among other things, the purported second amended complaint
alleges that the Caremark directors approved the Merger
Agreement to avoid personal liability in the pending derivative
litigation relating to the alleged backdating of stock options.

The purported second amended complaint also alleges that CVS
aided and abetted the alleged wrongdoing by the directors of
Caremark.  

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, a declaration that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties, injunctive relief
preventing the defendants from completing the proposed Merger,
imposition of a constructive trust upon any illegal profits
received by the defendants and punitive damages.

In December 2006, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third
amended shareholder derivative and class action complaint adding
merger-related claims and moved for expedited discovery.  

In January 2007, the defendants moved to stay the litigation of
claims relating to the proposed merger, which the court granted
on Jan. 12, 2007.  

In so ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a
third amended complaint challenging the proposed merger.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, pursuant to the court's ruling, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint addressing their alleged stock
options claims and deleting their claims challenging the
proposed merger.  

The amended complaint seeks to recover damages plus costs and
attorneys' fees from the defendants.  

In February 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motions remain pending, 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.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Continues in Ill. Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action against Caremark Rx,
Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS)
and two pharmacy benefit manager competitors that is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

Two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc., d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., initially filed the
suit on October 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.

The plaintiffs twice amended and restated their class action
complaint, most recently asserting two claims under a single
count purportedly arising under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted a motion filed by Caremark Rx and Caremark to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois pursuant to the terms of the pharmacy
services agreements between Caremark and the plaintiffs.

The court also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS to compel
arbitration of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant
to the pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs in this case filed a putative class
action arbitration demand with the American Arbitration
Association against AdvancePCS that is nearly identical to the
complaint pending in the Northern District of Illinois against
Caremark.

The demand purports to cover direct claims made against
AdvancePCS and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief
enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.  

The arbitration proceeding has been stayed by agreement of the
parties pending developments in the court case against Caremark
Rx and Caremark, which is in discovery.  

The plaintiffs are seeking three times actual monetary damages
and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust
violations.

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

The suit is "N. Jackson Pharm Inc., et al. v. Caremark RX Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Milton
I. Shadur.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew C. Allen, Russell J. Drake, Othni Lathram, Joe
         R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue North,
         P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: (205)
         328-9576;

     (2) Christopher W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie J.
         Lamb, Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017-2nd Avenue
         North #200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 324-
         4644;

     (3) Kathleen Currie Chavez, Chavez Law Firm, 1245 Executive
         Place, Suite F-100, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-
         4480;

     (4) Gregory C. Cook, Balch & Bingham, Post Office Box 306,
         Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: (205) 251-8100;

     (5) Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Foote, Meyers,
         Mielke, Flowers & Solano, 416 South Second Street,
         Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-6333;

     (6) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley S. Tropin, Kozyak Tropin &
         Throckmorton PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral
         Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-372-
         3508;

     (7) Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Weaver & Roth
         P.O. Box 1607, Decatur, AL 35602, Phone: (256) 353-
         6761; and

     (8) Edward K. Wood, Jr., Law Offices of Edward Kirk Wood
         P.O. Box 382434, Birmingham, AL 35238, Phone: (205)612-
         0243.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) W. Michael Atchison, Victor E. Grimm, Anthony C.
         Harlon, Starnes & Atchison, P.O. Box 598512,
         Birmingham, AL, 35259-8512, Phone: (205) 868-6000; and

     (2) Erik F. Dyhrkopp, Michael Edward Martinez, Scott M.
         Mendel, Paula W. Render, Michael Sennett, Bell, Boyd &
         Lloyd LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago,
         IL 60602-4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121.


CAREMARK RX: Seeks to Junk Non-ERISA Health Plan Members' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc., and Caremark Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a
purported class action filed on behalf of all California members
of non-ERISA health plans and/or all California taxpayers.  

In March and April of 2003, AdvancePCS (now known as
CaremarkPCS), and subsequently Caremark RX and Caremark, were
served with a complaint filed by Robert Irwin in the Superior
Court of the State of California.

The plaintiff filed the action individually and purportedly as a
private attorney general on behalf of the general public of the
State of California, the non-ERISA health plans who contract
with pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies and the
individuals who are members of those plans.  

Other PBM companies are also named as defendants in this
lawsuit, which alleges violations of the California unfair
competition law.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges alleged business practices
of PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates,
formulary management, data utilization and accounting and
administrative processes.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
restitution and disgorgement of revenues.

Mr. Irwin has recently amended his complaint and purported to
assert a class action on behalf of all California members of
non-ERISA health plans and/or all California taxpayers.  

No motion for class certification has been filed, and discovery
is ongoing.  In January 2007, the company filed a motion to
dismiss, which is pending, 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.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CAREMARK RX: Certification Motions in PBM Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, "In re Pharmacy Benefit Manager
(PBM) Antitrust Litigation," including Caremark RX, Inc.'s
cases, remain pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs in a putative antitrust class
action brought by Brady Enterprises, Inc., Charlotte J. Lopacki,
d/b/a Budget Drug, Heritage Pharmacy, the Pharmacy Freedom Fund
and the National Community Pharmacists Association against:

     * Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and
     * Merck & Co., Inc.

in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation under the name, "In re Pharmacy Benefit
Manager (PBM) Antitrust Litigation," seeking to have a number of
cases in other courts brought by other plaintiffs and against
different defendants transferred to the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The two cases against the company that are subject to the motion
are:

      -- "N. Jackson Pharm Inc., et al. v. Caremark RX Inc., et
         al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;
         and

     -- "Bellevue Drug Co., et al. v. Advance PCS, et al., Case
         No. 2:03-cv-04731-ER," filed in the U.S District Court
         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the North Jackson Pharmacy case to be transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other scheduled cases
before it, including the Bellevue Drug case.

In the Bellevue Drug case, the transferee judge vacated the
order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration and
directed the parties to proceed within the multidistrict
litigation.  Caremark is appealing this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including Caremark's cases, remain
pending before the transferee court, 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.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CAREMARK RX: Tenn. Court Administratively Closes CVS Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
administratively closed a purported class action filed against
Caremark RX, Inc. over a proposed merger between the company and
CVS Corp., 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.

In November 2006, the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania
Pension Plan filed a purported class action purportedly on
behalf of Caremark stockholders against the company and its
directors.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the proposed
merger with CVS.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to prevent the proposed merger, to
direct the defendants to obtain a transaction, which is in the
best interests of Caremark stockholders and to impose a
constructive trust upon any benefits improperly received by the
defendants.  

In December 2006, the plaintiff moved for a temporary
restraining order enjoining certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement, expedited discovery, and an order to show cause why
the proposed merger should not be preliminarily enjoined.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order.  In January 2007, the defendants
moved to stay the lawsuit.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the court stayed the lawsuit, denied the
plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery and for an order to
show cause, and administratively closed the case.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CAREMARK RX: Tenn. Court Refuses to Lift Stay in Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to vacate the stay order in a purported class action
filed against Caremark RX, Inc. over a proposed merger between
the company and CVS Corp. was denied by the court, 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.

In December 2006, Laurence M. Silverstein filed the suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
purportedly on behalf of Caremark stockholders relating to the
proposed merger between Caremark and CVS.

The suit was brought against Caremark, its directors, CVS and
CVS' chief executive officer.  The complaint alleged, among
other things, that the Caremark directors breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the proposed merger with CVS
and that the CVS defendants aided and abetted such breaches of
duty.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief to prevent the proposed merger, to direct the
defendants to obtain a transaction, which is in the best
interests of Caremark shareholders, and to impose a constructive
trust upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants.

In January 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint and moved for expedited discovery and preliminary
injunctive relief.  

The amended class action complaint adds allegations that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on Dec. 19, 2006 omits
certain material information.  

On Jan. 8, 2007, the court stayed the lawsuit and
administratively closed the case.  On Jan. 10, 2007, the
plaintiff moved to vacate the stay order, and this motion was
denied.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CAREMARK RX: Sheetmetal's Bid to Transfer Suit Over Merger Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee denied a
proposed transfer and consolidation of a class action filed
against Caremark RX, Inc. over a proposed merger between the
company and CVS Corp.

In November 2006, the Sheetmetal Workers Local 28 Pension Fund
filed a purported class action in the Chancery Court of Davidson
County, Tennessee against Caremark and its directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed
merger.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties and injunctive relief
preventing the proposed merger.

In December 2006, the plaintiff sought to transfer the case to
the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee and to
consolidate it with a pending lawsuit captioned, "In Re:
Caremark Rx, Inc. Stock Option Litigation."  

The defendants opposed the proposed transfer and consolidation.
On Jan. 12, 2007, the Circuit Court denied the proposed transfer
and consolidation, 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.

Caremark RX, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Sued for Allegedly Overpricing Overseas Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. announces that on March 4, 2007, it was
served with a purported class action filed in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv against the company, Pelephone Communications Ltd.
and Partner Communications Ltd.,

Plaintiffs, claiming to be subscribers of the defendants,
contends they were allegedly overcharged with, based on
intervals, larger than the intervals the defendants' were
allegedly authorized to charge by, under their licenses, for
calls initiated or received by the subscribers while abroad.

This, the plaintiffs allege, based on the defendants' claim, is
allegedly in breach of their licenses.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately $106 million, of which, approximately $45.7
million, is attributed to Cellcom.

At this preliminary stage, the company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

For more information, contact Shiri Israeli, Cellcom Israel Ltd
Investor Relations Coordinator, Phone: +972-52-998-9755, E-mail:
investors@cellcom.co.il; or Ehud Helft and Ed Job, CCGK Investor
Relations Investor Relations Contacts, Phone: (US)+1-866-704-
6710/1 or +1-646-213-1914, E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or
ed.job@ccgir.com, Website: http://www.cellcom.co.il/Cultures/en-
US/InvestorRelations.


COLORADO: Discovery Starts in Lawsuit Against Garfield County
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported federal class action filed
against Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario and Jail Commander
Scott Dawson over treatment of prisoners at the county jail.

In July 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado
filed a class-action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield
County Jail (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2006).  

The suit alleges that the jail's use pepper ball guns, restraint
chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and electroshock belts violates
widely accepted standards of law enforcement and corrections
professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and vendors'
training and recommendations for safe and appropriate use.  

It claims that prisoners shot with pepper balls or drenched with
pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair-
sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to
decontaminate.  
  
Court documents claimed that prisoners going to court are often
forced to wear a remote-controlled electroshock belt during
transport to court and during hearings.  With a push of a
button, a deputy can deliver an incapacitating and painful
eight-second-long electric shock of 50,000 volts.   

The suit alleges that deputies deliberately taunt prisoners to
heighten their anxiety while they are wearing the electroshock
belt by playing "mind games" and suggesting that the prisoners
are about to be shocked.  
  
It notes that electroshock weapons, pepper spray, and restraint
chairs have all been associated with a number of in-custody
deaths, and that the jail's unregulated use of these devices in
combination poses especially serious risks to prisoners' safety.

Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health
problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated
requests for mental health care.   They have been reportedly
strapped into the restraint chair a total of 12 times between
them, sometimes for over six hours.

The organization amended its suit on Aug. 1 to include
allegations that the sheriff denies mental health care to
indigent county jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline
without due process (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2006).

In the amended complaint, ACLU said the policy violates U.S. and
Colorado constitutions and Colorado law, requiring that serious
mental health needs of prisoners should be treated even when
they don't have money.  The county waives the $100 requirement
in cases in which the prisoner asking psychiatric help is
hallucinating or suicidal.

Recently, Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of
Colorado, said that no further court dates have been set in the
case due to the discovery process.  

He adds that that the process has been going smoothly, with no
disputes between sides about the scope of the information that
should be provided.

The original complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b
   
The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa.

Representing the plaintiffs are Taylor Scott Pendergrass and
Mark Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union - Colorado,
400 Corona Street, Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482,
Fax: 303-777-1773, E-mail: tpendergrass@aclu-co.org and
msilver2@att.net.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointment Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York vacated a Magistrate Judge's
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the securities
fraud class action arising out of massive improper backdating of
options at Comverse Technology, Inc.

Previously, a Magistrate Judge had appointed as lead plaintiff,
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund represented by
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP.

In his decision, Judge Garaufis determined that institutional
investors represented by Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
LLP, should be appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel
respectively.

                        Case Background

According to a complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, from 1991-2002, senior officers of the
company repeatedly "cherry picked" option grant dates when the
company's stock was trading at a relatively low market price,
and then fabricated paperwork to cover up the selection process.

Additionally, beginning in 1999, Defendants created a "slush
fund" of backdated options issued to fictitious employees which
were then awarded to actual employees at later dates.

The disclosure in March 2006 of the pervasive option backdating,
and improper accounting thereof, caused Comverse's market
capitalization to fall by over $1 billion.  Comverse's chief
executive, Kobi Alexander fled to Namibia, where he faces an
extradition request by the U.S. government.

Judge Garaufis' Order is of particular importance given its
extensive analysis of the application of the Supreme Court's
ruling in "Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336
(2005)" to lead plaintiff motions.

In Dura, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot plead
loss causation by merely alleging that a defendant's fraud
artificially inflated the purchase price of a company's stock.
Rather, a plaintiff must prove that company's stock later
declined upon the revelation of the fraud (or materialization of
risk) to the market.

The appointment of lead plaintiff hinges on determination of
which movant has the "largest financial interest."  Whereas, the
Magistrate Judge focused on the fact that Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund sustained the largest
transactional "losses" for its Comverse investments, Judge
Garaufis held that the proper focus should have been the largest
"recoverable losses."

At issue was how to handle losses Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund had sustained on shares it purchased
during the class period, but sold prior to any corrective
disclosures.  

While P&P had significant losses on such "in and out"
transactions, Judge Garaufis held that "it is clear under Dura
and its progeny (that) any loses that Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund may have incurred before Comverse's
misconduct was ever disclosed to the public are not recoverable,
because those losses cannot be proximately linked to the
misconduct at issue in this litigation."

The court further reasoned that even though the disclosure/loss
causation question was a "factual issue," its consideration at
the lead plaintiff motion stage was necessary:

     "(W)here (as here) it is clear from the face of the
       pleadings that most of Plumbers and Pipefitters National
       Pension Fund's losses were suffered before any alleged
       corrective disclosure, the court would be abdicating its
       responsibility under the PSLRA if it were to ignore that
       issue at this stage."

The court thereupon appointed the institutional investors
represented by Pomerantz, observing that, compared to Plumbers
and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, they held more Comverse
shares on the corrective disclosure date, and sustained greater
losses on shares sold after that date.

As Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz noted, "This is a very
important decision.  It significantly clarifies the standards
for appointment of Lead Plaintiffs in securities fraud class
actions.  The decision reinforces the growing recognition that
Courts must conduct some analysis of the facts regarding
disclosure of the wrongdoing, and eliminate those losses that
are clearly not recoverable, in determining which movant has the
largest financial interest in the litigation."

The suit is "Caiafa v. Comverse Technology, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-01825-NGG-RER," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Nicholas G.
Garaufis, with referral to Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are Patrick V. Dahlstrom and Marc I.
Gross, both of Pomerantz,Haudek,Block,Grossman & Gross LLP, 100
Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-661-
1100, Fax: 212-661-8665, E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com.

Representing defendants is John P. Boyle of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036,
Phone: (212) 735-2527, Fax: (917) 777-2527, E-mail:
joboyle@skadden.com.


EPDM ANTITRUST: May 9 Final Hearing Set for $21M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing on May 9, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $21 million settlement by certain defendants in the
matter, "In Re: Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. Case No. 3:03 MD 1542 (SRU)."

The court will hold the hearing at the Brien McMahon United
States Courthouse, 4th Floor, Courtroom No. 1, 915 Lafayette
Boulevard, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before April 13, 2007.  Deadline for the submission
of a proof of claim is on May 31, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased
EPDM directly from any defendant listed below during the period
Jan. 1, 1997 to Dec. 31, 2001:  

      -- Bayer AG,

      -- Bayer Corp.,

      -- Bayer MaterialScience, LLC, (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC),

      -- Crompton Corp., (n/k/a Chemtura Corporation),

      -- Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., (n/k/a Chemtura USA
         Corp.),

      -- The Dow Chemical Co.,

      -- DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC,

      -- DSM Elastomers B.V.,

      -- DSM Elastomers Europe B.V.,

      -- DSM Elastomers Americas, (formerly DSM Copolymer,
         Inc.),

      -- Exxon Mobil Chemical Corp.,

      -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A., (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl),

      -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc., (f/k/a EniChem
         Americas, Inc.),

      -- Syndial S.p.A., (f/k/a Enichem S.p.A).

The $21 million settlement fund results from a settlement with
defendants Crompton Corp. (now known as Chemtura Corp.), and
Uniroyal Chemical Co. (now known as Chemtura USA Corp).

                         Case Background

Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws by the major
manufacturers of EPDM were filed in multiple federal District
Courts.  

Motions were made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to centralize the cases in a single court to promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  

On Aug. 12, 2003, the JPML entered a transfer order centralizing
the cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  By order dated Sept. 11, 2003, the court appointed
class counsel as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs.  

The operative complaint in this action is the second
consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix or
maintain the prices of, and/or allocate markets for, EPDM sold
in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  

It further alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, the
defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM and to allocate
markets and customers for the sale of EPDM.  

As a result of this conduct, the complaint alleges that members
of the class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and,
therefore, have suffered injury.  

The court has previously approved settlements reached by class
plaintiffs and the class with three groups of defendants:

      -- Dupont Dow Elastomers, LLC;  

      -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A., (f/k/a Enichem Americas, Inc.),
         and Syndial S.p.A.; and

      -- Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and Bayer MaterialScience LLC,
         (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC).

By order dated June 29, 2005, the court approved class
plaintiffs' settlement with Dupont for the principal amount of
$25.4 million in cash.  

Under that settlement, Dupont is required to cooperate with
class counsel in their prosecution of claims against the
remaining Defendants.  

By order dated Dec. 13, 2005, the court approved class
plaintiffs' settlement with Syndial for the principal amount of
$3.17 million in cash.  

Under that settlement, Syndial is required to cooperate with
class counsel in their prosecution of claims against the
remaining defendants.  

By order dated Nov. 28, 2006, the court approved class
plaintiffs' settlement with Bayer for the principal amount of
$32 million.  

Under that settlement, Bayer is required to cooperate with class
counsel in their prosecution of claims against the remaining
defendants.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
         & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
         Washington, D.C. 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-4600 or
         (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web site:
         http://www.cmht.com;and

     (2) Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq. of Bolognese & Associates,
         LLC, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 650,
         Philadelphia, PA  19103, Phone: 215-814-6750, E-mail:
         http://www.bolognese-law.com/.


GEBAUER CO: Recalls Oral Moisturizers that Fail Quality Test
------------------------------------------------------------
Gebauer Co., a 107-year-old medical device manufacturer and
marketer, is initiating a nationwide, voluntary recall of
certain lots of its Salivart Oral Moisturizer, product number
0386-0009-75.

These lots may contain some units that do not meet the company's
internal specification for aerobic microorganisms and mold.  The
problem was discovered during routine stability testing.  The
problem is not uniform throughout the lots.

Use of the affected units of these lots of Salivart Oral
Moisturizer may cause temporary and reversible health problems
such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Lot numbers and expiration dates are located on the bottom of
the product can.  The recalled product lots are:

Lot Number     Expiration Date     Initial Ship Date

06AA001        06-08               09-11-06

06AA002        06-08               10-05-06

06AA003        06-08               10-26-06

06AA004        07-08               11-16-06

06AA005        07-08               12-14-06

06AA006        10-08               01-10-07

Customers who believe they are in possession of the recalled
product should stop using the product and dispose of it
immediately in their regular trash.

"We are committed to the quality of our products and we are
taking all necessary measures to remedy this production issue,"
said John Giltinan, President of Gebauer Co.  "Salivart Oral
Moisturizer has been used safely since 1990 and is supported by
our history of meeting high safety and efficacy standards."

For more information, contact Gebauer Co. Customer Service at
(800) 321-9348.


HEXION SPECIALTY: Settles Ky. Lawsuit Over Odors, Air Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
granted preliminary approval to a $5.25 million settlement of a
class action filed against Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. by
residents of Riverside Gardens.

In May 2006, the company - formerly Borden Chemicals -- was
named as a defendant in a purported class action that relates to
odors and air emissions from the company's Louisville plant.  
The suit was filed as a class action on behalf of plaintiffs
living in Riverside Gardens, a community adjacent to the plant
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2006).

Matthew L. White, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said that
the settlement would provide monetary compensation and
improvements to the plant's wastewater treatment system to help
control emissions and odors.   It will also provide for the
creation of a landscaped buffer zone between the neighborhood
and Hexion.

Despite the settlement, the litigation will still continue
against other area plants, including:

      -- American Synthetic Rubber,
      -- E.On (for Louisville Gas and Electric's Cane Run power
         plant),
      -- OxyVinyls, Rohm and Haas, and
      -- Zeon Chemicals.

The suit is "Humphrey et al. v. Hexion Specialty Chemicals,
Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-00276-JGH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge John G.
Heyburn, II.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark K. Gray of Gray & White, 500 W. Jefferson Street,
         Suite 1200, PNC Plaza, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone:
         502-585-2060, Fax: 502-581-1933, E-mail:
         mkgrayatty@aol.com; and

     (2) Steven D. Liddle of Macuga & Liddle, PC, 975 E.
         Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 28307, US, Phone: 313-
         392-0015.

Representing the defendants is David J. Kellerman, Middleton
Reutlinger, 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower, Louisville, KY 40202-
3410, Phone: 502-584-1135, Fax: 502-561-0442, E-mail:
dkellerman@middreut.com.


ILLINOIS: CBEC Sued Over Voters' Personal Information Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (CBEC) faces two
purported class actions in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois
that accuses it of leaking personal information of more than 1
million voters to aldermen, committeemen and at least one
aldermanic candidate, The CBS2 Chicago reports.

Meliza Aldea, Romeo Aldea, and Robert Green filed one of the
suits on Jan. 22.  They allege that sensitive information of
approximately 1.3 million voters were downloaded and copied onto
numerous compact discs, which were later distributed to
different aldermen and ward committeemen throughout the city of
Chicago.

They claim that about 106 CDs containing this information was
distributed to the aldermen and committeemen.  In addition, they
claim that a significant number of the CDs are unaccounted for.

Peter Zelchenko, who wound up receiving one of those CDs, filed
the other lawsuit on the same day.  Mr. Zelchenko, a candidate
for 43rd ward alderman, claims in his suit that in December
2006, he received a CD related to voter registration.

Both suits claim that in addition to the names and addresses of
voters, the CDs contained dates of birth and Social Security
numbers for approximately 1.3 million voters.  

The suits, which are both seeking seek class-action status, also
claim that voters never gave the CBEC permission to copy or make
public their sensitive personal information, especially their
social security numbers.  

In general, both are accusing the CBEC of violating the state's
Personal Information Protection Act.

The case filed by Mr. Green and the Aldeas wants the CBEC to
recover and erase all the CDs that have been sent to the
aldermen and committeemen.  

Plaintiffs in that case also want the court to have the CBEC set
up an endowment fund, in an amount and term to be determined to
fund anticipated financial losses as a result of the privacy
breach.

On the other hand, Mr. Zelchenko's suit seeks a court order that
would require the CBEC to remove all class members' protected
information from the public domain.  

In addition, his suit also seeks a court order that would
require CBEC to take steps to remove personal information from
the current voter registration roll that is made available to
the public.

Both suits are predicated on violations of the Personal
Information Protection Act, the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, and the privacy rights of the plaintiffs
and all members of the plaintiffs' putative class.

Plaintiffs in both suits seek compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs also seek an injunction requiring the Board to
recover and delete all information from the discs in question.

According to Legal News Line, The Aldeas are represented by:

     -- attorney Burton I. Weinstein from the Chicago firm of
        Baskin, Server, Berke & Weinstein, on the Net:
        http://www.bsbwlaw.com/;

     -- Robert A. Holstein of Chicago;

     -- William J. Harte of William J. Harte, Ltd., on the Net:
        http://www/williamharteltd.com/;

     -- Kenneth R. Siegan of Kenneth R. Siegan & Associates,
        P.C.; and

     -- Marc N. Blumenthal from the Law Offices of Marc N.
        Blumenthal.

Mr. Zelchenko is represented by Nicholas C. Kefalos of Chicago's
Vernor Moran, LLC, on the Net: http://www.vernormoran.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Dutch Lawyer to File Suit Over Xbox 360 Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch lawyer Richard de Lange, of De Lange, Peeters & Langereis
Lawyers, threatened to initiate a lawsuit, possibly seeking
class-action status, against Microsoft Corp. over the company's
Xbox 360 gaming consoles, The Register Hardware reports.

Mr. de Lange made the announcement amidst complaints from 800
Xbox 360 customers, claiming their discs have been scratched by
the console's DVD drive.  The scratching problem has been widely
reported on the net, but customers continue to complain that
Microsoft is ignoring the issue.

The consumer affairs TV program Kassa recently investigated the
problems and claimed that a piece of rubber normally found in
DVD players is missing from Xbox 360 drives.  Some users say
that when they added a foam rubber pad opposite side to the
laser from the disc spindle, damage was prevented.

Microsoft says problems do occur when switching the unit's
position from vertical to horizontal and vise versa while a disc
is inserted and spinning.  However, customers say the issue is
rooted much more deeply.


NEW CENTURY: Klafter & Olsen Extends Class Period in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP is extending the class period in its class
action against New Century Financial Corp. to now include
purchasers of New Century common stock and other securities
through March 2, 2007.

Previously, Klafter & Olsen filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of New
Century Financial Corp. who purchased during the period from
May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
20, 2007).

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

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

The company was forced to admit that its financial statements
could no longer be relied upon.  As a result of this unexpected
news, New Century shares slumped to a 52-week low, plunging
$10.92, to close at $19.42 per share a decline of over 36% on
extraordinary volume of over 25 million shares.

However, before that announcement, company insiders sold more
than $26 million worth of their personal holdings during the
Class Period.

Then, after the close of the market on March 2, 2007, New
Century disclosed for the first time that the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Central District of California had notified the
company that it is conducting a criminal inquiry in connection
with trading in New Century's stock.  The company also stated
that the U.S. Attorney's Office is investigating accounting
issues regarding New Century's allowance for repurchase losses.

On March 5, 2007, the next trading day, New Century's stock
price collapsed nearly 69% -- closing at $4.56 on 17 times the
average three-month volume.

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

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

For more information, contact Kurt B. Olsen of Klafter &
OlsenLLP, Phone: +1-202-261-3553, Website:
http://www.klafterolsen.com.


OHIO: Lawsuit Alleges Police's Excessive Force in "Taser" Use
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio accuses the City of Cincinnati of
encouraging its police officers to use excessive force by
allowing officers to stun people with 50,000 volts from Taser
guns "for any reason or no reason at all," reports say.

In the complaint, the six children of the late Shirley T.
Andrews claim Cincinnati cops responding to a false report burst
in on their mother at home while she was naked in the shower and
shot her with an X-26 Taser gun.

Plaintiffs claim police were told Ms. Andrews was mentally
impaired, but the suit does not say why they went to the house.

After the Cincinnati Police officers allegedly humiliated,
assaulted, and tazed Ms. Andrews, they arrested her and charged
her with felonious assault.  Ms. Andrews died in jail, a week
later, on March 3, 2005, the suit says.

The family, "seek a judgment declaring the city's Use of Force
Policy unconstitutional."

It is further alleged that the pattern of abuses result from the
City's deliberate conduct in establishing policy and custom that
encourages and acquiesces in Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights violations.

In addition, police officers' action of tazing and killing Ms.
Andrews was a direct result of the deliberate indifference on
the city's part in failing to adequately train, supervise and
discipline police officers.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, seeks to make
the lawsuit a class action that would cover any other people
harmed by "unconstitutional" police conduct.

Plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- assume jurisdiction of the complaint;

     -- declare the defendants' actions violate the Constitution
        and Laws of the U.S. and the Constitution and Laws of
        the State of Ohio;

     -- enter judgment against the defendants in favor of the
        plaintiffs;

     -- award to plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to  
        be determined at trial, jointly and severally against
        defendants for the matters alleged in the complaint;

     -- award the plaintiff punitive damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial, jointly and severally against all
        defendants;

     -- award plaintiff all costs incurred in the prosecution of
        this action, including reasonable attorney fees under 42
        U.S.C. Section 1988 and other statutes; and

     -- enter such other relief as the court deem just and
        proper.

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

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

The suit is "McMullen et al. v. City of Cincinnati, Case No.
1:07-cv-00172-HJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Herman J. Weber.

Representing plaintiffs is Kenneth L. Lawson, II of Lawson &
Associates - 1, 1008 Race Street, Suite 2 Cincinnati, OH 45202,
Phone: 513-345-5000, Fax: 513/345-5005, E-mail:
kenneth@kennethlawson.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: Local Officials, Prisons Face Suit Alleging Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Pennsylvania prison inmates have filed separate federal
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that they were mistreated in local
prisons, The Republican & Herald reports.

                        Miller Litigation

Dennis Miller Jr., now an inmate at State Correctional
Institution/Fayette, filed a first suit on Feb. 21.  He alleges
that that another inmate in Schuylkill County Prison assaulted
him in 2005.

The suit, "Miller v. Schuylkill County Prison et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00331-WWC-JAS," named as defendants:

      -- Schuylkill County Prison,
      -- Eugene Berdanier,
      -- Bruce Cattin, and
      -- Carlos McDermott.

Mr. Miller claims that on Sept. 22, 2006 inmate Carlos McDermott
assaulted him and that prison officials allowed it to occur.  He
asked for unspecified damages against the prison, Warden Eugene
Berdanier, Corrections Officer Bruce Cattin, who he said allowed
Mr. McDermott to enter his cell, and Mr. McDermott himself.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge William W.
Caldwell.

                         Mincy Litigation

Hilton K. Mincy, an inmate at State Correctional
Institution/Albion, filed the other lawsuit on Feb. 22.  He
seeks class-action status for his case, alleging he was the
victim of a pattern of abuse while at State Correctional
Institution/Mahanoy.

Mr. Mincy sued a total of 78 people, including District Attorney
James P. Goodman, and his predecessor, Frank R. Cori, state
Secretary of Corrections Jeffrey A. Beard and SCI/Mahanoy
Superintendent Edward Klem.

In his suit, "Mincy v. Klem et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00340-CCC-
EC," Mr. Mincy alleged that local and state officials tolerated
a pattern of abuse and deprivation of constitutional rights
against him.  

Mr. Mincy claims include alleged verbal and physical abuse,
withholding of mail, illegal cell searches, destruction and
theft of property, and improper transfers, and he blamed local
officials even though he is a state prison inmate.

He is asked that the court allow his case to proceed as a class
action, saying his claims are typical of state prison inmates.

According to Mr. Mincy, he saw his cellmate being verbally
abused in November 2004, and that his harassment started from
that point.  

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Christopher C.
Conner.


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Faces Lawsuit Over Debt Collection Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pressler & Pressler LLP was named a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the Superior Court in Morristown in New
Jersey over its debt collection practices, The Morris Ledger
reports.

The suit was filed by Gail Cookson, a former deputy attorney
general.  She is claiming that the Hanover debt collection law
firm goes after people without verifying they are the ones who
owe money.

Ms. Cookson, who seeks class-action status for the case, brought
it on behalf of Morristown resident Angela Hernandez, a house
cleaner who doesn't speak much English.

Court documents revealed that Pressler & Pressler is trying to
collect about $3,000 from Ms. Hernandez, based on a default
judgment obtained against her in special civil court in 2000.

According to Ms. Cookson, her client was intimidated by the
judicial process, and thus didn't show up to defend herself the
day the law firm got the default judgment.

Ms. Cookson claims that Pressler & Pressler went after Ms.
Hernandez, even though the person they were hired to collect
money from on behalf of Morristown Memorial Hospital had a
different first name, Social Security number and birth date, and
lived in Bridgewater.

The suit states that Pressler & Pressler utilized, as a matter
of convenience, the identity and address of an unrelated person
whom it was easier to locate, even though they knew or should
have known she was not the proper defendant.

In general, the suit accuses Pressler & Pressler of violating
the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  It also accuses
the debt collection law firm of the "unconscionable and patently
unlawful practice of taking unfair advantage of persons not
natural citizens of this county in its attempt to collect
consumer debts."

The suit states that Ms. Hernandez gave birth to her son at
Morristown Memorial in September 1997, but her health insurance
covered the entire cost.  

Another woman named Angelica Hernandez went to Morristown
Memorial at another time for medical procedures, and owed money
for the stay.

Hospital records showed that Ms. Cookson's client had a
different birth date, address and medical records than the woman
who owed the money.

For more details, contact Gail M. Cookson, West Orange, NJ,
07052-4204, Phone: (973) 736-4600, Fax: (973) 325-7467.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Lights Cases Remain Stayed Pending "Price" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The "lights" class actions "Turner v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
and "Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," both pending
in Madison County, Illinois have been stayed pending a
resolution of a similar case, "Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.,"
formerly known as "Miles v. Philip Morris, Inc.," in which R.J.
Reynolds is not a defendant.

"Lights" class actions are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W
in:

  State           Number of Cases
  -----           ---------------
  Illinois             2
  Missouri             2
  Minnesota            2
  Louisiana            2
  Florida              2
  Washington           1  
  New York             1

The class in these cases generally seeks to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W, unless
otherwise noted.

On Nov. 14, 2001, in "Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." a
judge certified a class defined as "[a]ll persons who purchased
defendants' Doral Lights, Winston Lights, Salem Lights and Camel
Lights, in Illinois, for personal consumption, between the first
date that defendants sold Doral Lights, Winston Lights, Salem
Lights and Camel Lights through the date the court certifies
this suit as a class action..."

The case was filed in February 2000, and is pending in Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants sold and packaged
"light cigarettes" as having lowered tar and nicotine delivery
when in reality they were designed to deliver higher levels of
tar and nicotine.  

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris' appeal of the "Price v. Philip Morris
Inc." case.

RJR Tobacco filed an emergency stay/supremacy order request on
Oct. 15, 2003.  On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court
granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's
final appeal decision in Price.

On Dec. 18, 2001, in "Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.," a judge certified a class defined as "[a]ll persons who
purchased Defendant's Misty Lights, GPC Lights, Capri Lights and
Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois for personal consumption,
from the first date that defendant sold Misty Lights, GPC
Lights, Capri Lights and Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois
through this date."

The case was filed in February 2000, and is pending in Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by not fully
disclosing the true nature of "light cigarettes" and carried out
false and deceptive advertising concerning "light cigarettes."

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all
proceedings pending resolution of the "Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc." case.  The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the
Illinois 5th District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
Circuit Court's stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.


R.J. REYNOLDS: "Huntsberry" Plaintiffs Pursue Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Huntsberry v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," have
asked the Washington Supreme Court to review rulings that denied
their motions for class certification.  
  
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was initially
denied on April 21, 2006.  

The case was filed in April 2004, is and pending in Superior
Court, King County, Washington.  It was brought against RJR
Tobacco seeking, among other things, actual economic damages in
the form of a refund of amounts paid by each plaintiff and the
class to purchase RJR Tobacco's "light" cigarettes, or in the
alternative, diminished value as proven at trial, treble damages
in an amount up to $10,000 per plaintiff and class member, and
attorneys' fees.  

The sum of all actual damages, treble damages, and attorneys'
fees is less than $75,000 per plaintiff or class member.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have misrepresented and
continue to misrepresent the tar and nicotine delivery and other
qualities of "light" cigarettes, deliberately design and market
"light" cigarettes to cause smokers to believe the cigarettes
are less hazardous to smokers and deliver lower tar and nicotine
than regular cigarettes.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the plaintiffs' motion for discretionary
review was denied.  The plaintiffs' motion to modify the ruling
with the Washington Court of Appeals was denied on Dec. 18,
2006.  On Jan. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
review with the Washington Supreme Court, asking the court to
review the rulings that denied their motions for class
certification.  


R.J. REYNOLDS: "Lights" Case Against B&W Remanded to La. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit remanded to the
U.S. District Court, Western District, Louisiana the suit "Brown
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp." with directions to dismiss
all claims in the case with prejudice.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
which merged in 2004, continue to face "lights" cases in
Louisiana.

                        "Harper" Lawsuit

The "Harper v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." suit was filed in May
2003, and is pending in U.S. District Court, Western District,
Louisiana.  On Jan. 27, 2005, the judge denied the plaintiffs'
motions to remand.  The plaintiffs are claiming economic losses
for the purchase of Reynolds Tobacco's "light" cigarette brands
in Louisiana.

The plaintiffs appealed the denial of the motion, and on July
17, 2006, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's order.  On June 17, 2005, RJR Tobacco and R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment based
on federal preemption.

                        "Brown" Lawsuit

"Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp." was filed in April
2003, and is pending in U.S. District Court, Western District,
Louisiana.  B&W filed a similar motion for summary judgment on
July 5, 2005.  

The plaintiffs are seeking economic losses for the purchase of
B&W's "light" cigarette brands in Louisiana, claiming that these
products were defective and marked in a fraudulent and deceptive
manner by defendants.  On Sept. 14, 2005, the court granted the
motion in part by dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs'
Louisiana Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act claims.

The remainder of the motion was denied.  On Dec. 2, 2005, the
judge denied B&W's motion for reconsideration, but certified the
case for interlocutory appeal.  On Feb. 10, 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted B&W's petition to appeal.  

On Feb. 14, 2007, the 5th Circuit reversed the judgment and
remanded the case with directions to dismiss all claims with
prejudice.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Common Court Sought for Mo. "Lights" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a "lights" class action pending against R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W)
in Missouri filed a motion to reassign this case and certain
other cases to a single general division.

On Dec. 31, 2003, in "Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," a
judge in St. Louis certified a class defined as:

      "[a]ll persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights,
       Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights
       cigarettes in Missouri for personal consumption between
       the first date the Defendants placed their Camel Lights,
       Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights
       cigarettes into the stream of commerce through the date
       of this Order."

The case was filed in May 2000, and is pending in Circuit Court,
St. Louis County, Missouri.

The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to
inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light"
smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke.  
The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine
deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver
higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the
standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the
claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained
"low tar and nicotine."

On Jan. 14, 2004, RJR and RJR Tobacco Holdings Inc. removed this
case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  On Sept. 30, 2004, the case was remanded to the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis.  

On Sept. 23, 2005, RJR Tobacco again removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, based
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's Aug. 25,
2005 decision in "Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.,"
which upheld the federal officers removal statute as a basis for
removal in "lights" cases.

The plaintiffs' motion to remand was granted on April 18, 2006.
On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign
Collora and the following cases to a single general division:
"Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc." and "Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp."

In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," (a case filed in
Nov. 2000, pending in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis,
Missouri), B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005.

The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine
deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver
higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the
standard testing apparatus.  They also claim that the defendants
failed to disclose that the smoke produced by the "light"
cigarettes is more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which
was granted on March 17, 2006.  On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to reassign this case and certain other cases to
a single general division.


SAINT ANTHONY'S: Ill. Man Files Fraud Suit Over Lien on Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saint Anthony's Hospital faces a purported class action in
Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, alleging that the
hospital fraudulently asserted a lien on the proceeds of a
personal injury recovery instead of submitting a claim to his
insurance company, The Madison County Record reports.

Jefferson Hartley of Cottage Hills filed the suit on March 5.  
Represented by attorney Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine,
Kelly & Darr, L.T.D., Mr. Hartley claims that Saint Anthony's
caused him to suffer an economic loss.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hartley was treated at Saint
Anthony's for injuries sustained in a car accident on Dec. 11,
2005.

Mr. Hartley had health insurance and incurred charges totaling
$7,713.15.  He claims that the hospital refused to submit the
charges to his insurer although it was requested to do so,
leaving him with uninsured medical costs.

The complaint states that had Saint Anthony's submitted
plaintiff's medical charges they would have been paid at a
reduced rate in accordance with the terms of the contract
between Mr. Hartley's health insurer and the hospital.

Mr. Hartley claims that the hospital was asked to release the
lien, but it refused, claiming that they were entitled to a lien
rather than accepting a reduced payment from the insurance
company.

It is alleged that the hospital deceptively failed to tell Mr.
Hartley that they would not utilize his health insurance to
discharge his obligation depriving him of a benefit to which he
was entitled.

In essence, Mr. Hartley's complaint states that the defendant
devised and created a scheme whereby it was able to identify in
its system those services that were provided to individuals who
were victims of traumatic occurrences that resulted in third
party liability claims.

It goes on to state that once those services were identified,
the hospital refrained from submitting the charges to health
insurance carriers to avoid having to accept the reduced amounts
to be paid pursuant to contracts.

The suit is seeking:

      -- an order declaring and confirming that the hospital's
         conduct is unlawful under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
         Act,

      -- an injunctive order requiring the hospital to cease and
         desist all deceptive,

      -- unjust and unreasonable practices,

      -- attorneys fees, and
    
      -- compensatory damages.

For more details, contact Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine,
Kelly & Darr, L.T.D., Suite 415, 307 Henry Street, Alton, IL
62002-6326, Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-2318, Web
site: http://sbkdlaw.com/.


SIMPLY FRESH: Recalls Fruit Trays for Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simply Fresh Fruit Inc. is recalling Simply Fresh Fruit Fresh
Cut Fruit trays dated with sell by date Feb. 26, 2007 due to
possible salmonella contamination.

On Feb. 23, Simply Fresh Fruit Inc. was notified by Castle
Produce that cantaloupe shipped by Castle to Simply Fresh Fruit
Inc. on Feb. 16 was subject to a recall due to possible
Salmonella contamination.

Persons infected with Salmonella may experience a variety of
symptoms and illnesses.  According to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in more severe illnesses and
potentially can be fatal.

The cantaloupe was processed into 2,250 trays of five-pound
fresh cut fruit and distributed by Costco throughout Los Angeles
metropolitan areas.

Costco was notified on Feb. 23 and the product was removed
immediately from sale; there have been no reported illness from
consumption of this product and the product is now out of code.

The recall is for trays labeled "Simply Fresh Fruit Fresh Cut
Fruit Tray" with a sell by date of Feb. 26, 2007.

Customers who may have uneaten trays with the Feb. 26, 2007 code
date may arrange for the return of the product for a full refund
by calling Simply Fresh Fruit at 323-586-0000.


TERMINIX INT'L: Madison County Lawsuit Removed to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Terminix International and The ServiceMaster Co.
removed a purported consumer fraud class action filed against
the companies in Madison County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, citing the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

In seeking for the case's removal to federal court, an attorney
for the company, Dawn Sallerson of Hinshaw & Culbertson wrote,
"Because plaintiff filed his class action complaint in state
court on Dec. 29, 2006, the action was commenced after CAFA's
effective date."

She further wrote, "removal is proper under CAFA so long as any
potential class member is diverse from any defendant, the amount
in controversy exceeds CAFA's aggregate monetary jurisdiction
threshold and the putative class action has one hundred or more
class members."

Ms. Sallerson also said there is at least minimal diversity
between the defendant Terminix, which is a citizen of the states
of Delaware and Tennessee and the named plaintiff who is a
citizen of the state of Illinois and any putative class members
who may be citizens of Illinois.

                         Case Background

Edwardsville resident Milton Gerstenecker filed the suit
claiming the companies failed to provide termite services as
required by law, The Madison County Record reports.

Mr. Gerstenecker claims that the defendants violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by
concealing that they failed to provide proper termite services,
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007).

The complaint states that Terminix was uniformly obligated to
provide services to protect homes from termite infestation
through assuring the effective application and maintenance of
chemical barriers in the soil under and around the foundation of
his property.

Mr. Gerstenecker also claims Terminix failed to properly treat
or repair his property after termite damage was discovered and
claims the company created a scheme and system which has
promoted and led to widespread negligence and recklessness and
wantonness.

According to the suit, Terminix is the leading pest control
company in the country and has more than 250 office locations
with more than 8600 employees generating sales in excess of $990
million.

The suit claims ServiceMaster is an Illinois company based in
Downers Grove and represents itself as a Fortune 500 company
that is $3.5 billion strong.

Mr. Gerstenecker claims Madison County Circuit Court is the
proper jurisdiction for his class action because the defendants
are doing business in Illinois by contracting with Illinois
residents and committing torts in Illinois, including Madison
County.

According to the complaint, Terminix is for all legal and
practicable purposes a mere department of ServiceMaster.

Mr. Gerstenecker further claims Terminix routinely performed
improper and inadequate treatments and inspections of his home.

He claims Terminix contracts provide a guarantee of inspections
and reinspections, treatment or retreatment, and repair of any
termite-related damage provided that the customers pay the
annual renewal fee.

He asserts he was placed under contract after Terminix stopped
using Chlordane-based products in the 1980's and claims they
continued to renew assurances of termite protection and
collected money for termite protection without reapplying
termite chemicals after they knew the chemicals had become
ineffective.

He claims Terminix suppressed the fact his entire house did not
receive the termite treatment that was contracted for at the
beginning of their relationship.

He further alleges he does not know the exact number of people
eligible to be in the class but believes thousands of people
would be eligible to join.

He claims his interests are similar to the class members and
claims he envisions no unusual difficulty in the management of
the class.

Mr. Gerstenecker also claims he will not accept or demand on
behalf of any class member recovery in excess of $75,000.

Mr. Gerstenecker is seeking:

     -- Compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive
        damages according to proof at trial;

     -- Equitable relief in accordance with proof at trial;

     -- Taxing against all fees and costs of any expert, and all
        discovery and deposition costs and expenses; and

     -- Reasonable attorneys fees and expenses.

The case was originally assigned to District Judge William
Stiehl, but he recused himself.  It is now assigned to Judge
Michael Reagan.

The suit is "Gerstenecker v. Terminix International Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-00164-MJR-DGW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge Michael
J. Reagan with referral to Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.

Representing plaintiffs is W. Stan Faulkner of Goldenberg,
Heller & Antognoli, P.C., 2227 S. State, Route 157, P.O. Box
959, Edwardsville, IL 62025, Phone: (618) 656-5150, Fax: (618)
656-6230; Web site: http://www.gmhalaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Dawn A. Sallerson of Hinshaw &
Culbertson, 521 West Main Street, Suite 300, P.O. Box 509,
Belleville, IL 62222, Phone: 618-277-2400, E-mail:
dsallerson@hinshawlaw.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Price" Plaintiffs Seek to Keep Suit Alive
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.," filed a motion to
block an Illinois Supreme Court order instructing the Circuit
Court for the 3rd Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois to
dismiss the "lights" class action.

"Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.," formerly known as "Miles v.
Philip Morris, Inc." was filed on Feb. 10, 2000 in the Circuit
Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

The class members claim that the defendants sold and packaged
"light cigarettes" as having lowered tar and nicotine delivery
when in reality they were designed to deliver higher levels of
tar and nicotine.  Trial began on Jan. 21, 2003.  On March 21,
2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in
the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3
billion in punitive damages to the State of Illinois.

Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of
the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.  Because of the
difficulty of posting a bond of that magnitude, Philip Morris
pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement.

On April 14, 2003, the trial judge reduced the amount of the
bond.  He ordered the bond to be secured by $800 million,
payable in four equal quarterly installments beginning in
September 2003, and a pre-existing $6 billion long-term note to
be placed in escrow pending resolution of the case.

The plaintiffs appealed the judge's decision to reduce the
amount of the bond.  On July 14, 2003, the appeals court ruled
that the trial judge exceeded his authority in reducing the bond
and ordered the trial judge to reinstate the original bond.  

On Sept. 16, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered that the
reduced bond be reinstated and agreed to hear Philip Morris'
appeal without need for intermediate appellate court review.  On
Dec. 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower
state court's decision and sent the case back to the lower court
with instructions to dismiss the case.

On May 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay mandate
until final disposition of their petition for certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court.  The motion was granted on May 19, 2006.  
The plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari was denied on
Nov. 27, 2006.

On Dec. 15, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
Circuit Court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions
to dismiss.  On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss and for entry of final judgment, which was granted by
the court.  Judgment was entered dismissing the case with
prejudice on the same day.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate and/or withhold judgment
in the Circuit Court on Jan. 17, 2007, 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.  
Reynolds is not a defendant in the case.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: No Oral Argument Schedule Yet in "Daniels"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing in a petition to review the dismissal of the suit
"Daniels v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," is already complete, but
oral argument schedule is yet to be set in the case, 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.

"Daniels v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc." was filed in April 1998 is
pending in Superior Court, San Diego County, California.  

The action had been brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), seeking to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution to each member of the class and to the general
public, and an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
engaging in further violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500.

The plaintiffs allege that due to the deceptive practices of the
defendants, they became addicted to cigarettes as teenagers.  

On Nov. 30, 2000, a judge, based on a California unfair business
practices statute, certified a class consisting of all persons
who, as California resident minors, smoked one or more
cigarettes in California between April 2, 1994 and Dec. 1, 1999.  

The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment
on preemption and First Amendment grounds and dismissed the
action on Oct. 21, 2002.  On Oct. 6, 2004, the California Court
of Appeal affirmed the trial court.  On Feb. 16, 2005, the
California Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for
review.  Briefing is complete.  Oral argument has not been
scheduled, according to the regulatory filing.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Review Ruling in "Brown"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has accepted a petition seeking for
a review of a ruling in "Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,"
that refuses to certify a class under the California Legal
Remedies Act and on plaintiffs' common law claims.  

"Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," was filed in June 1997,
and is pending in Superior Court, San Diego County, California.

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 to recover restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq.  

On April 11, 2001, the Superior Court in San Diego County,
California granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Sections 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.

The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.  

Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in
California that changed the law regarding cases of this nature,
the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class.  On March
7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 19, 2005.  

On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
judge's order decertifying the class.  On Oct. 13, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court.  The petition for review was granted on Nov. 1,
2006.  Briefing is underway.


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

"Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." was filed in May 1994, and
pending in Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida.  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., 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.  

Trial began in July 1998.  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 3rd 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.

The case is "Engle et al. v. Liggett Group, Inc., et. al., Case
No. SC03-1856."


TRAVEL COS: Ark. City Sues to Recover Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The city of Fayetteville in Arkansas filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in Washington County Circuit Court on behalf
of the city's Advertising and Promotion Commission, claiming
travel companies offering cut-rate hotel rooms online haven't
paid the city enough hotel taxes, The Morning News reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Roaming Gnome,
     -- Captain Kirk, a black-and-white bellhop,
     -- Hotels.com,
     -- Hotwire,
     -- Cheap Tickets,
     -- Cendant Travel Distribution,
     -- Expedia,
     -- Lodging.com,
     -- Lowestfare.com,
     -- Maupintour Holding,
     -- Orbitz,
     -- Priceline,
     -- Travelocity,
     -- Travelweb and
     -- Travelnow.com, and
     -- up to 25 John Doe defendants to be named later

According to the suit, the companies contract with hotels for
rooms at negotiated, discounted rates, then mark the rooms up
when they sell them to the public.  They charge and collect
taxes from occupants based on the marked-up room rates but only
pay the city taxes based on the lower, negotiated room rates and
then pocket the difference.

The suit seeks an estimated $5 million, which would include
compensatory damages, restitution, interest and attorney fees.

A number of cities and counties have filed putative class
actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly
situated cities and counties within the same respective state
against Priceline.com Inc. and other defendants (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 5, 2006).

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

Plaintiffs counsel are Elliott & Smith, P.A., 1200 East Joyce
Boulevard, Suite 401, Fayetteville, AR 72703, Phone: (479) 587-
8423, Fax: (479) 575-0039; and the Thrash Law Firm, 1101 Garland
St., Little Rock, AR 72201-1214.


UNITED AIRLINES: Suit Claims Abuse of Monopoly on Direct Flights
----------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corp. and United Airlines, Inc. are facing a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
that alleges the airlines abused their monopoly of nonstop
flights from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco by imposing an
illegal, anticompetitive restriction that prevents customers
from reselling or transferring their tickets to a third party,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff, Richard Dominguez, brought the suit on behalf of all
consumers who, at any time on or after Feb. 2, 2006, purchased
from United or United's agent a United Airlines ticket for
nonstop travel on United Airlines originating at any of the
airports serving the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area and
terminating at any of the San Francisco Bay Area airports,
and/or vice-versa.

The complaint alleges that United has used its monopoly market
power in the relevant market for nonstop airline travel between
the airports serving the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and
the San Francisco Bay Area airports to impose an anticompetitive
and unlawful contractual bar on the resale of United's airline
tickets for travel between these two destinations.

Specifically, the suit alleges that United has used its monopoly
market power in the market for nonstop airline travel between
these two destinations (in either direction) in order to impose
a contractual restriction in its airline ticket sales, pursuant
to which a consumer passenger purchasing a United ticket for
nonstop travel between these two destinations (in either
direction) is forbidden from reselling or transferring his
airline ticket to a third-party.

If the passenger resells or transfers his ticket, defendant
United dishonors the ticket, and does not allow the third-party
purchaser to travel on the resold or transferred ticket.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     -- the definition of the relevant market(s);

     -- defendants' market power within these relevant
        market(s);

     -- whether defendant imposed an unlawful contractual bar on
        the airline tickets they sold for travel within the
        relevant market(s) in which defendants' possess monopoly
        market power;

     -- whether defendants' practices amounted to an unlawful
        restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- whether defendants' practices amounted to an unlawful
        monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
        Act;

     -- whether plaintiff and the class members sustained injury
        to their business and/or property caused by reason of
        defendants' alleged violations;

     -- whether defendants have been unlawfully enriched at he
        expense of the class members; and

     -- the proper measure of damages and any other remedy.

Plaintiff and the class pray for judgment from the court against
defendants as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action; plaintiff and his counsel
        be designated as class representative and class counsel;
        and reasonable notice of this action be given to the
        members of the class;

     -- that defendants be permanently enjoined from continuing
        in any manner the violations alleged in this complaint;

     -- that damages be awarded according to proof, that
        plaintiff and the class be awarded compensatory and
        treble damages as well as their reasonable attorneys'
        fees, costs of suit and disbursements;

     -- that defendants be ordered to disgorge all sums which
        they obtained by their wrongful acts;

     -- that plaintiff and the class be awarded pre and post
        judgment interest;

     -- that plaintiff and the class obtain such and further
        injunctive and declaratory relief as allowed under the
        Sherman and Clayton Acts or other statutes applicable to
        this complaint; and

     -- that plaintiff and the class obtain such other and
        further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ac4

The suit is "Dominguez v. UAL Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00418-RJL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.

Representing plaintiffs is Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law
Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC
20007-3772, Phone: (202) 625-4342, Fax: (202) 625-6774, E-mail:
rak@katriellaw.com.


UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities fraud
class action against United Rentals, Inc.

Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the
company.  Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf
of a purported class comprised of purchasers of the company's
securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to Aug. 30, 2004.

The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its
chairman, vice chairman, and chief executive officer, its former
president and chief financial officer, and its former corporate
controller.  

These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain of the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings and other public statements contained false and
misleading statements, which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.  

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action
asserted claims:

      -- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule  
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and  

      -- against one or more of the individual defendants under  
         Section 20(a) of such Act.  

The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.  On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order
consolidating the three actions.   

On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's
and Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  

The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals,
Inc. Securities Litigation."  The parties agreed upon, and the
court subsequently approved, a schedule for the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint in this action and the briefing
of any motions to dismiss directed to the operative complaint in
the action.  

On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which:

     -- adds allegations relating to, among other things, the
        conclusions of the Special Committee and to other
        matters disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K;

     -- amends the purported class period to include purchasers
        of the company's securities from Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug.
        30, 2004; and

     -- names as an additional defendant the company's first
        chief financial officer.

In Sept. 2006, the company and certain of the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in this action.  

Briefing with respect to these motions is now complete,
according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case NO. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Erin Green Comite of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave.,  
         PO Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,  
         Fax: 869-537-4432, E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com; and

     (2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, One Corporate  
         Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103,  
         Phone: 860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         nancy@snlaw.net.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David M. Bizar of Day, Berry & Howard, Cityplace,
         Hartford, CT 06103-3499, Phone: 860-275-0648, Fax: 860-
         275-0343, E-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com; and

    (ii) Alan R. Friedman of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel,
         1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: 212-715-9100, E-mail:
         afriedman@kramerlevin.com.


UNITED STATES: Rights Group Awaits Ruling in Medicaid Law Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead counsel in a suit questioning the U.S. citizenship
proof requirement for people availing Medicaid expects U.S.
District Judge Ronald A. Guzman to rule soon on its challenge,
the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports.

A Medicaid law that went into effect on July 1, 2006 required
Medicaid beneficiaries and applicants to provide proof of
citizenship to receive benefits.   Specifically, it required
people to supply original documents like passports or birth
certificates.  That law sought to ensure that only citizens or
qualified legal immigrants gain access to Medicaid, the state-
federal health insurance program for the poor (Class Action
Reporter, July 4, 2006).

The law met protests, including a class action.  The Shriver  
Center on Poverty Law in Chicago filed a case on June 28, 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, arguing that the law would hurt the most vulnerable
people.  

The suit was filed on behalf of nine plaintiffs who say they
cannot document their citizenship and might lose their Medicaid
benefits if the law is implemented.  It sought to enjoin the
Bush administration from implementing the law, which allegedly
violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding
due process of law.

Afterwards, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
exempted the elderly and the disabled from having to prove their
U.S. citizenship in order to qualify for Medicaid (Class Action
Reporter, July 10, 2006).  John Bouman, an attorney for the
Shriver Center, at the time said the exemption wouldn't be
applicable on certain groups, including those on Medicare and
those who get certain Social Security benefits.  

In a Feb. 16 report by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, he was
quoted as saying: "We are waiting on the judge to rule on the
motion to reconsider any day now."

In September, Judge Guzman handed down his original decision
regarding a provision of the Deficit Reduction Act.  He did not
overturn the requirement that there must be documented proof of
American citizenship to retain or establish Medicaid
eligibility.

The suit named as plaintiffs:

      -- Ruby Bell,
      -- A.L.,
      -- Alocia Brown,
      -- Della Otis,  
      -- George Crawford,  
      -- Kevin Harris,  
      -- Ruby Bell,  
      -- Ruby Trammell, and
      -- Robert Patterson

The suit is "Bell et al. v. Leavitt, Case No. 1:06-cv-03520,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Anderson and David E. Morrison of Goldberg Kohn,  
         55 East Monroe, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60603, US,  
         Phone: (312) 201-4000, E-mail:  
         mary.anderson@goldbergkohn.com and
         david.morrison@goldbergkohn.com.  

     (2) John Mark Bouman of Poverty Law Project, 111 North  
         Wabash, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 263-
         3830, E-mail: johnbouman@povertylaw.org; and

     (3) Thomas D. Yates of Health & Disability Advocates, 205  
         West Monroe Street, 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606-5013,  
         Phone: (312) 223-9600, E-mail: tyates@hdadvocates.org.  

Representing the defendant is Jonathan C. Haile, U.S. Attorney's  
Office, NDIL, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL  
60604, Phone: (312) 353-5300, E-mail: jonathan.haile@usdoj.gov.  


WASHINGTON: Continues to Face Suit Over 2002 IMF Protest Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia and the federal government remain as
defendants in a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia over the events
during the 2002 protests against the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.

On Nov. 19, 2002, the Partnership for Civil Justice filed a
lawsuit to vindicate the rights of activists, legal observers,
and passers-by who were wrongfully arrested in Pershing Park on
Sept. 27, 2002.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the suit, "Jeffrey Barham, et al. v. Chief
Charles H. Ramsey, et al.," was amended to be a class action on
behalf of all those arrested in Pershing Park.   

The court would later certify the case as class action with
respect to the Pershing Park arrests, with the Partnership for
Civil Justice attorneys as class counsel.

The 2002 protests were against trade and economic policies that
activists say have hurt the Third World.  Both the World Bank
and International Monetary Fund, which were meeting in
Washington at the time, have become magnets for protests.

The suit is "Barham et al. v. Ramsey et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
02283-EGS-AK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Washington under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is The Partnership for Civil
Justice, 10 G Street, NE, Ste. 650, Washington, D.C. 20002,
Phone: (202) 789-4330, Fax: (202) 789-4333, Web site:
http://www.justiceonline.org.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Justin M. Shellaway of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., 1455
         Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1008,
         Phone: (202) 639-6500, E-mail: jshellaway@velaw.com;
         and

     (2) Marina Utgoff Braswell, U.S. Attorneys Office For The
         District Of Columbia, 555 Fourth Street, NW, Room 10-
         413, Washington, DC 20530, Phone: (202) 514-7226, Fax:
         (202) 514-8780, E-mail: Marina.Braswell@usdoj.gov.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

March 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NEW CENTURY: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC announces
that a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against New Century
Financial Corp. (NYSE: NEW), alleging violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and (20)a of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price.

On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century Financial Corp. shocked the market
by announcing that it will have to restate its financial results
for the first three quarters of 2006 due to misstatements and
misrepresentations in the way the company makes allowances for
loan repurchase losses.

As a result of this announcement, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission has requested a meeting with the company to
discuss events leading up to the restatement.

Additionally, on Feb. 28, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Central District of California launched a criminal inquiry
focusing on the company's trading in its own securities, as well
as accounting errors in the way the company makes allowances for
loan repurchase losses.

Further, New Century announced that it will not be able to file
its Form 10-K with the SEC which was due on March 1, 2007. The
company warned that the delay in filing its financial reports
will jeopardize its credit lines and other financing facilities.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of New Century Financial Corp. between April 7,
2006 and Feb. 7, 2007.

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

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


NEW CENTURY: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the securities of New Century Financial Corp. during
the period from May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that New Century was forced
to restate its financial results for the first three quarters of
2006 because the company had failed to reserve adequately for
all of the non-performing mortgages it was forced to repurchase,
and failed to account properly for the reduction in value of the
mortgages repurchased.

The company acknowledged that its previously-issued financial
statements for the quarters ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006
and Sept. 30, 2006 could no longer be relied upon.

In response to the announcement regarding the restatement, on
Feb. 8, 2007, New Century's common stock dropped $10.92, a
decline of over 36%, on volume of 25 million shares.

Finally, on March 2, 2007, in a filing with the Securities &
Exchange Commission, New Century stated that it was out of
compliance with debt covenants and had received waivers from
only six out of eleven of its lenders.

The company warned that if it were unable to reach agreements
with the remaining lenders, the company's auditor will include
an explanatory paragraph on the company's financial statements
indicating that substantial doubt exists as to the company's
ability to continue as a going concern.

On March 5, 2007, New Century's common stock dropped more than
60% to a low of $5.25.

New Century is also expected to report a net loss for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2006, due to the same reasons that lead
to the restatement of its financial results.

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

For more information, contact Kevin McGee, Esq., of Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, Phone: 1-800-721-3900, E-mail:
kmcgee@zsz.com, Website: http://www.zsz.com.


NOVASTAR: Cauley Bowman Announces Securities Suit Filing in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC announces
that a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against NovaStar
Financial, Inc. (NYSE: NFI).

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

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all investors
who acquired NovaStar securities from May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20,
2007.

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

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


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven, announces that a securities class
action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Openwave Systems, Inc.
between Sept. 30, 2002 and Oct. 26, 2006, inclusive.

The suit charges Openwave, David C. Peterschmidt, Harold L.
Covert, Donald Listwin and Alan Black of violating federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the company's securities.

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

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:
410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
common stock purchasers of Openwave Systems, Inc. from Sept. 30,
2002 through Oct. 26, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the company purposely concealed the true dates of
         stock option grants;

     (2) that the company incorrectly accounted for its
         historical stock option grants;

     (3) that the company failed to accurately report
         compensation and payroll tax expenses related to its
         historical stock option grants;

     (4) that senior executives of Openwave caused the company
         to grant stock options to executives and other
         employees that improperly had exercise prices below the
         market price of Openwave stock on the actual date of
         the option grant;

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

     (6) that the company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

Between May 16, 2006 and the end of the Class Period, Openwave's
stock option backdating scheme began to unravel.  The first
disclosure came on May 16, 2006, when the Center for Financial
Research and Analysis published a report that identified
Openwave as a company "at risk" for having engaged in the
backdating of stock options granted to its officers and
directors.

Upon the release of this news, shares of the company's stock
declined $1.48 per share, or 9 percent, to close on May 17, 2006
at $14.30 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The next development occurred on May 22, 2006, when Openwave
revealed that it had received a letter from the SEC requesting
documents related to the company's stock option grants and stock
option practices.

Upon the release of this news, shares of the company's stock
declined an additional $0.69 per share, or 4.5 percent, to close
on May 22, 2006 at $14.68 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Shortly thereafter, on July 5, 2006, Openwave filed a Form 8-K
with the SEC to indicate that it had received subpoenas from the
U.S. Attorneys Office requesting documents regarding the
company's stock option grants and stock option practices.

Upon the release of this news, shares of the company's stock
declined an additional $3.70 per share, or 32 percent, to close
on July 6, 2006, at $7.77 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on Oct. 4, 2006, Openwave revealed that a special
committee of the company's Board of Directors had determined
that the measurement dates for financial accounting purposes for
certain stock option grants differed from the actual recorded
grant dates for certain awards.

As such, the company indicated that it would likely be forced to
restate its financial statements for the prior five years.
Additionally, the company warned investors not to rely upon any
of the financial statements previously issued by the company
during the last five years.

Following this disclosure, on Oct. 26, 2006 Openwave further
revealed that the company was also reviewing the tax
implications triggered as a result of the mandatory accounting
adjustments.

Upon the release of this news, shares of the company's stock
declined an additional $1.05 per share, or 11 percent, to close
on Oct. 27, 2006 at $9.56 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Lastly, on Dec. 1, 2006, Openwave disclosed that as a
consequence of the improper stock option backdating scheme, the
company would be forced to take a $182 million charge to the
financial results for fiscal year 2006 (ended June 2006), which
was a direct result of the improper prior accounting for stock
based compensation and payroll tax expense.

The company further warned investors not to rely on any of the
financial information that the company previously disclosed, as
the company had now explicitly confirmed that the financial
statements were inaccurate as previously provided.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *