CAR_Public/070308.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 48

                            Headlines


ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Suit in Pa. Over "Illegal" Payday Loans
ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Appeals Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
ASARCO LLC: Small Group of Retirees Objects to Settlement
ASTROPOWER INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 9
AT&T INC: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Ruling in "Gavin"

AVIS RENT: Certification Hearing in "Esquivel" FSC Suit on Hold
AVIS RENT: Certification Hearing Yet to be Set in "Stafford"
AXIS CAPITAL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
AXIS CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Suit
BUDGET RENT: N.J. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Suit Over FSC

BUDGET TRUCK: Faces Unlawful Business Practices Suit in Calif.
CALIFORNIA: Medicare Recipients Sue DHS Over Computer Glitch
DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit in Ga.
DIRECT GENERAL: Reaches Agreement to Settle Shareholder Suit
MASCO CORP: Faces Suit by Residential Insulation Contractors

MASCO CORP: Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit Under Appeal
MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Homeowners Pursue Bid for Class Status
NEXTEL COMMS: Ex-Workers Sue Company, Law Firm for "Rigged" Deal
OHIO: Groups File Suit Over Extension of Kids' Prison Sentences
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Allegedly Overpricing Rates

SMITH BARNEY: Finalizes Broker Pay Plan in Calif. Suit Agreement
SUNSET POOLS: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Del. Court Rejects Injunction Appeal
WAL-MART STORES: Objects to $46M Counsel Fees in Pa. Labor Suit
WURLD MEDIA: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Lawsuit by Former Employees

*SCAS: Securities Suit Settlements Reach $18B in 2006


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NEW CENTURY: Lockridge Grindal Extends Securities Class Period
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Lawsuit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit


                           *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Suit in Pa. Over "Illegal" Payday Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. and Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC face a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The suit, "Raymond King and Sandra Coates v. Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC," was filed on Jan.
18.

Plaintiffs were customers of BankWest the lending bank for which
the company marketed, processed, and serviced payday cash
advances in Pennsylvania.

They are alleging various causes of action, including that the
Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal payday loans in
Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on
the advances that the company marketed, processed and serviced
for BankWest in Pennsylvania and that the company was the
"lender in fact."  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

The company intends to file its response to the complaint in
March 2007, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "King et al. v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John P. Fullam.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David A. Searles of Donovan Searles, LLC, 1845 Walnut
         Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
         732-6067, Fax: 215-732-8060, E-mail:
         dsearles@donovansearles.com; and

     (2) Deborah Zuckerman of AARP Foundation Litigation, 601 E
         Street, NW Washington, DC 20049, Phone: 202-434-6045,
         Fax: 202-434-6424, E-mail: dzuckerman@aarp.org.

Representing the defendants is Mark J. Levin of Ballard Spahr
Andrews & Ingersoll, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
7599, Phone: 215-864-8235, E-mail: levinm@ballardspahr.com.


ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Appeals Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on
January 2007 on a motion to consolidate the purported class
action, "Kucan et al. v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers
of North Carolina, Inc. et al.," with two other similar cases
filed in the state.  The court has not ruled on the motion.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Co., the
lending bank for whom the company marketed, processed and
serviced payday cash advances in North Carolina, filed a
putative class action in the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the company and William M. Webster, IV, its chief
executive officer.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the relationship
between the company's North Carolina subsidiary and Republic was
a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore Republic was not
the "true lender" on the payday cash advances it offered.  

The lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances were made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.

It seeks an injunction barring the subsidiary from continuing to
do business in North Carolina, the return of the principal
amount of the payday cash advances made to the plaintiff class
since August 2001, the return of any interest or fees associated
with those advances, treble damages, attorneys' fees and other
unspecified costs.

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for arbitration, staying the proceedings and denying
class certification.  Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.  

The plaintiffs in this case and two other North Carolina cases
currently before the Court of Appeals filed a petition, which
the company has opposed, for discretionary review, and
consolidation of the cases.  

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the consolidated
cases in January 2007.  The company is awaiting a ruling from
the Court of Appeals, according to the company's March 1 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


ASARCO LLC: Small Group of Retirees Objects to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Seven retirees of ASARCO LLC, on behalf of other ASARCO
retirees, oppose the proposed settlement of the retiree health
and benefit plans class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division:

   * Joe Rios,
   * Dwight Shelby,
   * Grady Sizemore,
   * Bernard Zronacki,
   * Eugenio Arvizu,
   * Gonzalo Frias, and
   * John Giorsetti, Jr.

The Retirees tell the court that they had no participation and
input in the negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, and were
not aware that negotiations were undertaken until they received
notice of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement does not address the issue of the
retirees' high monthly premiums and their possible
reimbursement, the Retirees point out.  The Settlement Agreement
is good for only three years, the Retirees note, and after those
three years, retirees will still have to pay the same high
premiums for their medical and prescription benefits.

The Retirees assert that they are entitled to the recoupment of
the losses they incurred, in terms of their health and pension
payments, in the past three years.  The Retirees ask the Court
to direct ASARCO to reimburse them for those losses.

The Retirees note that if they accept the Settlement Agreement,
they will forfeit their rights to recoup any compensation they
are entitled for the period between 2003 and 2006.

Since the Unions hired certain attorneys who negotiated for the
Settlement, they should pay for those attorneys, the Retirees
maintain.  The Retirees question the part of the Settlement that
provides for ASARCO to pay the fees and expenses of those
attorneys.

Accordingly, the Retirees ask the Court to deny approval of the
Settlement Agreement unless modified to incorporate their
objections.

                 Retiree Class & Unions Talk Back

The certified Retiree Class and the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Locals 518, 570,
583 and 602, and the International Chemical Workers Union
Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers note that only
seven objections to the Settlement Agreement were received.

Seven objectors represent less than 1% of the approximately 900
Class members, John Stember, Esq., at Stember Feinstein, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, points out.  That the overwhelming
majority of the Class members have not objected to the
Settlement illustrates the "reaction of the class," as a whole,
and demonstrates that the Settlement is "fair, reasonable, and
adequate," Mr. Stember says.

The Retiree Class and the Unions note that none of the Retirees
raised significant issues with regard to the proposed settlement
that provide a basis for denying its final approval.

Mr. Stember relates that Class members have input into class
action settlements through their certified class counsel and
through the objection process, which is standard procedure under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reimbursement for past premium payments and other retiree costs
would be preferable, Mr. Stember says.  Class Counsel, however,
is satisfied that the negotiated settlement is the best possible
settlement under the circumstances and is within the range of
reasonableness that should pass muster under Civil Rule 23.

Payment of fees and costs of the Class Counsel's attorneys will
not be subtracted from Class members' benefits, Mr. Stember
elaborates.  Instead, it will be paid directly from ASARCO.

The Settlement is without prejudice to Class Members' rights to
sue if ASARCO attempts to make changes after the labor agreement
expires, Mr. Stember clarifies.

Based in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-
- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company.
Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. is ASARCO's ultimate parent.  The
company filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).  

The Honorable Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi had
extended the Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan of
reorganization until April 6, 2007, and their exclusive period
to solicit acceptances of that plan until June 6, 2007.  (ASARCO
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 40; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service,
Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


ASTROPOWER INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 9
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a
hearing on May 9, 2007 at 10: a.m. for a proposed $1 million
settlement in the matter, "In Re Astropower Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-CV-260."

The certified class includes all persons who purchased the
common stock of Astropower between May 7, 2001 and April 1,
2003, inclusive and who were damaged thereby.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Joseph Farnan in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb
Boggs Fed. Bldg., 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

Deadline for filing proofs of claim is June 26, 2007.  The
deadline for submitting objections and requests for exclusions
is April 17, 2007.

                        Case Background

The original complaint charges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market between Feb. 22,
2002 and Aug. 1, 2002.  

The complaint alleges that the company falsely claimed that it
was well positioned to take advantage of the increasing demand
for solar power products.  The complaint further alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, the company falsely reported strong
revenue and earnings growth and that, as a result of these
statements and reports, the company's per share stock price
reached a Class Period high of $27 on March 28, 2002.

On April 8, 2004, AstroPower filed a suggestion of bankruptcy,
and on April 15, 2004, the court entered the order signed by
U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. staying the action as
to defendant AstroPower pending disposition of defendant's
pending action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.

On Jan. 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint against the remaining individual defendants.  On May
13, 2005, one of the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss based on failure to state a claim and failure to plead
with sufficient detail.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware dismissed a securities fraud class action against a
company's chief financial officer because the class failed to
plead the claims with particularity as required by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The district court dismissed
the class claims against AstroPower's chief financial officer,
but allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

On April 28, 2006, the remaining individual defendant filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  On Oct. 17,
2006, the plaintiff's lawyer filed a letter to The Honorable
Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. advising the court that the parties have
reached an agreement in principle.

Lead class plaintiff is Leeb Capital Management.

Lead Counsel is Michael K. Yarnoff and Kay E. Sickles at
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087.

The suit is "In Re: AstroPower Inc. Securities Litigation,
Docket No. 03-CV-0260," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr.

Astropower, Inc. Securities Litigation: c/o The Garden City
Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box #9111Dublin, OH  
43017-4111.


AT&T INC: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Ruling in "Gavin"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court denied an appeal by AT&T Inc. for a review of
a lower court decision allowing the securities class action,
"AT&T v. Gavin, 06-944" to proceed against AT&T Inc., Associated
Press reports.

The suit was filed by Lila Gavin, a shareholder of MediaOne
Group Inc., which the company purchased in June 2000.  Ms. Gavin
accused AT&T and Georgeson Shareholder Communications, the
company AT&T hired to disseminate information regarding shares
exchange under the sale, of committing civil fraud by not
mentioning a free exchange option in the offer.

The suit was filed in Illinois state court.  AT&T moved the case
to the federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 that gives federal court jurisdiction for
securities fraud.  

The plaintiff tried to bring back the case to state court, but a
federal district court judge denied the motion and dismissed the
case.

The plaintiff appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals,
which ruled in September 2006 that the case did not involve the
sale or purchase of a security because the alleged fraud
occurred after AT&T's purchase of MediaOne.

As a result, the appeals court reversed the district court and
sent the case back to state court.


AVIS RENT: Certification Hearing in "Esquivel" FSC Suit on Hold
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification of a
lawsuit filed against Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. in the 214th
Judicial District of Nueces County, Texas was put on hold.

The suit, "Esquivel v. Avis," was filed on Jan. 24, 2004.  It
alleges that the company's use and collection of the fuel
service charge (FSC), pursuant to its rental agreements,
constitutes an illegal penalty and is therefore a breach of the
rental agreements between the company and the putative class
members and is unconscionable under the relevant state Uniform
Commercial Code.

The case asserts other causes of action such as fraudulent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  The putative class in
the case comprises all Texas residents who were charged an FSC
by Avis or its licensee in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
with the return of all FSC paid or the difference between the
FSC and the company's actual costs, disgorgement of unearned
profits, attorneys' fees and costs.

Discovery is ongoing and a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for
class certification that was scheduled for December 2006 has
been adjourned and is likely to be rescheduled for April 2007,
according to Avis' March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


AVIS RENT: Certification Hearing Yet to be Set in "Stafford"
------------------------------------------------------------
No class certification hearing has been scheduled or heard by
the District Court in and for Creek County, State of Oklahoma in
a purported class action against Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.

The suit, "Stafford v. Avis," was filed on Feb. 16, 2005.  It
alleges that the company's use and collection of the fuel
service charge (FSC), pursuant to its rental agreements,
constitutes an illegal penalty and is therefore a breach of the
rental agreements between the company and the putative class
members and is unconscionable under the relevant state Uniform
Commercial Code.

The case asserts other causes of action such as fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practice
under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.  

The putative class in the case comprises all persons who were
charged an FSC by Avis, or alternatively, all Oklahoma residents
who were charged an FSC by Avis.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
with the return of all FSC paid or the difference between the
FSC and the company's actual costs, disgorgement of unearned
profits, attorneys' fees and costs.

No class certification hearing has been scheduled or heard by
the court in the Stafford case, according to Avis' March 1 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.


AXIS CAPITAL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice a consolidated securities class
filed against AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. and certain of its
executive officers.

Two suits initially filed against the company relate to dealings
being investigated by the Attorney General of the state of New
York and other state regulators.  The suits are:

     -- "James Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael A.
        Butt and John R. Charman" (filed on Oct. 28, 2004); and

     -- "Robert Schimpf v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael
        A. Butt, Andrew Cook and John R. Charman," (filed on
        Nov. 5, 2004).

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
publicly traded securities during the period between Aug. 6,
2003 and Oct. 14, 2004.  

The complaints charge AXIS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaints further allege that during the class period,
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's results and operations.  

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the class period, are
allegedly:

      -- that the company was paying illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements;"

      -- that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions
         of dollars; and

      -- that as a result, the company's prior reported revenue
         and income was grossly overstated.

On April 13, 2005, these lawsuits were consolidated as, "In re
AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation."  

The suit alleges securities violations in connection with the
failure to disclose payments made pursuant to contingent
commission arrangements and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  

On May 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated
complaint and added as defendants the managing underwriters and
one of the selling shareholders in the company's secondary
offering completed in March 2004.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice and granted plaintiffs 30 days to file a
second amended, consolidated complaint consistent with the
court's opinion.  

On Dec. 18, 2006, plaintiffs advised the court that it would not
be filing an amended complaint and, as a consequence, the
amended, consolidated action has been dismissed without
prejudice, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

A copy of the judge's ruling is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13f5

The suit is "In re AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,  
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Benjamin E. Rosenberg of Swidler
Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10174, Phone: (212) 891-9231, Fax: (212) 891-9519, E-mail:
benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com.


AXIS CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Brokerage Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. insurance companies of AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. along
with other defendants renewed their motions to dismiss the
putative class action, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Filed on Aug. 1, 2005, the suit includes as defendants numerous
insurance brokers and insurance companies.  It generally alleges
antitrust and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act in connection to the payment of
contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the court granted in part motions to dismiss
filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file
supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege
their antitrust and RICO claims.

After plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, defendants
renewed their motions to dismiss, which are pending before the
court, according to the company's March 1 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 Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.  

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Thomas M. Louis of Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC, P.O. BOX
         131, JACKSON, MS 39205-0131, Phone: (601) 355-8321, E-
         mail: tlouis@wellsmar.com;

     (2) H. Alan Mccall of Stockwell Sievert, P.O. Box 2900,
         Lake Charles, LA 70601, US, Phone: 337-436-9491;

     (3) Ellen Meriwether of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One
         Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18TH & Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
         emeriwether@millerfaucher.com; and

     (4) Douglas A. Millen, Counsel Not Admitted to USDC-NJ Bar
         Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein,
         PC, 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-
         1615, Phone: (312) 521-2100.

Representing the company is William F. Clarke of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meahter & Flom, LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY
10036-6522, Phone: (212) 735-3000, E-mail: wclarke@skadden.com.


BUDGET RENT: N.J. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Suit Over FSC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
a purported class action filed against Budget Rent A Car System
Inc., a unit of Avis Budget Group, Inc., according to Avis'
March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit, "Ramon v. Budget," was filed on April 21, 2006.  It
alleges that the company's use and collection of the fuel
service charge (FSC), pursuant to its rental agreements,
constitutes an illegal penalty and is therefore a breach of the
rental agreements between the company and the putative class
members and is unconscionable under the relevant state Uniform
Commercial Code.

The case asserts other causes of action such as fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.  

The putative class in the case comprises all persons who were
charged an FSC by Budget.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
with the return of all FSC paid or the difference between the
FSC and the company's actual costs, disgorgement of unearned
profits, attorneys' fees and costs.

In February 2007, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety in the Ramon case, without
prejudice.

The suit is "Ramon v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., Case No.
2:06-cv-01905-WJM-MF," under Judge William J. Martini with
referral to Mark Falk.

Representing the defendant is David A. Picon at Proskauer Rose,
LLP, 1585 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 969-3000,
E-mail: dpicon@proskauer.com.

Representing the plaintiff is Philip A. Tortoreti at Tortoreti
Tomes & Callahan, 150 Tices Lane, East Brunswick, NJ 08816,
Phone: 732-257-9100, E-mail: ptort@ttclawyers.com.


BUDGET TRUCK: Faces Unlawful Business Practices Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Truck Rental, LLC, a unit of Avis Budget Group, Inc., was
named a defendant in a purported class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, according to Avis'
March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Oct. 27, 2006, plaintiffs Giuseppe Demarte and Mona Self
filed a complaint against Budget Truck.  The complaint alleges
causes of action for unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
and conversion, relating to Budget Truck's refueling practices
and procedures.

The complaint is asserted as a putative class action on behalf
of "all persons who, within the four years preceding the filing
of the complaint, have entered into a truck rental agreement
with Budget Truck Rental in California that provided for a
refueling fee and who paid that fee, or have paid for fuel in
connection with that rental agreement based on the amount of
fuel measured by the rented truck's fuel gauge, or have returned
the rented truck to Budget with more fuel in the tank than at
the initiation of the rental."

On Dec. 29, 2006, Budget Truck filed an answer to plaintiffs'
complaint.  


CALIFORNIA: Medicare Recipients Sue DHS Over Computer Glitch
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) faces a
purported class action alleging that thousands of low-income
seniors and disabled people across the state may have lost their
Medicare benefits due to a computer glitch.

The suit was filed on Feb. 26 in San Francisco Superior Court.  
It was brought by Melissa Rodgers of the Legal Aid Society of
San Mateo County on behalf of recipients in San Francisco and
San Mateo counties along with 16 other counties in California.  
It alleges that after DHS began using the CalWIN computer system
to manage its Medicare rolls, thousands of low-income
beneficiaries were accidentally dropped.  DHS failed to fix a
flaw in the CalWIN computer system, according to the lawsuit.

According to Jeanne Finberg of the National Senior Citizens Law
Center, Medicare beneficiaries in Sacramento, Placer and Yolo --
who are all using the system -- were among those who may have
lost their benefits as a result of that computer glitch.

In the suit, clients are seeking reimbursement for their medical
bills as well as an assured fix for the glitch that dropped them
from the Medicare rolls.

Though DHS is asking counties to fix the problem, it's unclear
whether the responsibility lies with individual counties or the
DHS, according to department spokesman Michael Bowman.

No court date has been set in the legal proceedings.

For more details, contact Melissa A. Rodgers, Legal Aid Society,
521 East 5th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94402-1302, Phone: (650) 558-
0915, Fax: (650) 558-0673, E-mail: mrodgers@legalaidsmc.org.


DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Smith v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., et al.," have dismissed an appeal against the
dismissal of their case, according to the company's March 2 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Sept. 3, 2004, a retired company employee filed a class
action complaint (amended on March 16, 2005) against the
company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors on behalf of himself and other participants in the
Delta Family-Care Savings Plan.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia is alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants were
fiduciaries of the Savings Plan and, as such, breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA to the plaintiff class by:

      -- allowing class members to direct their contributions
         under the Savings Plan to a fund invested in Delta
         common stock; and

      -- continuing to hold Delta's contributions to the Savings
         Plan in Delta's common and preferred stock.

The amended complaint seeks damages unspecified in amount, but
equal to the total loss of value in the participants' accounts
from September 2000 through September 2004 from the investment
in the company's stock.

Defendants deny that there was any breach of fiduciary duty, and
have moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion is pending
before the district court.  

The court has stayed the action due to the company's Sept. 14,
2005 bankruptcy filing.  The company and substantially all of
its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  

It later granted the motion to dismiss filed by the individual
defendants.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit the court's decision to dismiss the
complaint against the individual defendants but voluntarily
dismissed this appeal, pending resolution of the automatic stay
of their claim against Delta.

The suit is "Smith v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02592-ODE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Orinda D. Evans.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Evan J. Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Suite 602, 333
         East City Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, US, Phone:
         610-667-6200;

     (2) Gerald D. Wells, Edward W. Ciolko and Joseph H. Meltzer
         of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-676-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail: gwells@sbclasslaw.com,
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com and jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Michael Ira Fistel, Jr. and Corey Daniel Holzer of
         Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite
         E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338, Phone: 770-392-0090, E-mail:
         mfistel@holzerlaw.com and cholzer@holzerlaw.com.

Representing the company are, William Henry Boice, Cindy Dawn
Hanson and Steven D. Moore of Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100
Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone:
404-815-6464, 404-815-6500 and 404-815-6186 E-mail:
bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com, chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com
and smoore@kilpatrickstockton.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Reaches Agreement to Settle Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Direct General Corp. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle three purported federal shareholder derivative actions
filed in the first quarter of 2005, which were consolidated into
one action, "In Re Direct General Corp. Derivative Litigation."

The suit (Case No. 3:05-0158) is before the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Direct General, its directors and current and former officers do
not admit to liability or fault.  The settlement is subject to
several conditions, including approval by the District Court.  

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the
defendants will pay an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of
$675,000, and all state and federal derivative and putative
class action claims will either be voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice or the parties in the federal shareholder derivative
actions will take such action as is necessary to have such
claims dismissed with prejudice.

The parties also are negotiating terms that would provide
plaintiffs with certain benefits if Elara Holdings, Inc., sells
Direct General within a certain time after the merger between
Elara and Direct General, as described below, closes.  In
addition, pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Direct
General has agreed to provide additional information to
shareholders through publicly available filings in order to
supplement the proxy statement that has been provided to Direct
General's shareholders in connection with the special meeting of
shareholders concerning the proposed merger.

Direct General will file the supplemental disclosure with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and such disclosure may
be accessed at http://www.sec.gov.

                   Proposed Merger with Elara

On Dec. 5, 2006, Direct General Corp. announced its execution of
a definitive agreement to merge with Elara, an affiliate of
Fremont Partners and Texas Pacific Group, under which Elara will
acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Direct General.  
In the transaction, Direct General's shareholders will receive
$21.25 in cash for each share of Direct General common stock
that they hold.

The transaction is subject to receipt of shareholder approval
and required regulatory approvals, as well as satisfaction of
other closing conditions.  A special meeting of the shareholders
to consider the proposed merger is set to occur on March 8, 2007
at the company's corporate headquarters located at 1281
Murfreesboro Rd, Nashville, Tennessee 37217 at 11:00 a.m. local
time.


MASCO CORP: Faces Suit by Residential Insulation Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware-based Masco Corp. is facing a suit seeking class
representation for residential insulation contractors that have
directly purchased fiberglass insulation suitable for
residential installation from certain insulation manufacturers.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies in the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of federal and state antitrust laws.

The plaintiff publicized the lawsuit with a press release and
stated in that release that the U.S. Department of Justice was
investigating the business practices of the company's insulation
installation companies.  Although the company was unaware of any
investigation at that time, the company was later advised that
an investigation had been commenced but was subsequently closed
without any enforcement action recommended.

Two additional lawsuits were subsequently brought in Virginia
making similar claims under the antitrust laws.  Both of these
lawsuits have since been dismissed without any payment or
requirement for any change in business practices.  During the
second half of 2004, the same counsel who commenced the initial
action in Atlanta filed six additional lawsuits on behalf of
several of Masco's competitors in the insulation installation
business.

The plaintiffs then dismissed all of these lawsuits and,
represented by the same counsel, filed another action in the
same federal court as a putative class action against the
company, a number of its insulation installation companies and
certain of their suppliers.  All of the company's suppliers who
are co-defendants in this lawsuit have agreed in principle with
the plaintiffs to settle this matter.  

This suit currently seeks class representation for residential
insulation contractors (other than the defendants and their
affiliates) that have directly purchased fiberglass insulation
suitable for residential installation from certain insulation
manufacturers.  The company is opposing certification of this
lawsuit which seeks to proceed on a class representation basis,
according to the company's form 10-k filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

An additional lawsuit, seeking class-action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct, was filed in a Florida state court
against the company and a number of its insulation suppliers.  
This lawsuit was recently dismissed by the court with prejudice.

Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the company
believes that the conduct of the company and its insulation
installation companies, which has been the subject of the above-
described lawsuits, has not violated any antitrust laws.  There
cannot, however, be any assurance that the company will
ultimately prevail in the remaining lawsuits or, if
unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material.

The company is unable at this time to reliably estimate any
potential liability which might occur from an adverse judgment
but does not believe that any adverse judgment would have a
material adverse effect on its businesses or the methods used by
its insulation installation companies in doing business.


MASCO CORP: Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of one of several suits related to allege
anticompetitive business practices in the plumbing and heating
industries is being appealed before a U.S. court, according to
Masco Corp.

In 2004, the company learned that European governmental
authorities were investigating possible anticompetitive business
practices relating to the plumbing and heating industries in
Europe.  The investigations involve a number of European
companies, including certain of the company's European
manufacturing divisions and a number of other large businesses.

As part of its broadened governance activities, the company,
with the assistance of its outside counsel, completed a review
of the competition practices of its European divisions,
including those in the plumbing and heating industries, and the
company is cooperating fully with the European governmental
authorities.  

Several private antitrust lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
as putative class actions against, among others, the company and
certain of the other companies being investigated relating to
the defendants' plumbing operations.  These appear to be an
outgrowth of the investigations being conducted by European
governmental authorities.

These lawsuits have been dismissed; however, the company has
been notified that a notice of appeal has been filed in one of
these lawsuits.  Based upon the advice of its outside counsel,
the review of the competition practices of its European
divisions referred to above and other factors, the company
believes that it will not incur material liability as a result
of the matters that are the subject of these investigations.


MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Homeowners Pursue Bid for Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Milgard Manufacturing over
allege design defects in certain of its aluminum windows are
seeking to appeal an order denying certification to the suit.

The suit was served upon Milgard in the Solano County,
California Superior Court in February 2003.  The complaint
requests class-action status for all owners of homes in
California in which the windows are installed, and seeks
replacement costs and other damages.  

Milgard denies that the windows are defective and is vigorously
defending the case.

In August 2006 the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
California Court of Appeals.  Based upon the advice of its
outside counsel, Milgard believes that the trial court ruling
should be affirmed by the appellate court.

Milgard Manufacturing is a subsidiary of Delaware-based Masco
Corp.


NEXTEL COMMS: Ex-Workers Sue Company, Law Firm for "Rigged" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Communications, Inc. and the law firm of Leeds Morelli &
Brown, P.C., were named as defendants in a purported federal
class action alleging impropriety in the settlement of bias
claims made against the company.

Five former Nextel employees from a Rutherford, New Jersey
office are alleging that that their former attorneys struck a
"sweetheart deal" with the wireless communications provider to
cap a settlement of their discrimination claims.

The plaintiffs are suing both the law firm and the company
individually and as representatives of a larger class of at
least 500 people.

Angela Roper, a Totowa lawyer who is representing the
plaintiffs, along with co-counsel, Kenneth S. Thyne, filed the
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on Nov. 17, 2006.

Ms. Roper's clients are claiming that Nextel paid Leeds Morelli
$7.5 million to cap a potential $2 billion settlement of their
discrimination claims at $4.5 million.

However, representatives for both Nextel and the law firm have
denied the allegations.  After failing to persuade a federal
judge to seal the proceedings, both have requested for the
dismissal of case.

The case publicly began in 2000, when Leeds Morelli announced
that 300 current and former employees in New Jersey, Colorado
and other states planned to file complaints accusing Nextel of
withholding raises and promotions based on race or gender,
according to a NorthJersey.com report.

Jeffrey K. Brown of Leeds Morelli was quoted saying that they
would seek a settlement estimated at $2 billion.

Plaintiffs allege though that rather than vigorously pursuing
their cause, Mr. Brown, Leonard Leeds, Steven A. Morelli and
four other lawyers from the firm sold them out for more than $7
million in "bribes."

The suit alleges that after agreeing to accept a one-third
contingency fee, Leeds Morelli secretly cut a $7.5 million deal
with Nextel to limit its exposure and shield the entire matter
from public scrutiny.

Plaintiffs insist the law firm never intended to sue the
company.  In addition, they claim that the lawyers also hid
their intent to obtain payments from Nextel that "grossly
exceeded" the fees agreed to in the retainer agreements.

While the firm received $7.5 million in legal and consulting
fees from Nextel, 587 current and former employees of the
wireless carrier -- including 99 from New Jersey -- shared about
$4.5 million in the settlement, according to the suit.

The worker's current claims against Nextel include fraud,
wrongful interference with contract, commercial bribery, and
conspiracy to cause plaintiff's attorneys to breach their
fiduciary duty and to commit legal malpractice.

They claim that the law firm engaged in flagrant conflicts of
interest and cheated its clients through a pattern of deception,
concealment, fraud and racketeering.

Despite the allegations, Nextel maintains that the settlement
explicitly provided that it would pay Leeds Morelli about $5.5
million in legal fees for its representation of nearly 600
claimants through a dispute resolution process and an additional
$2 million in consulting fees over two years after all claims
were resolved.

But, plaintiffs insist that all they saw was a signature page
and they were not allowed to review the full agreement.

The suit is "Johnson et al. v. Nextel Communications, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05547-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Angela M. Roper and Kenneth S. Thyne Roper &
         Twardowsky, LLC, 77 Jefferson Place, Totowa, NJ 07512-
         2614 ,Phone: (973) 790-4441, E-mail:
         angela.roper@njlegalmalpractice.com; and

     (2) Madeline Levine Houston of Houston & Totaro, 56 Broad
         Street, Suite 1, Bloomfield, NJ 07003, Phone: 973-748-
         4580, E-mail: houstontotaro@gmail.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) John J. Robertelli of Rivkin Radler, LLP, 21 Main
         Street, Court Plaza South-West Wing, Hackensack, NJ
         07601-7021, Phone: (201) 287-2460, Fax: (201) 489-0495,
         E-mail: john.robertelli@rivkin.com; and

    (ii) Lawrence R. Sandak of Proskauer & Rose, LLP, One Newark
         Center, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 274-3200, E-
         mail: lsandak@proskauer.com.


OHIO: Groups File Suit Over Extension of Kids' Prison Sentences
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) and several state
officials were named as defendants in a purported federal class
action that claims that some children are serving far longer
than their court-imposed minimum sentences in the state's youth
prisons.

On March 1, the Children's Law Center of Covington, Ky., the
Ohio Justice and Policy Center, and the law firm of Sirkin,
Pinales & Schwartz in Cincinnati, jointly filed the suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit was brought on behalf of six unnamed plaintiffs whose
minimum sentences were extended anywhere from an additional two
months to a year.  

However, Kim Brooks Tandy of the Children's Law Center, Jennifer
Kinsley, of Sirkin Pinales, and Janet Moore of the Ohio Justice
and Policy Center, are asking that the suit be expanded as a
class action to include all juveniles affected by the policy.

Aside from the ODYS other defendants named in the suit are:

      -- Thomas Stickrath,
      -- Release Authority,
      -- Sharon Haines,
      -- C Q Morrison,
      -- Terry Kennedy Mancini,
      -- Jennifer Fears, and
      -- Norm Hills.

The suit alleges that the ODYS violated juveniles' civil rights
by "arbitrarily and unilaterally" extending minimum sentences
for incarcerated juveniles.

In addition, the suit alleges that ODYS also requires juveniles
to finish rehabilitation programs as a condition of release, but
these programs are often unavailable to them before the end of
their minimum sentence.

Also at issue is the use by ODYS' Release Authority of a tool
called a release matrix in setting a minimum sentence for a
juvenile.  The Release Authority is similar to an adult Parole
Board.

The lawsuit contends that the system "results in children
serving far longer then their court imposed minimum sentences,"
and that the juveniles are denied appeals.

In general, the suit alleges that:

      -- the release system violates the children's rights to
         due process,

      -- the separation of powers because the executive branch
         of government is performing a task that should be done
         by the judicial branch and the right to counsel, and

      -- is double jeopardy since children end up serving two
         sentences for a single crime.

The suit is "J.J. et al. v. Ohio Department of Youth Services et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00170-GCS-MRA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge George C.
Smith with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jennifer M Kinsley of Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz - 1,
         105 W. Fourth Street, Suite 920, Cincinnati, OH 45202,
         Phone: 513-721-4876, Fax: 513-721-0876, E-mail:
         jkinsley@sirkinpinales.com;

     (2) David A Singleton of The Ohio Justice & Policy Center,
         617 Vine Street, Suite 1301, Cincinnati, OH 45202,
         Phone: 513-421-1108, Fax: 513-562-3200, E-mail:
         dsingleton@ohiojpc.org; and

     (3) Kimberly Brooks Tandy of The Children's Law Center, 104
         East 7th Street, Covington, KY 41011, Phone: 859-431-   
         3313, E-mail: kimbrooks@fuse.net.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Allegedly Overpricing Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli mobile communications operator Partner Communications
Company Ltd. was served with a lawsuit requesting certification
as a class action.  The suit was filed against the company,
Pelephone Communications Ltd. and Cellcom Israel Ltd. in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv by plaintiffs claiming to be
subscribers of the defendants.

The claim is for sums that were allegedly overcharged in breach
of the defendants' licenses, based on intervals larger than the
intervals the defendants' were allegedly authorized to charge
under their licenses, for calls initiated or received by the
subscribers while abroad.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS449 million ($106.6 million), of which,
approximately NIS88 million ($20.9 million), is attributed to
the company.

Partner Communications -- http://www.investors.partner.co.il--  
describes itself as a leading Israeli mobile communications
operator providing GSM/GPRS/UMTS/ HSDPA services and wire free
applications under the orange(TM) brand.  The company commenced
full commercial operations in January 1999 and, through its
network, provides quality service and a range of features to
2.668 million subscribers in Israel.


SMITH BARNEY: Finalizes Broker Pay Plan in Calif. Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Barney, a unit of Citigroup Inc., modified the final
version of compensation package to brokers who sued the company
for alleged violations of overtime pay laws and for policies
that make them chip in for business costs, InvestmentNews.com
reports.

The new compensation package, which took effect at the start of
2007, was only finalized this February.  Under it, company-
funded expense accounts are substantially increased.  Brokers
may use the money to pay for sales assistant bonuses.

In May 2006, the company agreed to pay $98 million to current
and former brokers who claimed they were owed overtime pay and
other reimbursements (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 3006).

More than a dozen class actions claiming unpaid overtime on
behalf of brokers, primarily in California, were brought against
several securities firms.  The brokerage firms claim that the
Fair Labor Standards Act exempt salespeople from overtime.  They
said brokers are salaried, administrative employees.  

However, plaintiffs argued they receive incentive-based
compensations, such as commissions tied to sales that qualify as
salary.  They also said that overtime exemption applies only to
store sales, not trades of securities.

The settlement affects about 11,000 full-time equivalent
employees at Smith Barney.  Under it, the firm will be giving
sales assistants a raise and picking up the tab this year for
all assistant compensation formerly paid by brokers.

Citigroup, Inc. on the Net: http://www.citigroup.com.


SUNSET POOLS: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia accusing Sunset Pools Management,
it's president Bita Naderi, company shareholder Arash Naderi and
International Training and Exchange of recruiting workers from
Bulgaria and bringing them to the U.S. under false pretenses,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Miroslav and Veselin Ivanov say they and others
were cooped up in tiny rooms where they slept on the floor,
charged rent in violation of contracts, and worked more than 60
hours a week without overtime.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
employees similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).  Those encompassed in the complaint include employees
who were recruited by Intrax for employment by Sunset Pools Inc.
and the individual defendants during the period starting Jan. 1,
2005 through the present date.

Plaintiffs seek the following relief:

     -- compensatory and punitive damages;

     -- an ward of back pay and liquidated damages as provided
        by 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

      -- an award of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems just and proper
        including an order directing notice to be given to those
        encompassed by the complaint so that they may give
        consent to be party plaintiffs.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ac7  

The suit is "Ivanov et al. v. Sunset Pools Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00410-RJL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.

Representing plaintiffs is Mark J. Murphy of Mooney, Green,
Baker & Saindon, 1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC
20036-5041, Phone: (202) 783-0010, Fax: (202) 783-6088, E-mail:
mmurphy@mooneygreen.com.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Del. Court Rejects Injunction Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware dismissed an appeal by a purported
former shareholder of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. against an
anti-suit injunction issued by the Delaware Court of Chancery in
the Proctor litigation filed against the company.

Following a Feb. 22, 2001 announcement by Vishay of a proposed
tender offer for the publicly-held shares of Siliconix, 12
separate class and/or derivative actions were filed in
California and Delaware state courts against Vishay, Siliconix,
and various officers and directors of both companies.

In August 2002, purported shareholder Rebecca Proctor, filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court against, among
others, the Vishay Defendants.  The complaint purported to bring
direct and derivative causes of action solely based on Vishay's
supposed misappropriation of Siliconix sales subsidiaries.  

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in
the California Superior Court on behalf of all non-Vishay
stockholders of Siliconix against:

     -- Vishay;

     -- Ernst & Young LLP (the independent registered public
        accounting firm that audits the company's financial
        statements); and

     -- Dr. Felix Zandman, chairman and chief technical and
        business development officer of Vishay, and, as a
        nominal defendant, Siliconix.  

The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims
against the defendants including:

     -- the purported taking by Vishay of Siliconix sales
        subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries;

     -- the purported taking by Vishay of Siliconix's SAP
        software system without compensation to Siliconix;

     -- the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix's assets as
        security for Vishay loans without compensation to
        Siliconix;

     -- the purported misappropriation by Vishay of Siliconix's
        identity;

     -- the alleged taking by Vishay of Siliconix testing
        equipment;

     -- the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix to save Vishay
        certain credits made available by an Israeli business
        development agency;

     -- the alleged misuse by Vishay of Siliconix's patents to
        help Vishay acquire General Semiconductor; and

     -- the allegedly improper identification of  Dr. Zandman as
        a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents.  The action
        seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

In May 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer to
acquire all shares of Siliconix that were not already owned by
Vishay.  Following the announcement of Vishay's intent to make
this tender offer, several purported class-action complaints
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  These actions
were consolidated into a single class action.  

A settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiffs in that
case, who effectively represented all non-Vishay shareholders of
Siliconix.  The settlement agreement was approved by the
Delaware Court of Chancery in October 2005.

The Proctor plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
Superior Court of California in November 2005.  Vishay demurred
to the complaint, primarily on the grounds that the plaintiffs
lacked standing because of the nature of their claims and
because they were no longer Siliconix shareholders.  

On March 7, 2006, the Superior Court of California rejected
Vishay's demurer motion and required Vishay to answer the
complaint.  On May 25, 2006, Vishay filed its answer to the
complaint, denying the allegations of the amended complaint and
asserting various defenses.  

On June 13, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an anti-
suit injunction based on the settlement agreement that was
reached in connection with the tender offer litigation filed by
the Siliconix minority shareholders in Delaware.  

The injunction prevents the Proctor litigation from continuing.  
On July 10, 2006, a purported former shareholder filed a notice
of appeal of the injunction order with the Supreme Court of
Delaware.  On Jan. 24, 2007, the Supreme Court of Delaware
dismissed this appeal.  As a result, the permanent injunction
issued by the Delaware Court of Chancery stands against the
Proctor plaintiffs.

The suit is case no. 411392.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James A. Hennefer and Joseph Wood at Hennefer & Wood,
         425 California Street, 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94104-2296, Phone: (415) 421-6100, Fax: (415) 421-1815;
         and

     (2) Maxwell M. Blecher and James Robert Noblin at Blecher &
         Collins, P.C., 611 West Sixth Street, 20th Floor, Los
         Angeles, California 90017-3120, Phone: (213) 622-4222,
         Fax: (213) 622-1656.


WAL-MART STORES: Objects to $46M Counsel Fees in Pa. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are challenging plaintiffs'
request for counsel fees totaling more than $46 million in a
case that accuses the retailer of forcing employees to work
through rest breaks and denying them overtime pay, The Legal
Intelligencer.

The amount was hotly debated in a recent before the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas where the case is pending.  

                         Case Background

The suit, "Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was certified in
January 2006.  In October 2006, a jury awarded nearly $78.5
million to the class comprising of some 186,000 current and
former employees of Pennsylvania stores who claimed they weren't
properly paid for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The case involves labor practices at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club
stores between March 1998 and May 1, 2006.  The lead plaintiff
is Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from
1992-2002.  

Ms. Hummel charges that she had to work through breaks and after
quitting time to meet work demands in the bakery.  She said that
she worked eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet
work demands.

                          Recent Hearing

The recent hearing on the fees featured testimony from two
expert witnesses, who were called to the stand by Wal-Mart's
attorneys.

First was "fee auditor" John Marquess of Legal Cost Control Inc.
in Haddonfield, N.J., who called attention to alleged problems
with the Hummel class' fees petition, such as "duplicative
attendance of attorneys at trial" and claims for fees for
"nonparticipating" attorneys, law clerks and interns.  Mr.
Marquess said that approximately $10.35 million would be an
appropriate figure for class counsel fees.

Ralph Wellington, chairman of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
was the other expert witness.  Mr. Wellington, who as chairman
of his firm oversees Schnader Harrison's billing structure, was
Wal-Mart's expert on the reasonableness of class counsel's
rates.

Mr. Wellington said that his conclusions regarding the rates
were based on personal experience in recent cases, and on
reviews of reports on average Philadelphia hourly legal rates
that were conducted by industry research groups.  

In his testimony, Mr. Wellington particularly took issue with
some of the hourly rates claimed by attorneys from outside of
Philadelphia that have served as class counsel in the
litigation.

Further arguments concerning class counsel's fees are expected
before Judge Bernstein in early April, according to attorneys
involved in the case.

In an interview with The Legal Intelligencer, lead class counsel
Michael Donovan of Donovan Searles noted that in addition to
determining the amount of appropriate class counsel fees, Judge
Bernstein would also have to rule on how much of that sum should
be paid directly by Wal-Mart.

For more details, contact Michael Donovan, of Donovan Searles,
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103, (Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-732-6067, Fax: 215-732-
8060.


WURLD MEDIA: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Lawsuit by Former Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wurld Media Inc. filed in January a motion to dismiss a suit
filed by four former employees in federal court claiming they
had not been paid for work since May 2006, The Saratogian
reports.

The company filed a motion to dismiss saying the federal court
did not have jurisdiction because the employees had signed
agreements that all legal disputes with the company would be
resolved through "final and binding arbitration."

Lead plaintiff Julie Vittengl then filed a stay to move the case
into the Alternative Dispute Resolution program of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The suit was filed on Dec. 18, 2006.  It claims the company owes
the employees pay since last March (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
26, 2006).  It also claims the company kept money from the
employees' paychecks that was for a 401(k) plan.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Benjamin deGonzague,
      -- Julie Vittengl,
      -- Sarah Kays, and
      -- Thomas Borst.

Plaintiffs stated in their suit that they did not know how many  
other workers were also owed payment.  They do seek unspecified  
relief.

Wurld Media operates a peer-to-peer music file-sharing network  
that allows downloading music and videos on the Internet.

The suit is "Vittengl et al. v. Wurld Media, Inc., Case No.
1:06-cv-01513-DNH-DRH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of New York under Judge David N. Hurd with  
referral to Judge David R. Homer

Representing the plaintiffs is James T. Towne, Jr. of The Towne  
Law Offices, PC, 7 Wembley Court, Albany, NY 12205, Phone: 518-
452-1800, Fax: 518-452-6435, E-mail: james.towne@townelaw.com.


*SCAS: Securities Suit Settlements Reach $18B in 2006
------------------------------------------------------
Securities Class Action Services' top five law firms on this
year's "SCAS 50" list were Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; Heins Mills &
Olson; Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman; and Entwistle &
Capucci.

SCAS, a subsidiary of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS),
ranked its list of top 50 plaintiffs law firms by the total
dollar amount of final securities class action settlements
occurring in 2006 in which the law firms served as lead or co-
lead counsel.  

This is the fourth year ISS has published its 'SCAS 50' list,
which is intended to help institutional investors maximize
shareholder value by highlighting those firms bringing in the
most settlement dollars and playing the most active role in U.S.
class actions.

SCAS maintains the industry's most comprehensive database on
securities class action litigation and provides professional
monitoring and claims filing services to investment managers
whose clients have a stake in class actions.

The top five law firms on this year's "SCAS 50" list were Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins; Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann; Heins Mills & Olson; Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman; and Entwistle & Capucci.

  SCAS
   50                         Settlement       # of
  Rank        Law Firm          Total      Settlements   Average

  1     Lerach Coughlin
        Stoia Geller Rudman
        & Robbins LLP       $7,307,050,000   30     $243,568,333

  2    Bernstein Litowitz Berger
        & Grossmann         $2,634,765,298    9     $292,751,700

  3    Heins Mills & Olson PLC
                           $2,500,000,000     1   $2,500,000,000

  4    Milberg Weiss Bershad LLP  
                           $1,604,608,808    22      $72,936,764

  5    Entwistle & Cappucci
                          $1,100,000,000      1   $1,100,000,000

"Securities class action settlements reached a record high of
more than $18 billion in 2006," said Adam Savett, vice president
of ISS' Securities Class Action Services.  

"The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
moved up in the rankings this year on ISS' 'SCAS 50' list, due
in no small measure to the $6.6 billion in Enron settlements
that were finalized in 2006.  Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann remained in the top two for the fourth consecutive
year, with more than $2.4 billion in settlements in the McKesson
HBOC, Nortel Networks, and Freddie Mac class actions alone."

"Six of the ten largest settlements of all time were finalized
last year," added Mr. Savett.  "This trend appears to be driven
by more institutional investors participating in the securities
litigation process, with institutional investors having served
as lead plaintiffs in each of those six cases.  Increasingly,
international institutional investors are also expanding their
roles and serving as lead plaintiffs in U.S. class actions."

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann also achieved the highest
average settlement amount among law firms with at least three
settlements, averaging $292 million in its nine settlements.  
The average settlement amount is an important indicator of which
law firms are consistently bringing and settling high-impact
cases.  Also, for the second year in a row, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins was the most active firm with 30
settlements, leading all firms with respect to the total number
of final settlements.

      SCAS
       50                           Settlement       # of
Rank Rank       Law Firm              Total      Settlements    
Average

  1    2  Bernstein Litowitz
          Berger & Grossmann   $2,634,765,298   9  $292,751,700

  2    1  Lerach Coughlin Stoia
           Geller Rudman &
           Robbins LLP         $7,307,050,000   30  $243,568,333

  3    7  Kirby McInerney & Squire
                               $650,900,000      5  $130,180,000

  4     8  Abbey Spanier Rodd
            Abrams & Paradis   $590,925,000      8   $73,865,625

  5     4  Milberg Weiss Bershad
            LLP              $1,604,608,808     22   $72,936,764

  *Firms had to have a minimum of 3 settlements.

"With the substantial growth in settlement dollars on the table,
it is even more important now for institutional investors to
file claim forms and obtain recoveries from these cases," noted
Mr. Savett.

Nearly 500 financial institutions utilize ISS' database or
complete claims filing solution to fulfill their fiduciary duty
to file claims in class action settlements on behalf of their
investment clients.  With 15 years of history and more than
4,000 cases tracked, ISS' database also serves as an important
compliance tool for asset managers to perform this critical
fiduciary responsibility.  Additionally, many of the law firms
included in the SCAS 50 utilize ISS' database to monitor class
actions and gain access to important claims and settlement
information.

For a copy of the full SCAS 50 report, including a description
of the methodology used to prepare the report, please visit:
http://www.issproxy.com/institutional/analytics/scas50full2006.j
sp.

About Institutional Shareholder Services

ISS, the world's leading provider of corporate governance and
proxy voting solutions, is a subsidiary of RiskMetrics Group.  
Founded in 1985, ISS provides proxy research, voting services
and corporate governance advisory services to financial
institutions and corporations worldwide.  Together, ISS and
RiskMetrics Group help investors manage across multiple classes
of interrelated risk.  ISS is headquartered in Rockville,
Maryland with offices in Washington DC, Amsterdam, Brussels,
Chicago, London, Manila, Melbourne, New York, Paris, Tokyo and
Toronto.  For more information on ISS, visit
http://www.issproxy.com/.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NEW CENTURY: Lockridge Grindal Extends Securities Class Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action against
New Century Financial Corp. (NEW) in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
New Century common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through
Friday, March 2, 2007.  This is an extension of the class period
alleged in previously filed suits.

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

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

As a result, New Century shares dropped to a 52-week low,
plunging $10.92, to close at $9.42 per share, a decline of over
36% on extraordinary volume.  Before the announcement, company
insiders sold more than $26 million worth of their personal
holdings in New Century stock.

On Friday, March 2, 2007, New Century disclosed 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 disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office is investigating
accounting issues regarding New Century's allowance for
repurchase losses.  

On Monday, 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.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 10, 2007.

For more information, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq., E-mail:
khriebel@locklaw.com at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100
Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401,
Phone: (612) 339-6900.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2007, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri against NovaStar Financial, Inc. (NFI) and certain of
its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock of NovaStar between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that on Feb. 20, 2007, the company
disclosed that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that:

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

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

   (iii) due to the deterioration of the credit performance of
         its portfolio, NovaStar would be forced to:

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

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

    (iv) as a result of these adverse conditions, NovaStar could
         not reasonably expect to report taxable income for the
         period 2007 through 2011, thus endangering its dividend
         and continued status as a REIT.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 24, 2007.

For more information, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
(khriebel@locklaw.com) at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100
Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN  55401,
Phone: (612) 339-6900.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Openwave
Systems, Inc. (OPWV) between Sept. 30, 2002 and Oct. 26, 2006,
inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Openwave securities.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is April 27, 2007.

For more information, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847,
Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com,  
or visit http://www.howardsmithlaw.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  * * *