---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, March 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 50

                            Headlines


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Review of $284M Award in "Miller" Sought
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in N.Y.
BELO CORP: Seeks to Junk Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
BLUE THUNDER: Truckers Plan to Sue Over Firm's Closure Notice
CALIFORNIA: $6.2M Deal Reached in County Jail Strip Search Suit

CHOICEPOINT INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Taylor" Litigation in Tex.
COBMEX INC: Recalls Children's Jackets with Drawstrings
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Still Faces "Hensley" Antitrust Suit in Ark.
DEJA VU: Faces Allegations of Calif. Labor Law Violations
DOLLAR STOP: Recalls Extension Cords with Undersized Wiring

DRUG COMPANIES: Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif. Over Trimspa
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Commences in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
DUN & BRADSTREET: 2nd Circuit Considers Conn. ERISA Suit Appeal
DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit
ELAN CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Extended Class Sought in Conn. ERISA Suit
HALLIBURTON CO: Co-Lead Counsel in Tex. Securities Suit Replaced
HERCULES INC: Dismissal of N.Y. Dioxin Suit Still Under Appeal
HERCULES INC: No Approval Yet for Georgia Gulf Suit Settlement
HERCULES INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Agent Orange Suits

H & M: Recalls Boy's Canvas Jackets with Removable Compass
IBM CORP: Suit Over Terminated Education Program to Go to Trial
IBM CORP: Class Certification Sought in N.Y. Securities Suit
IBM CORP: Enters $65M Settlement in Calif. FLSA Violations Suit
JOHN H. HARLAND: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Merger Agreement

LEAR CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Suit Over Planned $2.31B Sale
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Ex-Employee Complains Against Tips Sharing
NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Children's Flannel Lounge Pants
NORTHWESTERN CORP: S.D. Court Denies Approval of Livonia Deal
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Settles "McGreevey" Suit, Now Seeks Dismissal

NY ESSEX: Lawyer's Suit Over TCPA Violations Denied Class Status
OFFICEMAX INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ONE WORLD: Recalls Throat Plates for Ryobi Router Tables
POSSIS MEDICAL: Minn. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Appealed
QUALIFIED EXCHANGE: Accused of Embezzling $80M in Deposits

QUESTAR ENERGY: No Ruling Yet in Status of Natural Gas Suits
SAFECO INSURANCE: Chiropractor's Breach of Contract Claim Junked
SEVERSTAL NORTH: Faces Air Pollution Complaint in Circuit Court
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Kans. Court Certifies Class in "Apsley" Case
TACO BELL: "Chhibber" ADA Violations Suit Dismissed Voluntarily

TACO BELL: Discovery Continues in Calif. ADA Violations Lawsuit
TACO BELL: Continues to Face Suit by Calif. Restaurant Managers
TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Parsons v. AC&S" Remains Stayed in W.Va.
VIACOM INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses ERISA Suit in Tex.
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court OKs $19M Settlement of Labor Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HCC INSURANCE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in Tex.


                           *********


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Review of $284M Award in "Miller" Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court is being asked to review certain
rulings made in the case, "Paul J. Miller v. Bank of America,
N.A.," which was originally filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.

On Aug. 13, 1998, a predecessor of Bank of America, N.A. (BANA)
was named as a defendant in a purported class action, which is
challenging the company's 's practice of debiting accounts that
received, by direct deposit, governmental benefits to repay fees
incurred in those accounts.  The action alleges fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of certain California laws.

On Oct. 16, 2001, a class was certified consisting of more than
one million California residents who have, had or will have, at
any time after Aug. 13, 1994, a deposit account with BANA into
which payments of public benefits are or have been directly
deposited by the government.  The case proceeded to trial on
Jan. 20, 2004.

On March 4, 2005, the trial court entered a judgment that awards
the plaintiff class restitution in the amount of $284 million,
plus attorneys' fees, and provides that class members whose
accounts were assessed an insufficient funds fee in violation of
law suffered substantial emotional or economic harm and,
therefore, are entitled to an additional $1,000 penalty.  The
judgment also includes injunctive relief.

On May 13, 2005, BANA filed with the California Court of Appeal,
1st Appellate District, a notice of appeal and, on May 16, 2005,
a writ of supersedeas, seeking a stay of the trial court's
judgment pending appeal.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Court of Appeal granted BANA's writ,
staying the judgment, including the injunction, pending appeal.  
The appeal remains pending.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
judgment in its entirety, holding that BANA's practice did not
constitute a violation of California law.  

On Dec. 14, 2006, the California Court of Appeal denied
plaintiff's petition for rehearing.  Plaintiff has petitioned
for review in the California Supreme Court, according to Bank of
America Corp.'s Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Bank of America Corp. on the Net: www.bankofamerica.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are
seeking for the dismissal of the case, "In Re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,"
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in actions filed on behalf of a putative class of
retail merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard payment cards.
The first of these actions was filed in June 2005.  

On April 24, 2006, putative class plaintiffs filed a first
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  Plaintiffs
therein allege that the defendants conspired to fix the level of
interchange and merchant discount fees and that certain other
practices, including various Visa and MasterCard rules, violate
federal and California antitrust laws.

On May 22, 2006, the putative class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint against many of the same defendants,
including the Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries,
alleging additional federal antitrust claims and a fraudulent
conveyance claim under New York Debtor and Creditor Law, all
arising out of MasterCard's 2006 initial public offering.

The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages
and injunctive relief.  

Additional defendants in the putative class actions include
Visa, MasterCard, and other financial institutions.

The putative class actions are coordinated for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, together with additional, individual actions
brought only against Visa and MasterCard, under the caption, "In
Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation."

Motions to dismiss portions of the first consolidated and
amended class action complaint and the supplemental complaint
are pending, according to Bank of America Corp.'s Feb. 28 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 Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Judge James
Orenstein.  


BELO CORP: Seeks to Junk Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corp. is asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas to dismiss an amended consolidated
shareholders' lawsuit in relation to alleged overstatement of
the company in reporting the circulation of The Dallas Morning
News.

On Aug. 23, Aug. 26, and Oct. 5, 2004, respectively, purported
shareholders of the company filed three related lawsuits against
Belo, Robert W. Decherd, and Barry Peckham.

The suit claims that an overstatement of the circulation of The
Dallas Morning News artificially inflated Belo's financial
results and thereby injured investors.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a purported class of shareholders
who purchased Belo common stock between May 12, 2003 and Aug. 6,
2004.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

On Oct. 18, 2004, the court ordered the consolidation of all
cases arising out of the same facts and presenting the same
claims, and on Feb. 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated complaint adding as defendants John L. Sander,
Dunia A. Shive, Dennis A. Williamson, and James M. Moroney III.

On April 8, 2005, plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for
leave to file a first amended consolidated complaint, which
motion was granted on April 11, 2005.  

On Aug. 1, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  On March
30, 2006, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

On May 11, 2006, plaintiffs replead their allegations in a
second amended consolidated complaint.  On July 27, 2006,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint.  

On Oct. 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
consolidated complaint.  

The suit is "In Re: Belo Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1836," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423; and

     (2) Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Knox, LLP, 1700 Pacific Avenue,
         Suite 2800, Dallas, TX, 75201, Phone: 214.712.4400,
         Fax: 214.712.4402.


BLUE THUNDER: Truckers Plan to Sue Over Firm's Closure Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Blue Thunder Auto Transport in Selkirk, New
York are planning to file a class action against the company
that abruptly closed two weeks ago, Fox23 News.com reports.

The Atlanta-based company has approximately 60 people working in
Selkirk.  The law requires shops the size of Blue Thunder to
provide employees with 60 days notice before shutting down.  
According to the report, Blue Thunder gave employees only a few
days notice that it was stopping operations.  

As of March 6, the New York State Department of Labor is still
investigating what led to the closure of the company.  


CALIFORNIA: $6.2M Deal Reached in County Jail Strip Search Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Rita (Alameda County) supervisors have approved a $6.2
million settlement of a suit over strip-searches at the County
Jail.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
has not officially certified a class in the suit, and a claim
form has not yet been created.

Daniel Schaffer and his Sacramento-based attorney, Mark E.
Merin, filed the suit as a class action back in Feb. 17, 2006.  
Mr. Schaffer sued the county and then-Alameda County Sheriff
Charles Plummer after he was arrested following a traffic stop
and illegally strip-searched before his arraignment.

In general, the suit claimed that act of strip-searching
prisoners not arrested for drug, violence or weapons violations
before they are arraigned, and without having any reasonable
suspicions that the searches will reveal contraband, is
unconstitutional and inhumane.  

The suit specifically names as defendants:

      -- County of Alameda,
      -- Charles C. Plummer, and
      -- Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies.

According to Mr. Merin, once a class is certified, about 37,000
people will be eligible to file a claim.  He pointed out that
the settlement covers arrests made between Jan. 17, 2004, and
Dec. 31, 2006.

With regards to the allocation of the money, Mr. Merin explains
that those who were strip-searched in a group on a misdemeanor
offense could receive $200.

While those who were strip-searched on a misdemeanor offense not
involving drugs, weapons or violence and with no reasonable
suspicion of contraband could get $1,500 or more, Mr. Merin
said.

The suit is "Schaffer v. County of Alameda et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00310-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California under Judge Maxine M. Chesney.

Representing the plaintiffs is Mark E. Merin, Esq. of Law Office
of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA
95814, Phone: 916-443-6911, Fax: 916-447-8336, E-mail:
mark@markmerin.com.

Representing the defendants is Gregory James Rockwell of
Boornazian Jensen & Garthe, 555 - 12th Street, Suite 1800, P.O.
Box 12925, Oakland, CA 94604-2925, Phone: 510-834-4350, Fax:
510-839-1897, E-mail: grockwell@bjg.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Taylor" Litigation in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the class action,
"Taylor v. Acxiom Corp.," which is pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The suit was filed on Jan. 5, against the company and certain of
its competitors in on behalf of each and every individual in the
State of Texas whose name, address, driver identification
number, and certain other identifiers are contained in motor
vehicle records obtained by the defendants from the Texas
Department of Public Safety without the express consent of the
individual during the period from June 1, 2000 through the date
of judgment.

Plaintiff also filed pleadings seeking to intervene in "Richard
Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc., et al., Case No.
CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein."  Plaintiff is objecting to the
proposed settlement agreement for the case, which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

Such plaintiff also filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in the
"Fresco" litigation pending the outcome of the Texas Court's
class certification determination in "Taylor."

On Feb. 8, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Taylor
litigation based on the fact that Fresco was first-filed, the
nationwide class in "Fresco" encompasses the Texas class, and
reasons of judicial economy and fundamental fairness dictate
against duplicative class actions in federal courts.

The suit is "Taylor et al. v. Acxiom Corp. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00001-TJW," filed in the in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge T. John Ward.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeremy Reade Wilson of The Corea
Firm, PLLC, The Republic Center, 325 North St Paul Street, Suite
4150, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-953-3900, Fax: 214-953-3901,
E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David J. Beck of Beck Redden & Secrest, 1221 McKinney
         St., Suite 4500, One Houston Center, Houston, TX 77010-
         2020, Phone: 713/951-3700, Fax: 17139513720, E-mail:
         dbeck@brsfirm.com;

     (2) George Barton Butts of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US
         LLP - Austin, 12221 S MoPac Expressway, Suite 400,
         Austin, TX 78746, Phone: 512/457-7068, Fax: 512/457-
         7001, E-mail: george.butts@dlapiper.coml; and

     (3) James Patrick Kelley of Ireland Carroll & Kelley, 6101
         S. Broadway, Ste. 500, Tyler, TX 75703, Phone: 903-561-
         1600, Fax: 9035811071, E-mail: patkelley@icklaw.com.


COBMEX INC: Recalls Children's Jackets with Drawstrings
-------------------------------------------------------
Cobmex Inc., of Lakewood, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
16,000 Cobmex Youth Jackets with drawstrings.

The company said the recalled jackets have drawstrings in the
hood and waist, or only at the waist.  Children can get
entangled and strangle in drawstrings that can catch on
playground equipment, fences or tree branches.  No injuries have
been reported.

In February 1996, the CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent
children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and
waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.  

The nylon, zipper front jackets were sold in youth sizes and
have a Cobmex neck label.  The jackets were manufactured in
various colors, including navy, black, green, red and wine.  
Only youth-size jackets with drawstrings are included in the
recall.

These recalled drawstringed jackets were manufactured in Korea
and are being sold at children's clothing and school uniform
stores nationwide from January 2006 through February 2007 for
about $30.

Pictures of the recalled youth jackets with drawstrings:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07123a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07123b.jpg

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate
the hazard or return the jacket to the store where purchased for
a refund.

For additional information, call Cobmex toll-free at (877) 926-
2639 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or
visit http://www.cobmex.com.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Still Faces "Hensley" Antitrust Suit in Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed on Feb. 11, 2005 in Miller County Circuit Court in
Arkansas under the caption, "Hensley, et al. v. Computer
Sciences Corp., et al."

The suit, filed as a putative nationwide class action, alleges
the defendants conspired to wrongfully use software products
licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce
the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury
claims.  

Plaintiffs also allege wrongful concealment of the manner in
which these software programs evaluate claims and wrongful
concealment of information about alleged inherent errors and
flaws in the software.  

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$.075 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

The company reported no development in the case at its March 2
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Dec. 29, 2006.

Computer Sciences Corp. on the Net: http://www.csc.com.


DEJA VU: Faces Allegations of Calif. Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Strip club Deja vu of North Hollywood is facing a suit filed by
a former dancer claiming various violations of the state's
Business and Professions and Labor codes, CBS reports.

Melissa Arfat filed the lawsuit on March 5 in Los Angeles
Superior Court.  She alleges that the club failed to pay her
minimum and overtime wages, forced her to work more than eight
hours without meal breaks, and to share her tips with
management.  She is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action on behalf of other entertainers.

Ms. Arfat worked in the club from May through August 2006,
according to the lawsuit.  She is asking for restitution of tips
withheld and gratuities taken by management, plus minimum and
overtime wage compensation due her and other dancers for the
club.


DOLLAR STOP: Recalls Extension Cords with Undersized Wiring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Stop Plus, of Chicago, Illinois, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 40
15-foot extension cords.

The company said these extension cords have undersized wiring,
and fail to connect properly at the plug and receptacle ends.  
This poses fire, shock and electrocution hazards to consumers.  
No injuries were reported.

The recalled product is a 15-foot white extension cord with
green wrap-around green label with bold red and white lettering.  
The label reads "15 Ft HOUSEHOLD EXTENSION CORD."  The "UL"
symbol appears on the label.  The cord has a silver UL
holographic trademark tag, with "07/99, BV-7582, 13A 125V, 1875
W" printed on it.  The cord is marked: SPT-2, 16AWGX2C, VW-1,
60o C.

These recalled extension cords were manufactured in China and
are being sold at the Dollar Stop Plus store in Chicago,
Illinois, from October 2003 through June 2005 for about $1.

Picture of recalled extension cords:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07532.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these extension
cords and contact the firm for a full refund or exchange for
same value.

For additional information, contact Dollar Stop collect at (773)
539-6036 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


DRUG COMPANIES: Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif. Over Trimspa
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 7, 2007 alleges deceptive
business practices and violation of California's unfair
competition law against:

     -- Goen Technologies Corp.
     -- Nutramerica Corp.
     -- Trimspa Inc. and
     -- Alexander Szynalski aka Alex Goen -- officer of GTC,
        Nutramerica and Trimspa

The suit alleges that defendants have labeled, advertised,
offered for sale, sold and distributed purported weight-loss
products to the public, including TrimSpa Completely Ephedra
Free Formula X32, when in truth and in fact, the claims made are
bogus.

The suit contends that the act and practices of defendants
constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the making
of false advertisements, in of affecting commerce.

Accordingly, in January, the Federal Trade Commission Act
drafted a complaint against defendants alleging violations of
Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all consumers who
purchased TrimSpa X32.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether defendants' practices and representation made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of TrimSpa X32 were
         deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any respect, thereby           
         violating California's Unfair Competition Law,
         California Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et. seq.;

     (b) whether defendants' practices and representation made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising, unlawful
         or unfair in any respect, thereby violating
         California's False Advertising Law, California Bus. &
         Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.;

     (c) whether defendants' practices and representation made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of TrimSpa X32 were
         false and/or misleading;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct in connection with the
         practices and representations made in the labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of TrimSpa
         X32 unjustly enriched defendants at the expense of and
         to the detriment of plaintiff and class members;

     (e) whether defendants have violated California's Consumers
         Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Section 1750,
         et seq., by the practices and representation made in
         connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing,
         promotion and sales of TrimSpa X32 within the state;
         and

     (f) whether defendants' conduct as set forth in the
         complaint injured consumers, and if so, the extent of
         the injury.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and for members of the general public as private
attorneys general under California Business and Professions Code
Section 17204, prays for relief as follows:

     -- for an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained a class action;

     -- for an award of equitable relief pursuant as follows:
        
        (a) requiring defendants to make full restitution of all
            monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
            conduct described in the complaint; and

        (b) requiring defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten  
            gains flowing from the conduct described in the
            complaint;

     -- for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an
        amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as
        may be provided for by statute upon filing of an amended
        complaint should the demanded corrections not take place
        within the 30-day notice period;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure
        Section 1021.5;

     -- for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for an award of costs and any other award the court
        might deem appropriate; and

     -- for pre and post judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded.

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

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b11

The suit is "Wilkinson v. Geon Technologies Corp., et al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-00426-JM-NLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California under Judge Jeffrey T.
Miller, with referral to Judge Nita L. Stormes.

Representing plaintiffs is Harold M. Hewell of the Hewell Law
Firm, 402 West Broadway, Fourth Floor, San Diego, CA 92108,
Phone: (619) 235-6854, Fax: (619) 235-9122, E-mail:
hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Commences in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action "Finley v. Dun
& Bradstreet Corp., et al.," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was
originally filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Sept. 7, 2005, on behalf of a current
employee raising complaints against the company's retirement
plans.  

The complaint seeks certification of these putative classes:

      -- current or former Dun & Bradstreet employees (other
         than employees who on December 31, 2001, were at least
         age 50 with 10 years of vesting service);

      -- had attained an age which, when added to his or her
         years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than
         70; or

      -- had attained age 65, who participated in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1,
         2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet
         Corporation Retirement Account at any time since
         Jan. 1, 2002.

The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
1,000 individuals.  There are five counts in the complaint.  

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by reducing the rate of an employee's
benefit accrual on the basis of age.  

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement, because the plan allegedly conditions receipt of
cash balance benefits on foregoing the early retirement benefits
plaintiff earned prior to the adoption of the cash balance
amendment.  

Count 3 claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's
"anti-backloading" rule.  

Count 4 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to supply advance
notice of a significant benefit decrease.  

Count 5 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to provide an
adequate Summary Plan Description.

In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks:

      -- a declaration that Dun & Bradstreet's cash balance plan
         is ineffective and that the Dun & Bradstreet Master
         Retirement Plan is still in force and effect, and
         plaintiff's benefit accrual under the cash balance plan
         must be unconditional and not reduced because of age;

      -- an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash
         balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit
         accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits
         due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable
         relief to determine plan participant losses caused by
         D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance
         plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional
         benefits as appropriate;

      -- attorneys' fees and costs;

      -- interest; and

      -- such other relief as the court may deem just.

A Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District of New Jersey
was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 and was granted on March 31, 2006.
The action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, and,
on June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which
omitted the claim for violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement and added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based
on allegedly misleading plan communications.

On July 5, 2006, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant
to Section 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures, on
the grounds that:

      -- the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations
         and the doctrine of laches;

      -- the cash balance plan does not discriminate on the
         basis of age;

      -- the cash balance plan does not violate ERISA's anti-
         backloading rule;

      -- D&B complied with Section 204(h) of ERISA by providing
         sufficient advance notice of the plan amendment;

      -- D&B's Summary Plan Description fully complies with the
         requirements of ERISA; and

      -- plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of
         fiduciary duty.

On Jan. 26, the court issued a decision granting in part and
denying in part the company's Motion to Dismiss.  The court
dismissed Counts 1 and 2 with prejudice on the merits, holding
that the D&B Plan did not reduce the rate of benefit accrual on
the basis of age and that the Plan did not violate ERISA's anti-
backloading rule.  

The Court dismissed without prejudice Counts 3 and 4, holding
that plaintiff had failed to plead extraordinary circumstances,
which are a necessary element of a claim for violation of
ERISA's disclosure requirements, but allowed plaintiff to file
an amended complaint restating the claims within 45 days.  The
Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss with respect to
Count 5.

The company filed its answer to Count 5 on Feb. 9.  Plaintiff's
amended complaint is due by March 12.  Discovery is ongoing,
according to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-01838-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 the plaintiff is Jonathan I. Nirenberg of Resnick
Nirenberg & Siegler, 100 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 301, East
Hanover, NJ 07936, Phone: 973-781-1204, E-mail:
jnirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com.

Representing the defendant is Christopher H. Mills of Fisher &
Phillips, LLP, Corporate Park III, 580 Howard Avenue, Somerset,
NJ 08873, Phone: (732) 560-7100, E-mail:
cmills@laborlawyers.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: 2nd Circuit Considers Conn. ERISA Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled on plaintiffs appeal
against rulings in the case, "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun &
Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU."

The appeal is against the U.S. District Court of the District of
Connecticut's ruling that granted motion to dismiss, motion for
summary judgment, and denial of leave to amend the amended
complaint in the case.

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed
against the company on behalf of 46 specified former employees
in relation to the company's retirement plans.  During the
fourth quarter of 2004, most of the counts in the complaint were
dismissed.

The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth these
putative classes:

      -- current Dun & Bradstreet employees who are participants  
         in The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and
         were previously participants in its predecessor plan,
         The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

      -- current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         Previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

      -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet or Dun &
         Bradstreet's Receivable Management Services (RMS)
         operations who received a deferred vested retirement
         benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
         Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet Master
         Retirement Plan; and

      -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet's RMS operations
         whose employment with Dun & Bradstreet was terminated
         after the sale of the RMS operations but who are not
         employees of RMSC and who, during their employment with
         Dun & Bradstreet, were Eligible Employees for purposes
         of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan.

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint.  

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by not paying severance benefits to
plaintiffs under its Career Transition Plan.  

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the firm's sale of
the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of
employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs
and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the intentional
purpose of interfering with their employment and/or attainment
of employee benefit rights, which they might otherwise have
attained.

Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the
company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a
summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and
beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans
and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions -- in this
case, the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they
leave Dun & Bradstreet before age 55 and elect to retire early -
- cannot be enforced against them.  

Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the rate is
actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early retirement
benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a prohibited
forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought:

      -- payment of severance benefits;

      -- equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
         employment with Dun & Bradstreet or restoration of
         employee benefits, including stock options;

      -- invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to
         deferred vested early retirement benefits, including
         invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% -- the actual
         rate is 6.75% -- used to actuarially reduce former
         employees' early retirement benefits;

      -- attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may
         deem just.

The company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.  In September
2003, the firm filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of
the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot
prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February
2004, the court heard oral argument on the motion.  With respect
to Count 4, the court requested that the parties conduct limited
expert discovery and submit further briefing.

In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count
4, the company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the
ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter
of law.  On Nov. 30, 2004, the court issued a ruling granting
the motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3.  

Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to
dismiss with prejudice Count 2, which challenged the sale of the
RMS business as an intentional interference with employee
benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not address.  

Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to
forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim.  

Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs
and to amend the Amended Complaint to add a new count
challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality
tables.  The court granted the motion and the company filed its
objections.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted Dun & Bradstreet's motion for
summary judgment as to Count 4 -- the interest rate issue -- and
also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended
Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables.  

On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal;
they are appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss,
the ruling granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to
amend their Amended Complaint.  

Oral Argument before the Second Circuit took place on Feb. 15,
2006.  The company is still awaiting a decision.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the U.S District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian O.
Smith of Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd., Capitol Place, 21 Oak St.,
Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-
548-1740, E-mail: ismith@mwlawgroup.com and
tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendants are Sandra K. Lalli, Patrick W. Shea
and Carla R. Walworth of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - CT,
1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone:
203-961-7400 and 203-961-7465, Fax: 203-359-3031, E-mail:
sandralalli@paulhastings.com, patrickshea@paulhastings.com, and
carlawalworth@paulhastings.com.


DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elan Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California has ruled on a motion that
seeks the dismissal of a securities fraud class action filed
against its subsidiary Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Commencing in January 1999, several class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and various then current or
former officers of Dura.

The actions, which allege violations of the federal securities
laws, were consolidated and sought damages on behalf of
purchasers of Dura Pharmaceuticals securities between April 15,
1997 and Feb. 24, 1998.

On June 6, 2006, the U.S. District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to
dismiss.  On July 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking to cure their pleading problems.  

The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss in
response to the amended complaint.  A hearing on the defendants'
motion was originally scheduled to take place on Dec. 4, 2006.

However, by order of the court on Nov. 28, 2006, the court
deemed the motion submitted on the papers and determined that no
oral argument was necessary.  

The parties currently await a final ruling on the defendants'
motion, according to Elan Corp., plc's Feb. 28 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 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 99 cv 0151L (NLS)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.


ELAN CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elan Corp., plc, and some of its officers and directors are
defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Initially, the company and its officers and directors were named
as defendants in putative class actions originally filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the District of Massachusetts (on March
4 and 14, 2005) and the Southern District of New York (on March
15 and 23, 2005).

The class action complaints allege claims under the federal
securities laws and state laws and, in the actions originally
filed in Massachusetts and New York, seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock prior to
the announcement of the voluntary suspension of Tysabri on Feb.
28, 2005.

The complaints allege that the company caused the release of
materially false or misleading information regarding Tysabri.  
They also allege that class members were damaged when company
stock price fell after the company and Biogen Idec announced the
voluntary suspension of the commercialization and dosing of
Tysabri in response to reports of serious adverse events
involving clinical trial patients treated with Tysabri.  

The complaints seek damages, reimbursement of costs and other
relief that the courts may deem just and proper.  

On Aug. 4, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order consolidating the New York
actions.

On or about Aug. 29, 2005, the cases originally filed in
Massachusetts were transferred to the Southern District of New
York.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Elan Corp., plc on the Net: http://www.elan.com.


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Extended Class Sought in Conn. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a class action against FleetBoston Financial
Corp. filed a motion to extend class certification in the case,
"Donna C. Richards v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. and the
FleetBoston Financial Pension Plan (Fleet Pension Plan)."

The suit was filed on Sept. 24, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all former and
current Fleet employees who on Dec. 31, 1996 were not at least
age 50 with 15 years of vesting service and who participated in
the Fleet Pension Plan before Jan. 1, 1997, and who have
participated in the Fleet Pension Plan at any time since Jan. 1,
1997.

The complaint, filed on Sept. 29, 2004, alleged that the company
or its predecessor violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by:

      -- amending the Fleet Financial Group, Inc. Pension Plan
         (a predecessor to the Fleet Pension Plan) to add a cash
         balance benefit formula without notifying participants
         that the amendment significantly reduced their plan
         benefits;

      -- conditioning the amount of benefits payable under the        
         Fleet Pension Plan upon the form of benefit elected;

      -- reducing the rate of benefit accruals on account of
         age; and

      -- failing to inform participants of the correct amount of
         their pensions and related claims.  

The complaint also alleges that the Fleet Pension Plan violates
the "anti-backloading" rule of ERISA.

The complaint seeks equitable and remedial relief, including a
declaration that the cash balance amendment to the Fleet Pension
Plan was ineffective, additional unspecified benefit payments,
attorneys' fees and interest.

On Dec. 28, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On Jan. 25, 2005, the defendants moved to
dismiss the action.

On March 31, 2006, the court certified a class with respect to
plaintiff's claims that:

      -- the cash balance benefit formula reduces the rate of
         benefit accrual on account of age;

      -- the participants did not receive proper notice of the
         alleged reduction of future benefit accrual; and

      -- the summary plan description was not adequate.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the three claims
as to which a class was certified and amending two claims the
court had dismissed, and defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended claims.  

The court dismissed plaintiff's amended anti-backloading claim
and a portion of the plaintiff's amended breach of fiduciary
duty claim.  

The court subsequently certified a class as to the portions of
plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim that were not
dismissed.

On Dec. 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
adding new allegations to the breach of fiduciary duty and
summary plan description claims, and a new claim alleging that
the Fleet Pension Plan violated ERISA in calculating lump-sum
distributions.

On Dec. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to extend class
certification to the new allegations and claim in the second
amended complaint, according to Bank of America Corp.'s Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Richards v. Fleetboston Financial Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:04-cv-01638-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet C. Hall.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas G. Moukawsher of
Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd., Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite
209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-548-1740,
E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendants are William F. Conlon, Scott E.
Gross, Brian P. Guarraci and Erin E. Kelly of Sidley, Austin,
Brown & Wood LLP - CH, IL, Bank One Plaza, One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7384, 312-853-7011, 312-853-
7917 and 312-853-7272, Fax: 312-853-7036, E-mail:
wconlon@sidley.com, sgross@sidley.com, bguarrac@sidley.com, and
ekelly@sidley.com.


HALLIBURTON CO: Co-Lead Counsel in Tex. Securities Suit Replaced
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
granted lead plaintiff's motion to discharge and replace co-lead
counsel in a securities suit against Halliburton Co.

Plaintiffs may submit written discovery requests to Halliburton.  
However, no party is allowed to conduct a deposition in this
case until the court rules on the Motions to Dismiss filed by
individual defendants on May 9, 2006.

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

In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002.  The suit
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.   

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.  In the weeks
that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed
against the company.   

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors.  The class actions
were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class
action complaint "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et
al.," was filed and served upon the company in April 2003.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss
those portions of the complaint that had been repled.  A hearing
was held on that motion in July 2006, and the company awaits a
ruling.  

The lead plaintiff has filed a motion to discharge and replace
co-lead counsel.  That motion was granted on Feb. 26, 2007,
according to the company's Feb. 27 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Worldwide Tree Group   
-- http://www.halliburtonsecuritieslitigation.com,      
http://www.worldwidetree.org-- Phone: +1-619-251-0887, E-mail:      
nrothstein@worldwidetree.org.   


HERCULES INC: Dismissal of N.Y. Dioxin Suit Still Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules, Inc. has yet to report that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 2nd Circuit has ruled on plaintiffs' appeal on the
dismissal of their class action, "The Vietnam Association for
Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Co.,
et al., Case No. 04-0400."

In January 2004, Hercules, Inc., along with several other
companies were sued in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by The
Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and
several individuals who claim to represent between two and four
million Vietnamese who allege that Agent Orange used by the U.S.
during the Vietnam War caused them or their families to sustain
personal injuries.  

The suit alleges violations of international law and war crimes,
as well as violations of the common law for products liability,
negligence and international torts.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the case on several grounds,
including failure to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims
Statute, lack of jurisdiction and justiciability, the bar of the
statute of limitations, failure to state claims for violations
of international law, and the "government contractor defense."  

A hearing on these motions was held on Feb. 28, 2005.  By order
dated March 10, 2005, the court dismissed the lawsuit.  
Plaintiffs though have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co., et al.," on appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein with referral to Judge Joan
M. Azrack.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Ellen Bates of Hardin, Nomberg & Bates, LLP, 2151
         Highland Ave., Suite 120, Birmingham, Al 35205, Phone:
         205-930-690; and

     (2) Richard Bress Latham & Watkins, LLP, 555 Eleventh
         Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DD 20004, Phone:
         202-637-2137, E-mail: rick.bress@lw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven R. Brock of Rivkin Radler, LLP, EAB Plaza, 10th
         Floor, Uniondale, NY 11556-0111, Phone: 516-357-3315,
         Fax: 516-357-3333, E-mail: steve.brock@rivkin.com; and
    
    (ii) Chryssa V.B. Valletta of McDermott, Will, Emery, 50
         Rockefller Plaza, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 212-547-
         5400, Fax: 212-547-5444, E-mail: cvalletta@mwe.com.


HERCULES INC: No Approval Yet for Georgia Gulf Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules, Inc. has yet to report that the 18th Judicial District
Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana granted final approval to
the $1,412,000 settlement of class actions filed against
Hercules, Inc. and other defendants over the contamination of
potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.

The company is one of several defendants that were sued by over
2,000 individuals in a series of lawsuits, including purported
class actions that were all brought in the 18th Judicial
District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, under the
captions:

      -- "Jerry Oldham, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et
         al., Civil Action No. 55,160";

      -- "John Capone, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 56,048C"; and

      -- "Georgenner Batton, et al. v. The State of Louisiana,
          et al., Civil Action No. 55,285."

The purported class members and plaintiffs, who claimed to have
worked or lived at or around the Georgia Gulf facility in
Iberville Parish, Louisiana, alleged injury and fear of future
illness from the consumption of contaminated water and,
specifically, elevated levels of arsenic in that water.  

As to the company, plaintiffs alleged that the company itself
and as part of a joint venture operated a nearby plant and, as
part of those operations, used a groundwater injection well to
dispose of various wastes, and that those wastes contaminated
the potable water supply at Georgia Gulf.  

In August 2005, the company and several other defendants entered
into an agreement to settle these matters with the company
agreeing to pay $1,412,000 (Class Action Reporter, March 17,
2006).

On May 4, 2006, the court granted settlement class
certification.  This settlement, which was agreed to by the
company without any admission of liability, is pending final
approval by the court.

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Hercules, Inc. on the Net: http://www.herc.com/.


HERCULES INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Agent Orange Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York of several lawsuits,
including two purported class actions filed against Hercules,
Inc.  

Plaintiffs filed the suits, alleging that exposure to Agent
Orange caused them to sustain various personal injuries.  On
Feb. 9, 2004, the court issued a series of rulings granting
several motions filed by defendants in the two cases that had
been remanded to the U.S. District Court by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme
Court, namely:

      -- "In re: Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation: Joe
         Isaacson, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co., et al., (MDL
         381, CV 98-6383 (JBW))"; and

     -- "Daniel Ray Stephenson, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
         et al., Case No. CV 99-3056 (JBW)."

In relevant part, those rulings held that plaintiffs' claims
against the defendant manufacturers of Agent Orange are properly
removable to federal court under the "federal officer removal
statute" and that such claims are subject to dismissal by
application of the "government contractor defense."  

The court then dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but stayed its
decision to allow plaintiffs to obtain additional discovery and
to move for reconsideration of the court's decision.  

A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was held on Feb. 28,
2005.  By Orders dated March 2, 2005, the court denied
reconsideration, lifted the stay of the earlier decision, and
dismissed plaintiffs' claims in all of the lawsuits that were
before the court at that time.  

Plaintiffs have appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Hercules, Inc. on the Net: http://www.herc.com/.


H & M: Recalls Boy's Canvas Jackets with Removable Compass
----------------------------------------------------------
H & M, of New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,700 boy's
jackets with an attached compass.

The company said the attached compass on these jackets can
break, posing a choking hazard for young children.  
Additionally, the liquid mineral oil, inside the compass can be
harmful if swallowed.

The firm received one report of a child outside of the U.S. who
began to choke on a broken piece of the attached compass.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is a boy's cotton canvas jacket made
exclusively for children in sizes 18M to size 6Y.  It has style
number 93196 written on the inside care label.  There is an
attached removable compass on the side.  The compasses are
copper or turquoise colored, about 2.75-inches long, and have a
clip to attach to the jacket.

These boy's jackets were manufactured in China and are being
sold at H & M stores nationwide from February 2006 through
October 2006 for $30.

Picture of the recalled boy's jackets with an attached compass:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07121.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the compass from the
jacket and throw it away, or mail the compass to H & M to
receive a store discount coupon.

For more information, contact H & M Stores toll-free at (877)
439-6261 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
go to the firm's Web site: http://www.hm.com.


IBM CORP: Suit Over Terminated Education Program to Go to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court has allowed trial to proceed in a
suit filed in Louisiana by certain former employees of
International Business Machines Corp. who left the company in
1992.

In May 2005, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the company's
motion to review and reverse a Louisiana state court's
certification of a nationwide class in a case filed against the
company in 1995.

The class consists of certain former employees who left the
company in 1992, and their spouses.  They claim damages based on
the company's termination of an education assistance program.  
On April 4, 2006, the trial court denied the company's motion
for summary judgment.

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied IBM's writ
seeking an appeal of the trial court's decision to deny summary
judgment.  At present, trial briefs are due in
April 2007.  No date has been set for trial, however.


IBM CORP: Class Certification Sought in N.Y. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against
International Business Machines Corp. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York is seeking class
certification for the case.  

In July 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York in relation to the
company's disclosures concerning first-quarter 2005 earnings and
the expensing of equity compensation.

One lawsuit named as defendants IBM and IBM's senior vice
president and chief financial officer.  The other lawsuit named
as defendants IBM, IBM's senior vice president and chief
financial officer and IBM's chairman and chief executive
officer.  

Both complaints alleged that defendants made certain
misrepresentations in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  On Sept. 6, 2005, counsel in one of
these lawsuits filed a motion seeking to have the lawsuits
consolidated, and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  

Pursuant to an Order from the Court dated March 28, 2006, the
two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action captioned
"In re. International Business Machines Corp. Securities
Litigation."  Pursuant to a schedule set by the Court,
plaintiffs served on the company an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on May 19, 2006.

IBM filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint
on June 23, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed their response to IBM's
Motion on July 21, 2006; and IBM filed its final brief in
support of its Motion on Aug. 2, 2006.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the Court denied IBM's Motion to Dismiss.   
On Jan. 16, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  IBM filed its response on Jan. 23, 2007.


IBM CORP: Enters $65M Settlement in Calif. FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp. reached an agreement to
settle a suit filed against it in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the company
violated Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed against IBM
in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of technical support
workers whose primary responsibilities are or were to install
and maintain computer software and hardware.

The complaint was subsequently amended on March 13, 2006.  The
First Amended Complaint, among other things, adds four
additional named plaintiffs and modifies the definition of the
workers purportedly included in the class.  

The suit, "Rosenburg, et al., v. IBM," alleges the company
failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law, and asserts violations of various
state wage requirements, including recordkeeping and meal-break
provisions.

The suit also asserts certain violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  Relief sought includes back wages,
corresponding 401(k) and pension plan credits, interest and
attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the District Court granted preliminary
approval to a class-wide settlement whereby IBM will place into
a fund $65 million, plus certain interest accruing between
December 1, 2006 until such time as the fund is transferred to
the claims administrator, to pay claims asserted by class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and administrative costs.

Individual payments will be based on factors, including the
class member's state of employment, time worked in the relevant
job position and base salary.  The District Court is scheduled
to have a hearing to finally approve the settlement in July
2007.  The charge associated with this settlement was consistent
with a provision previously established by the company.

The suit is "Rosenburg et al. v. International Business Machines
Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000;

     (2) Todd F. Jackson of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson,
         P.C., Phone: 510-839-6824;

     (3) Steven G. Zieff of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, Phone:
         415-434-9800 or 800-869-0165;

     (4) Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: 212-245-
         1000;

     (5) Ira Spiro of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge,
         LLP, Phone: 310-235-2468;

     (6) J. Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel, LLP, Phone: 214-749-
         1400;

     (7) Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch, PLLC, Phone: 713-877-
         8065;

     (8) David Borgen of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
         Dardarian, Phone: 510-763-9800.

Representing the company is Donna M. Mezias of Jones Day, 555
California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
415-875-5822, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: dmezias@jonesday.com.

For more details, call: 1-866-397-1008 or visit the Web site:
http://www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstIBM.com.


JOHN H. HARLAND: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Merger Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
John H. Harland Co. is a defendant in a purported class action
over its merger agreement with M&F Worldwide Corp. and H
Acquisition Corp.

On Jan. 26, an alleged shareholder of the company filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia against the company, certain members of its
board of directors, M&F Worldwide, H Acquisition, and Ronald
Perelman, owner of M&F.

The complaint alleges that the company's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders in
approving and adopting the merger agreement by, among other
things, agreeing to merger consideration that is allegedly
unfair to the company's shareholders and agreeing to allegedly
unreasonable deal protection measures in the merger agreement.

It further alleges that the company's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose certain
information in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

It seeks, among other things, to enjoin the completion of the
merger and to recover costs and disbursements incurred by the
plaintiff, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

John H. Harland Co. on the Net: http://www.harland.net.


LEAR CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Suit Over Planned $2.31B Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corp. employees filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan seeking to block the
automotive parts supplier's acquisition by billionaire investor
Carl Icahn, The Detroit News reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Roger A. Jackson  
     -- Robert E. Rossiter  
     -- James H. Vandenberghe  
     -- David E. Fry  
     -- Vincent J. Intrieri  
     -- Conrad L. Mallet, Jr.  
     -- Larry W. McCurdy  
     -- Roy E. Parrott  
     -- David P. Spalding  
     -- James A. Stern  
     -- Henry D.G. Wallace  
     -- Richard F. Wallman  
     -- Lear Corp.  
     -- American Real Estate Partners, L. P.  
     -- Carl C. Icahn  
     -- Lear Corp. Employee Benefits Committee  

In February, the company agreed to a $2.31 billion buyout offer
from Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP. The
transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the
shares he does not already own, according to reports.

Under the terms of the agreement, Lear was allowed to solicit
alternate proposals for 45 days.

According to the lawsuit, the employees have company stock in
two retirement plans, accounting for 1.5 million shares at the
end of 2005, roughly amounting to $45 million.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and argues the deal would
violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Besides undervaluing Lear, the lawsuit argues that the deal is
prohibited by ERISA since it would have Lear's salaried and
hourly retirement savings plans sell shares of company stock to
Mr. Icahn's affiliate.

The lawsuit states that ERISA prohibits "any transaction
involving the sale or exchange of plan assets between a plan and
a party in interest."

The lawsuit argues that Mr. Icahn's affiliate is a "party in
interest" in this case.

The suit is "Qualey v. Jackson et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-10910-
GER-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, under Judge Gerald E. Rosen, with referral
to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barry D. Adler of Adler and Assoc. (Farmington Hills),
         30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 304, Farmington
         Hills, MI 48334, Phone: 248-855-5090, E-mail:
         badler@adlerfirm.com;

     (2) Ellen M. Doyle of Malakoff, Doyle, 437 Grant St., Suite
         200, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-281-8400, E-mail:
         edoyle@mdfpc.com; and

     (3) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, 487 Seventh Avenue,
         Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-3610,
         Fax: 212-918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Ex-Employee Complains Against Tips Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. faces a lawsuit in Superior
Court in Los Angeles over alleged violations of labor laws in
relation to tip sharing, the company said at its March 2 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In March 2006, a former employee of the Burbank, California
Morton's restaurant filed a class and collective action in
Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging that the
sharing of tips with other restaurant employees violates federal
and state laws.

The case was brought on behalf of all current and former
California servers for a four-year period.  

The company moved to dismiss the action and its motion was
granted.  The plaintiff has appealed.  

The plaintiff has not stated the amount of damages sought and,
at this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to estimate
the damages sought by plaintiff, or what the ultimate outcome of
the appeal will be.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. on the Net: www.mortons.com.


NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Children's Flannel Lounge Pants
------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom Inc., of Seattle, Washington, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
78,000 N-Kids Brand girl's drawstring flannel pants and Pine
Peak Blues Brand boy's drawstring flannel pants.

The company said these lounge pants are 100 percent cotton and
fail to meet the children's sleepwear flammability standards,
posing a risk of burn injury to children.  These garments were
not labeled or marketed as sleepwear, but because they are
children's loungewear, they must meet the children's sleepwear
flammability standards.  No injuries have been reported.

The girl's recalled drawstring flannel pants were available in
assorted plaids and stripes.  The girl's pants have "N-Kids" and
the boy's pants have "Pine Peak Blues" printed on the inside
rear waist tag of the pants.

These recalled drawstring flannel pants were manufactured in
India and are being sold by Nordstrom, in its stores and on its
Web site nationwide from July 2005 through December 2005 for
between $12 and $18 depending on size and style.

Picture of recalled drawstring flannel pants:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07533.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these children's loungewear
pants immediately and return the recalled item to Nordstrom.com
or to any Nordstrom store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Nordstrom toll-free at (888)
282-6060 anytime, E-mail: contact@nordstrom.com, Website:
http://www.nordstrom.com;or the firm's media contact Deniz  
Anders, Phone: (206) 373-3038.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: S.D. Court Denies Approval of Livonia Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota
indicated that it would not approve a proposed settlement in a
purported class action filed against NorthWestern Corp. d/b/a
NorthWestern Energy in relation to its merger with Babcock &
Brown Infrastructure Ltd.

In November 2005, the company and its directors were named as
defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action,
"City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al."

The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating
with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two
entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase
NorthWestern.

On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add
allegations that company directors had erred in choosing the
Babcock & Brown offer because it was not the most attractive
offer they had received for the company.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which
provides that NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder
rights plan either following shareholder approval of the Merger
Agreement with Babcock & Brown or upon termination of the Merger
Agreement with Babcock & Brown - whichever occurs first.

The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the
shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in
the event that circumstances require timely implementation of
such a plan, the Board seeks and receives approval from
shareholders within 12 months after adoption.

After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement
has been filed.  In December 2006 the federal court indicated it
would not approve the settlement because it did not provide any
benefit to the class members.

Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the
federal court would retain jurisdiction over any award of
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion, seeking discovery in
advance of its motion for an award of attorneys' fees, according
to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge
Lawrence L. Piersol.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Timothy J. Dougherty of Dougherty & Dougherty, P.O. Box
         1004, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004, Phone: 335-8586.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Filiberto Agusti, Scott T. Bielicki, David F. Rifkind
         and Andrew Sloniewsky of Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, 1330
         Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:
         202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and 202-429-
         6759, E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com,
         sbielicki@steptoe.com, drifkind@steptoe.com and
         asloniewsky@steptoe.com; and

    (ii) Roberto Antonio Lange of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz &
         Smith, P.O. Box 1030, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030,
         Phone: 336-2880, Fax: 335-3639, E-mail:
         rlange@dehs.com.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Settles "McGreevey" Suit, Now Seeks Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corp. is working to resolve the class action,
"McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case no.
2:03-cv-00001-SHE," along with another action that was filed
against it and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana.

The company was one of several defendants named in a class
action filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power Co.
(most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings,
Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization of the Montana
Power Co.).  The plaintiffs claim that the disposition of
various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana
Power Co. were void because of the failure to obtain shareholder
approval for the transactions.

Plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those
transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late
2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder approval should have
been sought.

The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which plaintiffs are
claiming is a successor to the Montana Power Co.

In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered
into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought.

In February 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims against the company and no objections have been filed.  

The company anticipates a decision by the federal court in the
next few months, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana under Judge Sam E. Haddon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Wade Dahood of Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton,
         PO Box 727, Anaconda, MT 59711-0727, Phone: 406-563-
         3424, Fax: 406-563-7519;

     (2) Milton Datsopoulos of Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind, 201
         W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201, Missoula,
         MT 59802, Phone: 406-728-0810, Fax: 406-543-0134;

     (3) Sean S. Frampton of Morrison & Frampton, P.O. Box 1090,
         Whitefish, MT 59937, Phone: 406-862-9600, Fax: (406)
         862-9611; and

     (4) Allan M. McGarvey of McGarvey Heberling Sullivan &
         McGarvey, 745 S. Main Street, Kalispell, MT 59901-2529,  
         Phone: 406-752-5566, Fax: 406-752-7124, E-mail:
         amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com.


NY ESSEX: Lawyer's Suit Over TCPA Violations Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied class certification in "McGaughey v. Treistman," for
failure to satisfy the numerosity requirement.  It subsequently
dismissed the case.

The suit was brought pursuant to the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act that provides for statutory damages against those
who send unsolicited "junk" faxes.  It was filed by Lawrence H.
McGaughey against Richard C. Treistman, president and chief
executive officer of NY Essex Services, a temporary staffing
agency based in New York.

Mr. McGaughey is an attorney residing and practicing in New
York.  Plaintiff placed a "help wanted" advertisement in the New
York Law Journal requesting resumes to be faxed to him.  In
response to plaintiff's job advertisement, on Aug. 27, 2004, NY
Essex sent a two-page fax to plaintiff's home fax number.

On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiff originally filed a complaint against
Essex Temporary, claiming that defendant has "willfully and
knowingly authorized and approved the transmission of more than
10,000 unsolicited advertisements through facsimile."

Mr. Treistman has stated that he had no direct involvement with
the fax at issue, nor any faxes sent by NY Essex.  Mr. Treistman
did approve NY Essex's fax policy in general.  That policy was
that faxes should only be sent to a third party where a third
party invited a fax in response to a help wanted advertisement,
where a third party authorized a fax during a telephone
conversation, or where there existed a prior business
relationship with a third party.

The court ruling stated plaintiff has provided no evidence that
either defendant or NY Essex Services, ever sent more than one
fax arguably in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The suit is 05 Civil case 7069, assigned before Judge Harold
Baer Jr.


OFFICEMAX INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Inc. is seeking the dismissal of an amended securities
fraud complaint filed against it in U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois.

The company and several former officers and/or directors of the
company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated
class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to
disclose:

      -- that vendor income had been improperly recorded;

      -- that the company lacked internal controls necessary to
         ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance
         with generally accepted accounting principles; and

      -- that the company 's 2004 and later results would be
         adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper
         practices.

The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  On Sept. 21,
2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which is pending.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the court granted the defendant group's joint
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On Nov.
9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a purported amended complaint.

On Jan. 19, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which is pending, according to the company's Feb. 28
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00236," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  

Representing the plaintiffs are William J. Doyle and William S.
Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655
West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
231-1058.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Phillip M. Goldberg of Foley & Lardner, 321 North Clark
         Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-832-
         4500;

     (2) John William Rotunno of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC, 70
         West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60602-
         4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121, E-mail:
         jrotunno@bellboyd.com; and

     (3) Patrick Thomas Stanton of Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg &
         Krauss, 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700, Chicago,
         IL 60601, Phone: (312) 516-4489, E-mail:
         pstanton@scgk.com.


ONE WORLD: Recalls Throat Plates for Ryobi Router Tables
--------------------------------------------------------
One World Technologies Inc., of Anderson, South Carolina, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 100,000 units of Ryobi Router Table Throat
Plates.

The company said the throat plates do not securely snap into the
router's tabletop bit opening.  The throat plate can come loose
during operation and be ejected from the tabletop, posing a
laceration hazard to consumers.

One World Technologies has received three reports of throat
plates coming loose during use.  Two consumers were struck on
the nose by the throat plate and received a minor cut and
bruising.

The recall involves Ryobi-brand router tables, with model number
RT101, which is written on the table's data plate, located on
its front leg.  These tables were sold as part of the Ryobi
combo kits with model numbers R161RTA and R162RTA.  The combo
kit model number is written on the packaging.

A router table holds the router underneath the table.  Instead
of moving the router over the wood, the table allows the user to
guide the wood for cutting.  The throat plates are components of
the table that consist of five yellow plastic rings.  They serve
as a guide for the router bit and provide a stable surface
around the bit.

These recalled throat plates were manufactured in China and are
being sold exclusively at Home Depot stores nationwide between
May 2004 and January 2007 for about $100 for the combo kits that
include the router, router table and throat plates.

Pictures of recalled throat plates:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07120a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07120b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07120c.jpg

Consumers should immediately check their router tables to ensure
that the throat plates securely snap into the router bit
opening.  If any throat plates do not securely snap into the
table top, consumers should stop using the router table
immediately and contact One Word Technologies for a free
replacement set of throat plates.

For more information, consumers can call One World Technologies
Inc. at (800) 525-2579 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or go to the firm's Web site:
http://www.ryobitools.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Minn. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated amended securities class action
filed against medical device maker Possis Medical Inc. and two
of its executive officers have appealed the dismissal of the
suit, Reuters reports.

The suit was filed in June 2005.  It arose out of allegations
concerning public statements made by the company prior to the
August 2004 public disclosure of Possis Medical's AiMI clinical
study results.

The case is a consolidation of multiple purported class actions
and, although no class had yet been certified, the court
appointed lead plaintiffs in August 2005.  Possis Medical filed
its motion to dismiss shortly thereafter and oral arguments were
heard in March 2006.

In February, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota dismissed,
with prejudice, the consolidated amended complaint in a
shareholder class action filed against Possis Medical and two of
its executive officers.  On March 3, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal.

The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M.
Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St Paul,  
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;  

     (2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 20 Church St.,
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-241-6116, E-
         mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net; and

     (3) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,  
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY  
         10119-0165, Phone: 212-946-4474, E-mail:  
         arado@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are Michelle S. Grant, Bryan C.  
Keane, James K. Langdon and Roger J. Magnuson of Dorsey &  
Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
1498, Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2807  
and 612-340-8800, E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com,
keane.bryan@dorsey.com, langdon.jim@dorsey.com and  
magnuson.roger@dorsey.com.


QUALIFIED EXCHANGE: Accused of Embezzling $80M in Deposits
----------------------------------------------------------
Qualified Exchange Services, Inc. and Southwest Exchange, Inc.
and eight individuals were named as defendants in a purported
class action filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in
California.

The suit, Case No. 01243550, was filed by the law firm of
Hollister & Brace on Feb. 16.  It claims that defendants have
defrauded 100 people of $80 million through "exchange
accommodations" that allegedly offered them tax breaks through
Internal Revenue Service Code Section 1031.

According to the complaint, the purported class action was
brought on behalf of approximately 100 people located in Santa
Barbara and across the country who each lost substantial money
entrusted to certain intermediaries ("exchange accommodators,"
i.e. Qualified Exchange and Southwest Exchange) to facilitate
their respective IRS Code Section 1031 exchanges.

It generally alleges that the companies, "misappropriated,
stole, embezzled, and converted" more than $80 million from
escrow accounts within the past year.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Jon and Marie Sorrell, who
deposited some $720,000 in trust with Qualified Exchange late
last year (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2007).  

The couple's money came from sale of property in Lake Arrowhead,
and the defendants were to hold it in trust and use some of it
to buy another property.

In late January, however, Qualified Exchange reportedly told the
Sorells that the money was "no longer available."  Since then,
according to the suit, plaintiffs have been told that Qualified
Exchange is out of business.

In their suit, the Sorrells allege that Qualified gave it to
Southwest Exchange, that both companies have gone out of
business and been sued elsewhere, and that the individual
defendants face legal actions for these and other actions.

The complaint list six causes of actions, which include:

      -- theft/Conversion/Embezzlement;
      -- breach of contract by Southwest Exchange;
      -- breach of contract by Qualified Exchange;
      -- breach of fiduciary duty by Southwest Exchange;
      -- breach of fiduciary duty by Qualified Exchange; and
      -- appointment of receiver for Qualified Exchange;

It defines both a class and a subclass as follows:
      
      -- All persons who deposited 1031 exchange funds with
         Southwest Exchange or had their 1031 exchange funds
         deposited with the company and have been deprived of
         access to those funds held in trust.

      -- All persons who entered into a Delayed Real Estate
         Exchange Agreement with Qualified Exchange and have
         been deprived of the access of their 1031 exchange
         funds held in trust by Qualified Exchange or Southwest
         Exchange.

                     Defendants' Backgrounds

Defendants Qualified Exchange of Santa Barbara, Calif., and
Southwest Exchange Henderson, Nev., claimed to specialize in
property transfers that defer capital gains taxes.

The individual defendants in the suit are:

      -- Megan Amsler,
      -- Albert Conton Jr.,
      -- Kyleen Dawson,
      -- David Keys,
      -- Dean Koch,
      -- Donald McGhan,
      -- Jim McGhan, and
      -- Nikki Pomeroy.

According to court records, Jim McGhan's Delaware firm, Capital
Reef Management Corp., bought Qualified Exchange from founders
Kyleen M. Dawson and Megan L. Amsler in October 2006.

After selling Qualified Exchange, the two founders remained as
employees of their former business.  Three months later, they
reported to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation that some
of their clients' funds were missing.

Craig Grenet, a legal representative for the two former founders
said that the incident hurt his clients and that they were also
victims just like the plaintiffs in the case.

However, plaintiffs' attorney Robert Brace, disagreed, accusing
the two founders being negligent for failing to protect his
clients' money.  

The backgrounds on the other defendants in the case were as
follows:

      -- Dean A. Koch was once a chief financial officer of
         Southwest Exchange, where Donald K. McGhan served as
         chairman of the board of directors, a company that
         became an affiliate of Qualified Exchange as a result
         of the sale to Capital Reef.  

      -- David N. Keys has been the chief executive officers,
         president, and employee of Southwest Exchange with
         control over trust funds held on deposit at the
         company.  

      -- Albert Conton, Jr. is a president and employee of
         Southwest Exchange with control over the trust funds
         held on deposit at the company, including the trust
         funds of clients of Qualified Exchange.

      -- Nikki M. Pomeroy, the daughter of Donald McGhan, was an
         employee and secretary at Southwest Exchange and had
         access to and control over the trust funds on deposit
         at the company, including the funds on deposits at
         Qualified Exchange.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1aee

For more details, contact Hollister & Brace, 1126 Santa Barbara
Street, Suite #201, P.O. Box 630, Santa Barbara, CA 93102,
Phone: (805) 963-6711, Fax: (805) 965-0329, E-Mail:
hblaw@hbsb.com, Web site: http://www.hbsb.com.


QUESTAR ENERGY: No Ruling Yet in Status of Natural Gas Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas state district court has yet to issue a ruling on a
motion to certify a class in:

      -- "Price v. Gas Pipelines, No. 99 C 30 (Dist. Ct. Kan.);"
         and
      
      -- "Price v. El Paso Entities, No. 03 C 23 (Dist. Ct.
         Kan.),"

The suits name Questar Energy Trading as defendant.

The suits were filed on behalf of private lessors.  It alleges a
conspiracy by the pipeline industry to set standards that result
in the systematic undermeasurement of natural gas volumes and
resulting underpayment of royalties.

The purported class involves all royalty owners of production
from private land in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado.  

Energy Trading opposes certification of the class and contends
that it is not engaged in any gas measurement activities in
Kansas.  

A hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class was held on
April 1, 2005.  The court has not issued a ruling in the cases,
according to Questar Market Resources, Inc.'s March 2 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Questar Market Resources on the Net: http://www.questar.com.


SAFECO INSURANCE: Chiropractor's Breach of Contract Claim Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County (Ill.) Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder dismissed a
breach of contract complaint filed against Safeco Insurance for
allegedly failing to fully pay bills for treating victims of
auto accidents that Safeco policies covered, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

In a ruling on March 2, Judge Crowder dismissed the breach of
contract complaint, but denied Safeco's motions to dismiss
counts of consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.  She also denied
a motion to dismiss two other suits from 2003, saying the
plaintiffs differ and the defendants differ.

She also denied a motion of the Lakin Law firm to consolidate
the case into one of the others.  She gave the law firm 28 days
to file an amended complaint.  

The suit was filed by chiropractor Frank Bemis in 2005.  Safeco
attorneys argued before the court in December that Mr. Bemis
could not claim breach of contract because he had no contract
with Safeco.  Dennis Barton of the Lakin firm contended that Mr.
Bemis's patient assigned to Bemis his contract rights.  

Judge Crowder wrote in her ruling that no such assignment was
attached to the complaint.

The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood
River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127,
Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


SEVERSTAL NORTH: Faces Air Pollution Complaint in Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit attorney Steven Liddle filed a lawsuit in Wayne County
Circuit Court in Michigan against SeverStal North America Inc.,
formerly Rouge Steel, the Dearborn Press & Guide reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of Melvindale residents who live in
the vicinity of the Dearborn steel plant, 3001 Miller Road, and
have been affected by discharge samples they've found on their
cars and personal property.

The suit is seeking monetary damages and changes to the plant's
emissions, which residents say are causing air pollution and
dust discharge on their personal property.

In 2005, residents in Dearborn's south-end filed a similar
lawsuit, which was settled in March 2006.  It provided that
Severstal must follow through on a modernization program, pay
$250,000 in attorneys' and experts' fees, $50,000 in a grant to
Salina schools and $200,000 for a community tree planting.

Severstal also resolved violations of air-quality regulations
with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Severstal's upgrades, which have already begun, are expected to
span four years and total more than $500 million in investments.  
The plant is in the process of installing a baghouse on their C
blast furnace and on the basic oxygen furnace.  A baghouse works
as a vacuum cleaner to filter out emissions.

Also as part of the MDEQ's enforcement actions, Severstal was
required to pay a penalty of $900,000 for past violations of
federal and state air regulations and stipulated fines of up to
$5,000 per violation per day for any future violations of the
settlement document.

Severstal agreed to comply with the newly issued air-use permit,
permanently cease torch cutting of scrap at the facility,
implement a plan to abate emissions from on-site railcars used
for molten metal transport, install a digital camera system to
monitor visible emissions from the basic oxygen furnace, and put
in place several work practice changes leading to reduced
opacity at the facility, the MDEQ said.

Severstal NA Vice President Bill Hornberger did not return a
phone call from the Press & Guide.

Detroit attorney Steven Liddle is with Macuga & Liddle, P.C.,
975 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207-3101, Phone: (313)
392-0015, Fax: (313) 392-0025, Web site:
http://www.mlclassaction.com.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Kans. Court Certifies Class in "Apsley" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas certified a
class in the age discrimination class action filed against
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., the company said at its March
5 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The action, "Perry Apsley et al. v. The Boeing Co., Onex Corp.
and Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.," was filed Dec. 19, 2005.
Plaintiffs served the company and the other defendants with the
lawsuit in early March 2006.  

Generally, plaintiffs assert several claims and purport to bring
the case as a class action and collective action on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas
or Tulsa, Oklahoma within two years before the company was
acquired by Spirit, and who were terminated or not hired after
the acquisition.

The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for age
discrimination, interference with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 rights, breach of contract and retaliation.

Additionally, plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification and held that the plaintiffs may
send notice of the collective action to all former Boeing
employees who were terminated by Boeing on or after Jan. 1,
2002, were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination
and were not hired by Spirit.

Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, the company agreed to
indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the employment
decisions that were made by the company with respect to former
employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly relate to
the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in
such employment decisions.

The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas under Judge Monti L. Belot with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Uzo L. Ohaebosim and Lawrence W.
Williamson, Jr. of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N.
Main, 1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400,
Fax: 316-261-5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are James M. Armstrong and Carolyn
L. Matthews of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, 1551 N Waterfront Parkway,
Ste. 100, Wichita, KS 67206-4466, Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-
267-6371, Fax: 316-267-6345, E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com and
cmatthews@foulston.com.


TACO BELL: "Chhibber" ADA Violations Suit Dismissed Voluntarily  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a putative class action, "Rajeev Chhibber v.
Taco Bell Corp." has voluntarily dismissed his case.

The suit was filed on Aug. 4, 2006 in Orange County Superior
Court.  The lawsuit was filed by a Taco Bell Restaurant General
Manager (RGM) purporting to represent all current and former
RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California
from August 2002 to the present.  

The suit alleges violations of California wage and hour laws
involving unpaid overtime and meal and rest period violations
and seeks unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.  

On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case,
according to Yum Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Yum Brands, Inc. on the Net: http://www.yum.com/.


TACO BELL: Discovery Continues in Calif. ADA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action "Moeller, et al.
v. Taco Bell Corp.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in
a class action, "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that the company discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California accessible to the class.  

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities -- including parking spaces,
ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not
comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh
Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act.  
Plaintiffs have requested:

      -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

      -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

      -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.
        
Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.  

For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate
minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are
expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of company
outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered
discrimination.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The district court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the district court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  

Parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage
of this action.  During this stage, the company filed a motion
to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule
23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages.  

The district court denied the motion.  Plaintiffs filed their
own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability relating
to a subset of the California Restaurants.  The district court
denied that motion as well.  

Discovery is still ongoing, according to Yum Brands, Inc.'s Feb.
28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-
cv-05849," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy P. Fox of Fox & Robertson, P.C., 910-16th
         Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-595-
         9700, Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com; and

     (2) Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave.,
         Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304, Fax:
         510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

Representing the defendant are:

     (i) Gregory A. Eurich and Jimmy Goh of Holland & Hart, LLP,
         555 17th Street, Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80202, Phone:
         303-295-8000, E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com and
         jgoh@hollandhart.com; and

    (ii) Gregory F. Hurley of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 650 Town
         Center Drive, Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, Phone:
         714-708-6564, Fax: 714 708-6501, E-mail:
         sautters@gtlaw.com.


TACO BELL: Continues to Face Suit by Calif. Restaurant Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., which is owned by Yum Brands, Inc., remains a
defendant in a labor-related litigation that was filed in San
Diego County Superior Court by Restaurant General Managers
(RGM).

On Aug. 7, 2006, the putative class action, "Marina Puchalski v.
Taco Bell Corp." was filed on behalf of all current or former
Taco Bell RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in
California from August 2002 to the present.

The suit alleges violations of California's wage and hour laws
involving unpaid overtime and meal and rest period violations,
and seeks unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.

Yum Brands, Inc. reported no development in the case at Yum
Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Yum Brands, Inc. on the Net: http://www.yum.com/.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Parsons v. AC&S" Remains Stayed in W.Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case "Parsons v. AC&S, Inc.," which was filed in February
1998, remains stayed in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West
Virginia, 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.

The plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff seeks to recover $1,000,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.  The case has been
stayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs' motion to
refer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multi-district
litigation filed in "In Re: Tobacco Litigation" in the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On December 26, 2000, three defendants:

     * Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
     * Desseaux Corp. of North American, and
     * Armstrong World Industries

filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware, "In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc."  
Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.


VIACOM INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses ERISA Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the putative collective class action against
Viacom, Inc., which is alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act voluntarily dismissed her case,
which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

On Nov. 16, 2005, Katherine Corthon filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all any participants in or beneficiaries of the
Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included investments
in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

Plaintiff has filed her claim against:

      -- the company,
      -- the Viacom Retirement Committee,
      -- Keith M. Holtz,
      -- Barbara Mickowski,
      -- Dan Satterthwaite,
      -- Phillip P. Dauman,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- Richard Bressler,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Peter A. Bassi,
      -- Robert A. Bowman,
      -- Gary J. Fernandes,
      -- Mel Karmazin and unnamed "John Doe," and
      -- members of the Viacom and Blockbuster Retirement
         Committees.

The suit claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, recovery of actual damages, court costs, attorney's
fees, a constructive trust, restoration of lost profits to the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and an injunction.

On Aug. 18, 2006, this suit was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On Dec. 13, 2006, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter
without prejudice, according to the Blockbuster, Inc.'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 "Corthon v. Viacom, Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01581," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Lee Squitieri of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP, 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: (212)-421-6553, E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael Allen Birrer, David Steven Coale and Peggy
         Glenn-Summitt of Carrington, Coleman, Sloman &
         Blumenthal, L.L.P., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500,
         Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 855-3113, (214) 855-3000
         and (214) 855-3072, Fax: (214) 855-1333, E-mail:
         mbirrer@ccsb.com and psummitt@ccsb.com; and

     (2) Brian Howard Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, (New
         York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 848-4000, Fax: (212) 848-7179, E-mail:
         bpolovoy@shearman.com.


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court OKs $19M Settlement of Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County gave final
approval to a $19 million settlement of a labor-related class
action against VITAS Healthcare Corp., a subsidiary of Chemed
Corp.

Ann Marie Costa, Ana Jimenez, Mariea Ruteaya and Gracetta Wilson
filed the suit against the company in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, alleging failure to pay overtime
wages and to provide meal and break periods to California
nurses, home health aides, and licensed clinical social workers.

Specifically, the suit alleged failure to pay overtime wages for
hours worked "off the clock" on administrative tasks, including
voicemail retrieval, time entry, travel to and from work, and
pager response.

It also alleged Vitas failed to provide meal and break periods
to a purported class of California nurses, home health aides and
licensed clinical social workers.  

The case also sought payment of penalties, interest, and
plaintiff's attorney fees.

The company contested these allegations.  Plaintiffs moved for
class certification, and Vitas opposed this motion.  

Eventually, the company reached an agreement with the plaintiff
class in order to avoid the uncertainty of litigation and the
diversion of resources and personnel resulting from it, to
resolve this matter for $19 million, inclusive of plaintiffs'
class attorneys' fees and the costs of settlement
administration.

On June 26, 2006 the court granted final approval of this
settlement, according to the company's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Chemed Corp. on the Net: http://www.chemed.com/.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


HCC INSURANCE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.
between May 3, 2005 and Nov. 17, 2006, and shareholders of
record on April 3, 2006.

The lawsuit was filed against

     -- HCC,
     -- Edward H. Ellis Jr. -- former CFO,
     -- Stephen L. Way -- former CEO,
     -- Chris L. Martin -- former General Counsel and
     -- Walter J. Lack -- former Chairman of the Compensation.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b),
20(a) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, and Rule 14(a)-1 to 14(a)-9 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants:

     (1) backdated stock option grants, such that the
         description of the  the company's 's granting practices
         in the company's 's financial reports were untrue;

     (2) the company's 's reported earnings and shareholders'
         equity was artificially inflated in each of its
         financial reports during the Class Period due to
         understated compensation expenses; and,

     (3) the company's 's financial reports were not presented
         in accordance with GAAP and were artificially inflated
         and did not accurately present the  the company's 's
         actual performance.

On Nov. 16, 2006, after the market closed, HCC announced that it
had backdated option grant dates from 1997 through 2006 and that
it would restate financial reports previously filed with the SEC
and disseminated to investors in press releases.

In response to this announcement, the price of HCC stock dropped
materially falling from a close of $31.64 on Nov. 17, 2006, to a
low of $28.81 on Nov. 20, 2006 (the next trading day),
representing a one-day share price decline of 9% on volume of
6.6 million shares.

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


                            *********


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  * * *