CAR_Public/070313.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 51

                            Headlines


AMERICAN FAMILY: Pays $17M in "After-Market Auto Parts" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: N.C. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in ERISA Case
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Bonlat Financing Litigation
BJC HEALTHCARE: To Appeal Certification of Uninsureds' Suit
BREAKAWAY COURIER: Faces Mass. Suit Over Worker Classification

CINGULAR WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over AT&T Merger
BRITISH AMERICAN: Faces Lawsuit by Vacation Home Investors
COLUMBIA NATURAL: $405M Award in "Tawney" Too High, Judge Says
COMMONWEALTH LAND: Still Faces Suit Over Title Insurance Rates
EDUCATE INC: Faces Suit Over $535M Management Buyout Offer

ENRON CORP: Court Approves $72M Settlement with Arthur Andersen
INTEL CORP: Del. Judge Dismisses Part of Antitrust Lawsuit
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fla. Court Decertifies Class in OOIDA Lawsuit
LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Title Insurance Policy Rates
LEGACY HEALTH: Ore. Court Okays Settlement of Uninsured's Suit

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Trial Begins in Suit Over MK Share Purchase
LOUISIANA: ACLU Sues Court Over Jailing of Indigent Defendants
LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suit in Kans.
MERCURY INSURANCE: Settlement of CLRA Violations Suit Rejected
MERCURY INSURANCE: Court Certifies Suit Over Medical Payments

MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Field Adjusters' FLSA Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Extends Securities Suit Class Period
PIZZA HUT: Calif. Court Finally Approves FLSA Suit Settlement
PORTLAND GENERAL: Ore. Court Abates Customers' Suit for One Year
RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Approval of Ill. FLSA Suits Settlements

SUNTRUST BANKS: Ga. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Litigation
TOBACCO LITIGATION: La. Suit Over Secondhand Smoke Still Stayed
TOSHIBA OF CANADA: Suit by Satellite Notebook Owners Certified
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles Suit Over Call Billing Overcharges
U-HAUL CO: Supreme Court Issues "Grant and Hold" Order in Konig

UNITED STATES: Agencies Face Calif. Suit Over Special Visas
WALGREEN CO: EEOC Files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Ill.
WEBER-STEPHEN: Recalls Gas Grills with Hoses that Can Break
WEST AMERICAN: Opposes Certification of Suit by Motorists
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Product Liability Suit in Ark. Court

WINDOW ROCK: Faces Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Bogus Drugs


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALVARION LTD: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
ALVARION LTD: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HCC INSURANCE: Brualdi Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
HCC INSURANCE: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Suit in Mo.

NUVELO INC: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Lawsuit


                           *********


AMERICAN FAMILY: Pays $17M in "After-Market Auto Parts" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri jury awarded more than $17 million to a group of
policyholders in a state class action against American Family
Insurance involving after-market auto parts.

The verdict affects approximately 315,000 Missouri residents
with claims for vehicle repairs between May 1990 and December
2004.

"The exceptional jury in Kansas City recognized that American
Family was not satisfying its obligation under its policy
contracts and awarded the plaintiffs accordingly," said Ted
Pintar, counsel at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP.

Filed in May 2000 and certified as a class action in December
2001, the suit challenges the company's policy of specifying
after-market auto parts and omitting certain repair procedures
in its repair estimates.

It alleged that American Family, based in Madison, Wisconsin,
specified non-original equipment manufactured parts in paying to
repair policyholders' damaged vehicles.

American Family plans to appeal the decision.

For more information, contact Ted Pintar of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 619-231-1058.


BANK OF AMERICA: N.C. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in ERISA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina has ruled on
motions to dismiss or certify a class in the putative class
action, "William L. Pender, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et
al.," formerly captioned "Anita Pothier, et al. v. Bank of
America Corp., et al."  

The suit was initially filed June 2004 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois and subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina.

The action was brought on behalf of participants in or
beneficiaries of The Bank of America Pension Plan (formerly
known as the NationsBank Cash Balance Plan) and The Bank of
America 401(k) Plan (formerly known as the NationsBank 401(k)
Plan).  

The Third Amended Complaint named as defendants the Corporation,
Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), The Bank of America Pension Plan,
The Bank of America 401(k) Plan, the Bank of America Corporation
Corporate Benefits Committee and various members thereof, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  

The two named plaintiffs were alleged to be a current and a
former participant in The Bank of America Pension Plan and
401(k) Plan.

The Third Amended Complaint alleged the defendants violated
various provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, including that the design of The Bank of America Pension
Plan violated ERISA's defined benefit pension plan standards and
that such plan's definition of normal retirement age is invalid.  

In addition, the complaint alleged age discrimination in the
design and operation of The Bank of America Pension Plan,
unlawful lump sum benefit calculation, violation of ERISA's
"anti-backloading" rule, improper benefit to the Corporation and
its predecessor, and various prohibited transactions and
fiduciary breaches.  

It further alleged that certain voluntary transfers of assets by
participants in The Bank of America 401(k) Plan to The Bank of
America Pension Plan violated ERISA.

In addition, the complaint alleged that current and former
participants in these plans are entitled to greater benefits.  
It is seeking declaratory relief, monetary relief in an
unspecified amount, equitable relief, including an order
reforming The Bank of America Pension Plan, attorneys' fees and
interest.

On Sept. 25, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss a Third Amended
Complaint.  The motion is pending.

On Dec. 1, 2005, the named plaintiffs moved to certify classes
consisting of, among others, all persons who accrued or who are
currently accruing benefits under The Bank of America Pension
Plan and all persons who elected to have amounts representing
their account balances under The Bank of America 401(k) Plan
transferred to The Bank of America Pension Plan.  The motion for
class certification is pending.

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 "William L. Pender, et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00238," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under
Judge Graham Mullen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas D. Garlitz of Garlitz & Williamson, PLLC, Suite
         930, The Johnston Building, 212 South Tryon Street,
         Charlotte, NC 28281, Phone: 704-372-1282, Fax: 704-372-
         1621, E-mail: tgarlitz@gwattorneys.com; and

     (2) Eli Gottesdiener of Gottesdiener Law Firm, 498 7th
         Street, Brooklyn, NY 11215, Phone: 718-788-1500, Fax:
         718-788-1650, E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Irving Michael Brenner of Helms, Mulliss & Wicker,
         PLLC, Helms Mulliss & Wicker, 201 North Tryon Street,
         Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone: 704-343-2075, Fax: 704-343-
         2300, E-mail: irving.brenner@hmw.com;

     (2) Jason Whitt Callen of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East
         Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60614, Phone: 312-861-8534,
         Fax: 312-846-9218, E-mail: jcallen@kirkland.com;

     (3) William F. Conlon of Sidley, Austin et al. - Chicago,
         10 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7384,
         E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com; and

     (4) Mark William Merritt of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson,
         P.A., 1900 Independence Center, Suite 1900, Charlotte,
         NC 28246, Phone: 704-377-8337, Fax: 704-373-3937, E-
         mail: mmerritt@rbh.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Bonlat Financing Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled on a
motion seeking for the dismissal of the securities fraud class
action, "Southern Alaska Carpenters Pension Fund, et al. v.
Bonlat Financing Corp., et al.," which names the corporation as
defendant.

The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Parmalat securities.  On March 5, 2004, a First
Amended Complaint was filed in the class action.

The First Amended Complaint alleged causes of action against the
Corporation for violations of the federal securities laws based
upon the corporation's alleged role in the alleged Parmalat
accounting fraud.  

This action was consolidated with several other putative class
actions filed against multiple defendants, and on Oct. 18, 2004,
an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed.  Unspecified
damages are being sought.

On July 13, 2005, the court granted in its entirety the motion
to dismiss filed by the corporation, Bank of America, N.A. and
Banc of America Securities Limited in the consolidated putative
class actions.  The court granted the plaintiffs a right to file
a second amended complaint.  

After the filing of the second amended complaint and the
Corporation's motion to dismiss such complaint, on Feb. 9, 2006,
the court granted the Corporation's motion to dismiss in part,
allowing the plaintiff to proceed on claims with respect to two
transactions entered into between the Corporation and Parmalat.  

On Feb. 27, 2006, the corporation filed its answer to the second
amended complaint.

The putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on Sept. 21, 2006, which remains pending.  

The corporation also filed on Oct. 10, 2006 a motion to dismiss
the claims of foreign purchaser plaintiffs for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, 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.

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


BJC HEALTHCARE: To Appeal Certification of Uninsureds' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes-Jewish Hospital, which is part of St. Louis-based BJC
HealthCare, plans to appeal a recent decision that granted
class-action status to a Missouri state court case alleging the
company overcharges uninsured patients for hospital bills, The
St. Louis Business Journal reports.

Last week, Judge David Mason of the St. Louis Circuit Court
granted class-action status to a lawsuit, filed in 2004,
alleging BJC HealthCare overcharged thousands of uninsured
patients going back to 1999 (Class Action Reporter, March 9,
2007).

The class certified principally includes persons who received
medical services and made no payments, payment arrangements or
requests for forgiveness on bills that were sent to them.  

The class includes patients from 1999 to the present who lacked
insurance and paid the "charges" figure for their care.  It's
not clear exactly how many patients are involved, the amount
each might be owed or the plaintiffs' total claims against BJC,
according to a report by The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The complaints allege that many hospitals lacked sufficient
charity care programs and that those hospitals with adequate
programs often were lax in telling patients about them.

The Clayton firm of Riezman, Berger and Blitz charged that BJC
and its subsidiary, Missouri Baptist Medical Center and Sisters
of Mercy Health System and its subsidiary, St. John's Mercy
Medical Center, allowed a doctor to charge for work that was not
done (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2005).  It also charged
that the doctor "upcoded" other procedures to increase charges.

Also, the suit charges that the hospitals accepted a physician's
faulty descriptions of work done and, as a result, also
overcharged patients.

BJC HealthCare is affiliated with Washington University School
of Medicine and operates Alton Memorial Hospital; Barnes-Jewish
St. Peters Hospital; Barnes-Jewish West County Hospital; Boone
Hospital Center; Christian Hospital; Clay County Hospital in
Illinois; Missouri Baptist Medical Center; Missouri Baptist
Hospital-Sullivan; Parkland Health Center in St. Francois
County; and St. Louis Children's Hospital.

Its annual revenues are about $2.8 billion and it cares for
about 30 percent of the hospital patients in the metro area.  
BJC provides about $18 million a year in charity care to area
patients, but puts its benefit to the region at more than $1.8
billion a year.


BREAKAWAY COURIER: Faces Mass. Suit Over Worker Classification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Breakaway Courier Systems was named defendant in a purported
class action filed in Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts,
which accuses it of breaking state law by classifying its
couriers as independent contractors.

In classifying workers as independent contractors, Breakaway
rendered them ineligible for overtime, unemployment pay, and
workers compensation, thus saving the messenger service
significant money in employee benefits, according to a report by
The Boston Globe.

Generally, the suit contends that Breakaway's couriers "are not
truly entrepreneurs who have the opportunity to grow a business"
-- the definition of an independent contractor -- "but are,
instead, employees who have little discretion in what work they
perform and how they perform it."

Though the company has offices in New York and Boston, the suit
only targets the Boston operation.

For more details, contact Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan of Pyle,
Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont
Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax:
617-367-4820, E-mail: sliss@prle.com, Web site:
http://www.prle.com/.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over AT&T Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cingular Wireless Corp. has filed motions with a court to compel
arbitration and dismiss a class action related to its $41
billion acquisition of AT&T Corp.'s cell phone system in October
2004.  

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on July 6, 2006.  The lawsuit was brought
on behalf of all AT&T Wireless customers who were allegedly
deceived or overcharged by Cingular's actions related to the
merger.  

The class action is brought by a group of lawyers and law firms,
including attorneys for the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer
and Consumer Rights, the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon and
McCarthy, of Burlingame, California, and Stritmatter, Kessler,
Whelan, Withey and Coluccio, based in Seattle (Class Action
Reporter, July 10, 2006).  

Named plaintiffs are Mary Grace a. Coneff, Christine Aschero,
Joanne Aschero, Alex Aschero, Jennie Bragg, Gina Franks and Amy
Frerker.

The suit charges that Cingular engaged in false advertising,
breached the contracts with AT&T customers, and violated the
consumer protection laws of each of the 50 states.

Specifically, it alleges that:

     (1) prior to the merger, Cingular promised that AT&T
         Wireless customers would "continue to enjoy the
         benefits of their current phones, rate plans and
         features, without any service interruption";

     (2) after the merger, Cingular implemented a deliberate
         scheme to dismantle the AT&T Wireless network in order
         to degrade the service provided to AT&T Wireless
         customers and induce them to "transfer" to the Cingular
         network;

     (3) AT&T Wireless customers have complained of increasing
         dropped calls, and poor or no reception;

     (4) dissatisfied AT&T Wireless customers are given the
         option to "upgrade" to Cingular;

     (5) AT&T customers who do not agree to such an "upgrade"
         are left with the choice of fulfilling their contract
         term with AT&T despite degraded or non-existent
         service, or paying an early termination fee of $175 to
         cancel service before the expiration of the 12- or 24-
         month contract term.

The lawsuit stems from an investigation of numerous complaints
received by the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, a California-based crusader for consumer rights.

The class covers all AT&T Wireless customers who were customers
as of Oct. 26, 2004.

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

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d63

In its motion to dismiss, AT&T/Cingular said every wireless
service agreement since July 1999 included an arbitration
provision among its terms and conditions.

"Cingular's arbitration provisions do not contain a prohibitive
cost structure or otherwise impose disincentives on customers'
ability to pursue their claims. . . . Accordingly, this court
should issue an order compelling each plaintiff to pursue his or
her claims in individual arbitration or in small claims court
and dismissing this lawsuit."

The suit is "Coneff et al. v. Cingular Wireless Corp. et al.,
Case No. CV06-0944," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce L. Simon, Esther L. Klisura both of Cotchett,  
         Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200,  
         Burlingame California 94010, Phone: (650) 697-6000,  
         Fax: (650) 697-0577, E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com;

     (2) Paul L. Stritmatter, Michael E. Withey, Kevin Coluccio  
         all of Strimatter Kessler Whelan Withey Coluccio, 200  
         Second Ave., West Seattle, WA 98119, Phone: (206) 448-
         1777, Fax: (206) 728-2131, Email: mike@skwwc.com; and  

     (3) Harvey Rosenfeld and Pamela Presley both of The  
         Foundation for Tax Payer and Consumer Rights, 1750  
         Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA  
         90405, Phone: (310) 392-0522, Fax: (310) 392-8874, E-
         mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Faces Lawsuit by Vacation Home Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
British American Homes LLC is facing eight lawsuits, including a
class action, filed by investors claiming the company
"misappropriated" deposits on vacation homes.  

The class action emerged in a report by Mark Pino of The Orlando
(Fla.) Sentinel.  The report states that the Florida Attorney
General's office had received six similar complaints in about 16
months until January.  It has forwarded the matter to another
state agency, the Department of Business & Professional
Regulation.

The company had said it was developing a 243-unit subdivision on
120 acres in Osceola County, but it has yet to receive county-
required permits that would allow it to begin construction,
according to the report.  The investors are seeking deposits of
as much as $78,000 that they put down starting in 2004.  

Also named in the class action are Sega Ventures Ltd. and the
head of British American Homes, Hudson Gabay.  The suit claims
violations of the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act.

Plaintiffs seek the return of deposits and ask that work on the
subdivision be stopped until the plaintiffs receive "all monies
owed."  They also ask for the company to comply with a court
order by providing records of its finances, the business
relationship between the defendants and identification of every
plaintiff that entered into a purchase contract.  

The seven individual suits were filed in Osceola circuit court.  

Plaintiffs' attorney are Omar Ortega and Natalia Munoz of
Marcell Felipe Attorneys & International Lawyers, 1401 Brickell
Avenue, Suite 500, Miami, Florida 33131 (Miami-Dade Co.).


COLUMBIA NATURAL: $405M Award in "Tawney" Too High, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roane (W.Va.) Circuit Judge Thomas Evans agreed with a claim of
gas companies, including Columbia Natural Resources, that a $405
million punitive damages award in a suit over gas royalties was
higher than it should rightfully be by at least 30 percent, the
Charleston Gazette reports.

But he balked when the gas companies argued for even more
reductions to the damages at a March 5 hearing, the report said.

"I'm not sure I'm going to change the rulings I made throughout
the case," Judge Evans said.

A jury in Spencer, West Virginia had imposed approximately
$134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in
punitive damages against defendants in the case, "Tawney, et al.
v. Columbia Natural Resources et al." (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 29, 2006).  

The suit also names as defendants Columbia Energy Group,
Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, and NiSource Inc., Columbia Natural's
former parent.   

NiSource previously said it believes the verdict in the case is
clearly excessive and should be set aside by the trial court or
overturned on appeal.

The result, if left standing, would set a precedent that is
contrary to existing law and could undermine the legal
underpinnings of nearly every natural gas royalty contract in
the state, the company said in a statement.  

As such, the decision not only affects the defendants, but also
potentially harms every natural gas producer in West Virginia
and could have a negative impact on future oil and gas
development, NiSource said.

The plaintiffs in the case, natural gas royalty owners, filed
the lawsuit in early 2003 alleging that Columbia Natural
underpaid royalties by deducting a portion of post-production
costs incurred in order to gather and transport gas to
interstate pipelines and by not paying market value for gas
produced under all leases, even those providing for payment
based on actual proceeds received for the gas.  Plaintiffs
sought the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive damages.

Although NiSource sold Columbia Natural in 2003, the company is
a defendant in the case and remains primarily responsible for
any damages ultimately determined to be due following appeal.  

The class in the case includes any person who, after July 31,
1990, received or is due royalties from Columbia Natural
Resources, and its predecessors or successors, on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

All claims by the government of the U.S. are excluded from the
class.

During the March 5 hearing, Judge Evans indicated he might
reduce the punitive damages because they were based on the
wrongful payment of "flat-rate" royalties to the rights owners,
according to the report.  

Flat-rate royalties are set payments not tied to well
production.  If these were excluded, the compensatory damages
would be reduced to $92 million, NiSource attorney Ancil Ramey
said.  Punitive damages will thus be cut down to $188, based on
the 2-to-1 ratio used by the jury.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is Marvin Masters of Charleston (181  
Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301, (Kanawha Co.),  
Phone: 304-342-3106, Fax: 304-342-3189.  

Representing the defendants is Timothy Miller, 400 Fifth Third
Center, 700 Virginia Street, East, P.O. Box 1791 Charleston,
West Virginia 25326 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-344-5800, Fax:
304-344-9566.


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Still Faces Suit Over Title Insurance Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Land America Financial Group, remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed in the Court of Common Pleas for
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which alleges that the company
overcharges owner's title insurance policy rates.

Rodney P. Simon and Tracy L. Simon filed the putative class
action on March 5, 2003.  They alleged that the defendant had a
practice of charging original rates for owner's title insurance
policies when lower, reissue rates should have been charged.

Lawyers Title initially responded by demanding that the actions
be arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court,
the court ruled that arbitration was not required for either
suit.

Plaintiffs are seeking to have the case certified as a class
action on behalf of all sellers of residential property in Ohio,
who paid the original rate from 1993 to the present, as
requested in the original complaint, although no hearing date on
the class certification has been scheduled.  

Plaintiffs in both cases have demanded an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

These cases are in the early stages, there have been no class
certifications, and the defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses.

LandAmerica Financial 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.

LandAmerica Financial Group on the Net: http://www.landam.com.


EDUCATE INC: Faces Suit Over $535M Management Buyout Offer
----------------------------------------------------------
A Texas shareholder of Educate Inc. filed a class action to
block a $535 million management buyout offer for the Baltimore-
based educational services company, the Daily Record reports.

The plaintiff alleges that the company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders when they took
"impermissible" steps to lock up the deal and hinder any such
other potential bidders in their attempts to acquire.  The
buyout is set to close this month.

The suit was filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court early in
March.

Educate, Inc. -- http://www.educate-inc.com-- along with its  
subsidiaries, provides tutoring and other supplemental education
services to prekindergarten through twelfth grade and pre-K-12
students. It operates in two segments, Learning Center and
Catapult Learning.


ENRON CORP: Court Approves $72M Settlement with Arthur Andersen
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon has approved a $72.5 million
settlement resolving claims against Arthur Andersen LLP in the
Enron Corp. securities litigation, reports say.  Investors will
also get $2 million in accrued interest under the settlement.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  In
February 2002, University of California was named lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit previously filed against 29 top executives of
Enron and its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen.  

On April 8, 2002, the University of California filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, naming the financial
institutions and law firms that were directly involved with
Enron executives and their auditors, as defendants in the Enron
class action.  

The amended complaint details the scheme by which the defendants
defrauded thousands of institutions and individual investors of
more than $25 billion.

On July 5, 2006 Judge Harmon granted class-action status to the
shareholder suit.  Defendants subsequently entered into
settlement agreements, as:

Arthur Andersen LLP, Sep. 2006,               $72.5 million
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sep. 2006,              $13.5 million
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Aug. 2005, $2.4 billion
JPMorganChase, June 2005,                      $2.2 billion
Citigroup, June 2005,                          $2 billion
Outside Directors, Jan. 2005,                $168 million
Lehman Brothers, Oct. 2004,                $222.5 million
Bank of America, July 2004,                   $69 million
Andersen Worldwide SC, 2002,                  $32 million
LJM2 bankruptcy recovery, 2004-05,            $37 million

Total recovery to date is $7.3 billion, including interest,
according to the Web site of the University of California.

Remaining defendants [as of Jan. 25, 2007] are:

Credit Suisse First Boston
Goldman Sachs
Merrill Lynch & Co.
Royal Bank of Canada
Royal Bank of Scotland
Toronto Dominion Bank

In January, the federal court dismissed from the suit the estate
of deceased former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay and Vinson &
Elkins, Enron's former outside law firms.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reinstate Barclays plc as a
defendant.

Meanwhile, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston are
asking the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to end a class
action by Enron investors, who are seeking $40 billion in
losses.  Judge Harmon rescheduled an April 9 trial to April 16
after refusing to delay the case indefinitely until the appeals
court rules.

University of California is one of a number of large public and
private institutions across the country that invested in Enron
based on what is now known to be inaccurate official company
statements, documents filed with regulatory agencies, and
information audited and certified by Arthur Andersen.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover investment losses resulting from the
University's purchase and sale of Enron stock between May 2000
and November 2001.

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: (415) 288-
4545, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


INTEL CORP: Del. Judge Dismisses Part of Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph Farnan of the U.S. District for the District of
Delaware dismissed portions of a class action against Intel
Corp. accusing it of violating antitrust laws, InfoWorld Daily
reports.

In a ruling issued last week, the judge said that a U.S. court
has no jurisdiction over the foreign conduct claims in a lawsuit
that seeks monetary damages for U.S. consumers and businesses
who purchased PCs with Intel chips.  Those consumers say they
were forced to pay too much because Intel used its near-monopoly
position to bar computer makers from using Advanced Micro
Devices Inc. chips, thus eliminating competition and keeping
prices artificially high.

According to Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy, the ruling means that
even if the court found Intel guilty of forcing up prices, the
plaintiffs could not calculate the damages they won by including
PC sales by foreign vendors like Acer Inc., Sony Corp. and
Toshiba Corp.  They would have to base their claim solely on
sales by U.S. vendors like Dell Inc., Gateway Inc. and Hewlett-
Packard Co.

"AMD and the class would need to sue Intel in foreign
jurisdictions to recover monetary damages that were incurred
outside the U.S.," said AMD spokesman Michael Silverman. "From
our perspective -- and I suspect the class would say the same --
the critical piece was to gain access to that foreign
discovery."

In addition, the class action concerns only the harm caused to
domestic customers, said Daniel A. Small, a lawyer for the firm
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, of Washington, D.C. who
argued the plaintiffs' case.

However, that effort hit a large hurdle, when Intel admitted it
had lost many internal e-mail message records related to the AMD
case, making it impossible to collect them as evidence.

Subsequently, the court gave Intel a deadline of April 10 to
turn over an explanation of its e-mail message preservation
plan, a list of correspondence between the people responsible
for following it and its plan to restore the lost data.

Another challenge for the class action is Intel's motion to
dismiss the entire case because it says customers were never
harmed by increased prices.

Instead, Intel says it used its dominant market position to
compete with AMD by decreasing prices, Mr. Small said.

The judge said he would rule on that motion by the end of March.

Mr. Mulloy said the case has no direct relation to the antitrust
suit AMD filed against Intel in 2005, but mirrors the same
charges.

The suit is "Paul v. Intel Corp.- Consolidated Action, Case No.
1:05-cv-00485-JJF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Joseph J. Farnan.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael D. Hausfeld and Daniel A. Small, both of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
         Avenue, NW, Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC
         20005, E-mail: mhausfeld@cmht.com or dsmall@cmht.com;
         and

     (2) James L. Holzman, Eric M. Andersen and J. Clayton
         Athey, all of Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., 1310
         King St., P.O. Box 1328, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone:
         (302) 888-6500, E-mail: jlholzman@prickett.com or
         jcathey@prickett.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (1) David Mark Balabanian, Joy K. Fuyuno and Christopher B.
         Hockett, all of Bingham McCutchen LLP, Three  
         Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111-4067,
         Phone: 415-393-2000, E-mail:
         david.balabanian@bingham.com or
         chris.hockett@bingham.com; and

     (2) Richard L. Horwitz of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box
         951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000,
         E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fla. Court Decertifies Class in OOIDA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
decertified a class in the litigation, "Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Inc., et al. v.
Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR."

On Nov. 1, 2002, OOIDA and six individual independent  
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company under  
exclusive lease arrangement filed a purported class-action  
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of  
Florida against the company.  

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs amended the complaint.  Claims are  
currently pending against the following company entities:

      -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,  
      -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and  
      -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.  

On Aug. 30, 2005, the court granted a motion by plaintiffs to  
certify the case as a class action.  The amended complaint  
alleges that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier  
leases and related practices violate certain federal leasing  
regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount  
of damages and attorney's fees.  

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the company has violated  
the federal regulations by:

      -- making undisclosed and/or undocumented reductions from  
         revenue derived from freight before calculating  
         compensation, thereby unlawfully reducing Plaintiffs'  
         compensation (Revenue Claim);

      -- making charge-backs to the plaintiffs' for certain  
         products or services that were in excess of sums  
         actually paid by the company for such products and  
         services (Charge-Back Margin Claim); and  

      -- failing to provide the plaintiffs with proper  
         disclosure with respect to the methodology for  
         calculating such charge-back amounts (Charge-Back  
         Disclosure Claim).

On Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
denied the defendants' petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order.

In May 2006, plaintiffs served defendants with a report,  
prepared by their consultant, asserting that as a result of the  
alleged violations by the defendants of the federal leasing  
regulations, class members suffered damages, excluding interest,  
during the period ending April 30, 2006 of approximately $39.1  
million in the aggregate (Plaintiffs' Report).   

Plaintiffs allege that the damages of the class members will  
continue to accrue through the pendency of this litigation and  
the amended complaint also asserts alternative damage theories,  
including claims for equitable relief.  Defendants had no role  
in preparing the Plaintiffs' Report.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the defendants filed a motion, which is  
pending, asking that the court bifurcate the proceedings such  
that only common issues of law would be decided on a classwide  
basis and any remaining issues of fact, including whether any  
class member can prove liability or damages, would be tried on  
an individualized basis.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court issued a summary judgment ruling
which found, among other things, that:

      -- the lease agreements of the defendants (as defined
         below) literally complied with the requirements of
         Section 376.12(d) of the applicable federal leasing
         regulations in regards to provisions relating to
         reductions to revenue derived from freight upon which
         BCO Independent Contractors' compensation is
         calculated,

      -- charge-back amounts which include fees and profits to
         the motor carrier are not unlawful under Section
         376.12(h), and

      -- the defendants had violated 376.12(h) of the
         regulations by failing to provide access to documents
         to determine the validity of certain charges.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the court ruled that the monetary remedy
available to the plaintiffs would be limited to damages
sustained as a result of the violation and rejected plaintiffs'
request for equitable relief in the form of restitution or
disgorgement.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the court ordered the decertification of the
class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining
remedies.  

On Jan. 18, 2007, in response to a motion filed by the
defendants following the presentation by the plaintiffs of their
case in chief, the court granted judgment as a matter of law in
favor of the defendants and stated that the plaintiffs had
failed to present evidence that any of the plaintiffs had
sustained damages as a result of any violation of the applicable
federal leasing regulations.

On that date, the court also ruled that access to documents
describing a third party vendor's charges to determine the
validity of charge-back amounts under 376.12(h) was not required
under defendants' current lease with respect to programs where
the lease contains a price to a BCO Independent Contractor that
is not calculated on the basis of a third party vendor's charge
to the defendants.  

Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief remains pending.  Upon
entry by the court of a written final judgment, the plaintiffs
will have the right to appeal the court's rulings.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.  
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle  
District of Florida under Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary   
         Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of   
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite   
         300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or   
         202/965-6100; and   

     (2) Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,   
         Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110,   
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax:   
         904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light &
         Hanson, P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC
         20036-5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:  
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;

    (ii) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.   
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-
         2968, Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; and  

   (iii) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,   
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-  
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:   
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Title Insurance Policy Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 29 hearing date was scheduled for a purported class
action alleging that Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, overcharges
clients for owner's title insurance policy rates.

On Jan. 25, 2002, Miles R. Henderson and Patricia A. Henderson
filed a putative class action against Lawyers Title in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  

Lawyers Title removed the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 6, 2002, and the plaintiffs
amended the complaint on March 8, 2002.  On June 28, 2002, the
District Court remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas
for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had a practice of charging
original rates for owner's title insurance policies when lower,
reissue rates should have been charged.

Lawyers Title initially responded by demanding that the suit be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.

On remand to the trial court, the plaintiffs are now seeking to
have the case certified as a class action on behalf of all
sellers and buyers of residential property in Ohio who paid the
higher original rate from 1992 to the present.  

Plaintiffs demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has set a hearing date of Aug. 29, according to
LandAmerica Financial's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

LandAmerica Financial Group on the Net: http://www.landam.com.


LEGACY HEALTH: Ore. Court Okays Settlement of Uninsured's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Multnomah County Circuit Court judge approved a settlement of
a class action filed against Legacy Health System on behalf of
uninsured patients who are challenging the company's charity
care policies, the Portland Business Journal reports.

Under the settlement, Legacy offered a 25 percent discount from
billed charges to uninsured patients retroactive to December
2001.  For two years going forward, Legacy will offer a 15
percent discount from billed charges to uninsured with annual
incomes under $100,000.

Additionally, Legacy applied its current charity care policy
retroactively to December 2001 and prospectively for four years.
This policy, originally developed in cooperation with the Oregon
Health Action Campaign, allows patients with incomes up to 400
percent of the Federal Poverty Level percent to pay on a sliding
scale.

Patients with incomes that are at 200 percent or less of the
Federal Poverty Level pay nothing for medically necessary
services.

Legacy also reviewed claims submitted by uninsured patients who
received services at a Legacy hospital during the past four
years.

Of the 360 total claims submitted by class members, 77
individuals were eligible to receive refunds under the terms of
the settlement.  The total amount to be refunded to the 77
eligible class members is $71,596.

Legacy also retroactively recalculated bills for care provided
to uninsured patients from December 2001 through July 2006 by
applying a 25 percent discount from billed charges.  This
resulted in $14 million in discounts for the past five years,
but because the patients incurring the majority of these charges
paid little or nothing, few claimants were eligible for refunds,
and refunds were minimal.

The lawsuit accuses the company of consistently overcharging its
poorest and most vulnerable patients -- the uninsured -- by
billing them the highest rates without their knowledge.  These
prices far exceed the amounts that the company requires its
insured patients to pay for the same exact services (Class  
Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2005).   

In 2006, Legacy Health System proposed to settle the class
action (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2006).

The case is part of nationwide litigation against nonprofit
hospitals for price gouging and price discrimination against the
uninsured.  The litigation was commenced by Richard Scruggs and
attorneys around the country in June 2004.

The company is one of the two largest non-profit healthcare
systems in Oregon.  The defendant hospitals in the case are
Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Legacy Emanuel Hospital in
Portland and Legacy Mount Hood Medical Center in Gresham.

For more details, contact:

     (1) John Phillips and Matthew Geyman of Phillips Law Group,  
         PLLC in Seattle, Washington, Phone: (206) 484-0016 and  
         (206) 382-1168;  

     (2) Michael Williams and Brian Campf of Williams Love  
         O'Leary Craine & Powers, P.C. in Portland, Oregon,  
         (503) 849-9899; and  

     (3) Richard Scruggs and Sid Backstrom of the Scruggs Law  
         Firm, P.A. in Oxford, Mississippi, (662) 281-1212, Web  
         site: http://www.nfplitigation.com.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Trial Begins in Suit Over MK Share Purchase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Court trial in a purported class action filed against Leucadia
National Corp. in relation to its 2005 acquisition of minority
interest in MK Resources Co. has begun.

The case is "Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al. v.
Leucadia National Corp., et al.," a consolidated action
involving a petition for appraisal and a class action pending in
the Delaware Chancery Court.

The pending appraisal petition seeks a judicial determination of
the fair value of approximately 3,979,400 shares of MK
Resources' common stock as of Aug. 19, 2005, the date of the
merger of one of the company's subsidiaries into MK Resources.

The class action complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, costs, disbursements and any further relief
that the court may deem just and proper, and in the alternative,
seeks rescissory damages, in each case taking into account the
$1.27 per share consideration paid to the minority stockholders
of MK Resources in the merger.

Based on discovery to date, the company understands that the
plaintiffs believe that the fair value of each share of MK
Resources common stock at the date of the merger ranged from
$4.75 to $10.16 per share (with respect to a total of
approximately 10,500,000 shares), while the company believes
that the fair value of each MK Resources share at that date was
$0.57 per share.

The trial in this case is currently scheduled for March 12-16,
2007, 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.

Leucadia National Corp. on the Net: http://www.leucadia.com/.


LOUISIANA: ACLU Sues Court Over Jailing of Indigent Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Orleans Municipal Court and certain of its judges were
named defendants in a purported federal class action that
alleges violations of the rights of defendants could not pay
misdemeanor fines.

The American Civil Liberties Union, and the Tulane Criminal Law
Clinic filed the suit on March 3 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.  

It was brought on behalf of Pearcy Dear, described by the ACLU
as indigent and suffering from epilepsy, schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder.

The suit said Mr. Dear is serving a 20-day sentence for begging
after being unable to pay a $200 fine.  It also said that Mr.
Dear was brought before Municipal Judge John Shea on Feb. 28,
the day of his arrest, and found guilty of the misdemeanor
offense.

The ACLU is seeking class-action status for all defendants
jailed as the result of what the civil liberties group calls the
court's "pay or stay" policy.

According to Joe Cook, executive director of the Louisiana ACLU,
such a sentence "means the rich pay to get out of jail and go
home, while the poor stay in overcrowded Orleans Parish Prison
to pay off the debt with jail time."

Mr. Cook pointed out that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the
Louisiana Supreme Court have banned such a practice.

In addition to Judge Shea, the city's other three Municipal
Court judges are named as defendants in their official
capacities.  They include:

      -- Judge John Blanchard,
      -- Judge Sean T. Early, and
      -- Judge Paul Sens

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1b34

The suit is "Dear v. Shea et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01186-ILRL-
SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana under Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle with referral to
Judge Sally Shushan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann of The American Civil
         Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana, 1340 Poydras
         St., Suite 2160, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-592-
         8056, E-mail: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org;

     (2) Pamela Ries Metzger of The Tulane Law Clinic, 6329
         Freret St., New Orleans, LA 70118, 504-865-5153; and

     (3) Steven C. Parker of Louisiana Capital Assistance
         Center, 636 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
         Phone: 504-558-9867.


LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suit in Kans.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lyondell Chemical Co. and certain other chemical companies are
defendants in a consolidated class action alleging violations of
U.S. antitrust law in connection with the manufacture and sale
of polyether polyols, methylene diphenyl diisocyantate (MDI) and
toluene diisocyanate (TDI).

Beginning November 2004, several purported class actions were
filed in federal court on behalf of U.S. purchasers.  The suits
are seeking treble damages in an unspecified amount.

The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation later
consolidated the lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under the caption, "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1616."

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 "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket
No. 04-md-01616-JWL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Nunzio Alioto of Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott,
         LLP, 2280 Union Street, San Francisco, CA 94123, Phone:
         415-563-7200, Fax: 415-346-0679, E-mail: malioto@tatp;
         and

     (2) Yvonne M. Flaherty of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP,
         100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN
         55401-2179, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-
         mail: flaheym@locklaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) William C. Cagney of Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf,
         LLP, 120 Albany Street Plaza, New Brunswick, NJ 08901,
         Phone: 732-846-7600;

    (ii) Floyd R. Finch, Jr. of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin,
         LLP, Kansas City, 4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O.
         Box 219777, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-983-8128,
         Fax: 816-983-8080, E-mail: ffinch@blackwellsanders.com;

   (iii) Robert Fleishman of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, 1330
         Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902, E-mail:
         rfleishm@steptoe.com; and

    (iv) Jason Brett Fliegel of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP,
         71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-701-
         8839, Fax: 312-706-8115, E-mail:
         jfliegel@mayerbrownrowe.com.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Settlement of CLRA Violations Suit Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court declined to give preliminary
approval to a proposed settlement of a suit alleging that
Mercury Insurance Co.'s calculation of persistency discounts to
determine premiums is an unfair business practice.

"Sam Donabedian, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co., et al.," was
originally filed on April 20, 2001 in the Los Angeles Superior
Court.  The suit asserts, among other things, a claim that the
company's calculation of persistency discounts to determine
premiums is an unfair business practice, a violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and a breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The company originally prevailed on a demurrer to the complaint
and the case was dismissed; however, the California Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, deciding that the
California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive
right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums.

After filing two additional pleadings, on June 28, 2005, the
plaintiff filed a 4th Amended Complaint asserting claims for
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(the CLRA claim previously had been dismissed with prejudice).

Plaintiff again sought injunctive relief, unspecified
restitution and monetary damages as well as punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Without leave of court, the
plaintiff also attempted to state claims for breach of contract
and fraud.

The company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike certain
portions of the plaintiff's 4th Amended Complaint.  Following a
hearing on Sept. 19, 2005, the court took the matter under
submission.  While the motions were under submission, counsel
for the plaintiff asked Mercury to engage in settlement
discussions.

The court agreed to stay the matter and counsel for the
plaintiff and the company met on several occasions to seek
resolution, but none was reached.

Additionally, over the company's objection, on May 9, 2005, the
trial court permitted The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights (FTCR) to file a Complaint in Intervention to allege that
the company's calculation of persistency discounts constitutes a
violation of insurance Code Section 1861.02(a) and (c).

Following a ruling by the Court of Appeal in another case which
found that there is no private right of action to allege
violations of Section 1861.02, the company brought a motion for
judgment on the pleadings to have FTCR's Complaint in
Intervention dismissed.  That motion was heard on April 28,
2006.

Subsequent to the hearing, FTCR filed an amended complaint in
intervention, and Mercury again filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings, which the court denied at a hearing on July 31,
2006.

In view of the then on-going settlement discussions with the
plaintiff, the company did not seek further appellate review of
the court's ruling, but is now contemplating whether to
challenge FTCR's participation in the case since the class
settlement was not approved.

During the fall of 2005, counsel for the plaintiff and the
company met on several occasions in an effort to resolve the
case.  FTCR was not invited to participate in these discussions.

When plaintiff and the company were not able to reach a
resolution, the court ordered the parties to a settlement
conference before another judge.  On Aug. 1, 2006, following
three settlement conferences, the company and the plaintiff
reached a preliminary settlement which was subject to completion
of the class approval process and was also subject to objections
and review by the court.

Prior to the hearing scheduled for Oct. 30, 2006, the FTCR filed
objections to the proposed settlement.  Also, shortly before the
hearing, the California Department of Insurance (DOI) filed a
letter with the court contending that the terms of the
settlement, which provided for a coupon to class members to be
used toward the purchase of "new," not renewal business,
constituted a "discount" of insurance rates and thus would be
subject to the California DOI's approval.

Following several delays and further briefing by the parties, at
a hearing on Feb. 5, 2007, the Court declined to give
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement.

Accordingly, upon the company's request, the tentative ruling on
the company's demurrer and motion to strike was unsealed.  The
court sustained the company's demurrer to all but the Section
17200 claim, as well as a claim for alleged violation of
Insurance Code Section 1861.02 which Plaintiff's counsel now has
indicated will be voluntarily dismissed.

The court also granted the company's request to strike the
punitive damage claim.  It is expected that the court will
establish a schedule for discovery and briefing on the issue of
administrative estoppel (that is whether the company's conduct
was protected and/or reasonable since the persistency discount
was part of a rate filing plan approved by the California DOI).
The parties have agreed to litigate this issue first.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Court Certifies Suit Over Medical Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court certified a class in a suit filed
against Mercury Insurance Co., challenging the use of certain
automated database vendors by the company to assist in valuing
claims for medical payments.

The suit, "Marissa Goodman, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co." was
filed June 16, 2002.  The plaintiff filed a motion seeking
class-action certification to include all of the company's
insureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical
payments claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program
and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical
payments.  

On Jan. 11, 2007, the court certified the requested class and
scheduled a case management conference to discuss notifying
class members.  The plaintiff alleges that these automated
databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to
the detriment of insureds.  The plaintiff is seeking unspecified
actual and punitive damages.  

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance
carriers in the industry.  The case has been coordinated with
two other similar cases, and also with 10 other cases relating
to total loss claims.  The court denied the company's Motion for
Summary Judgment holding that there is an issue of fact as to
whether Ms. Goodman sustained any damages as a result of the
company's handling of her medical payments claim.

The original trial date has been vacated by the court and not
rescheduled.  


MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Field Adjusters' FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Co. has reached a settlement with former
automobile policy field adjusters who filed the suit, "Robert
Dolan, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co., et al."

The case is a collective action claim filed in April of 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  

The plaintiffs, former automobile policy field adjusters, claim
that they and the members of the class they seek to represent
were denied overtime compensation in violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.  

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class
of field adjusters for a period of three years preceding the
filing of the action, and recovery of allegedly unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has granted conditional certification for notice
purposes.  In February 2007, the company and the plaintiff
reached a preliminary settlement which is subject to review and
approval by the court.  

The suit is "Dolan et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co. et al., Case
No. 8:06-cv-00600-RAL-TGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge Richard A. Lazzara
with referral to Thomas G. Wilson.


NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Extends Securities Suit Class Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Brower Piven announces that class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of New Century
Financial Corp. include claims for an extended period through
March 2, 2007 such that the period for which claims have now
been asserted extends from April 7, 2006 through March 2, 2007.

Claims for this extended period were asserted when, after the
close of the market on March 2, 2007, New Century disclosed for
the first time that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central
District of California had notified the company that it is
conducting a criminal inquiry in connection with trading in New
Century's stock and that the U.S. Attorney's Office is
investigating accounting issues regarding New Century's
allowance for loan repurchase losses.

On March 5, New Century's stock price continued to fall, closing
below $5.00 per share.

Brower Piven, one of the firms that filed a class action against
the company, has also been retained to pursue claims during the
Class Period that extends though March 2, 2007.

The complaint alleges that New Century and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities law
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 2, 2007).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results and concealed the following material adverse facts from
the investing public:

     (a) the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

     (b) the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its allowance for loan repurchase losses;

     (c) the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its residual interests in securitizations by failing to
         timely write down the impaired asset;

     (d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the sub-prime market, the company would be forced to
         tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a
         direct material negative impact on its loan productions
         going forward; and

     (e) given the increased volatility in the sub-prime market,
         the company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its ability to maintain its current mortgage loan
         production levels for 2007.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of these false
statements, New Century stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $51.22 per
share on April 28, 2006 and that defendants took advantage of
this inflation, selling 665,334 shares of their New Century
stock for proceeds of over $26.6 million.

On Feb. 7, 2007, after the market closed, New Century announced
that it will have to restate its consolidated financial results
for the first three quarters of 2006 to correct errors the
company discovered in its application of generally accepted
accounting principles regarding the company's allowance for loan
repurchase losses.

On this news, New Century's stock fell $10.92 per share to close
at $19.24 per share on Feb. 8, 2007, a one-day decline of
approximately 36%.

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

New Century is a real estate investment trust that through its
subsidiaries operates mortgage finance companies.

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


PIZZA HUT: Calif. Court Finally Approves FLSA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of California granted
final approval to a settlement of a class action alleging
violations of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act by Pizza Hut,
Inc.

The suit, "Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc.," was filed on Aug. 13,
2003.  It contends that the company's current and former Pizza
Hut Restaurant General Managers were improperly classified as
exempt employees.  

There is also a pendent state law claim, alleging that current
and former general managers in California were misclassified
under that state's law.  Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages
and penalties.  

On May 5, 2004, the court granted conditional certification of a
nationwide class of Restaurant General Managers under the FLSA
claim, providing notice to prospective class members and an
opportunity to join the class.  

Approximately 12 percent of the eligible class members have
joined the litigation as of June 29, 2005, although a number
were later stricken by the District Court.  

On July 20, 2004, the court granted summary judgment on Ms.
Coldiron's individual FLSA claim.  The company believes that the
District Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Ms.
Coldiron is clearly erroneous under well-established legal
precedent.  

Ms. Coldiron also filed a motion to certify an additional class
of current and former California Restaurant General Managers
under California state law, a motion for summary judgment on her
individual state law claims and a motion requesting that the
court enter summary judgment on the damages that FLSA class
members would be due upon successful prosecution of the class-
wide litigation.  The company opposed all three motions.  

On April 1, 2005, the court issued an order granting Ms.
Coldiron's motion to certify a California state law class.  On
April 15, 2005, the company filed a petition for review of that
order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On May 5, 2005, the court sua sponte filed an order extending
the opt-in cut-off date in the FLSA action until Sept. 1, 2005.  
On May 13, 2005, the court sua sponte amended its April 1, 2005
order to identify the California class claims and appoint class
counsel.  On May 27, 2005, the company filed a petition for
review of the amended order by the 9th Circuit.  

On June 30, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
strike all FLSA class members who joined the litigation after
July 15, 2004.  

The effect of this order is to reduce the number of FLSA class
members to only approximately 87, or approximately 2.5% of the
eligible class members.

In November 2005, the parties agreed to a settlement.  The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 28, 2006.  

Final approval of the settlement was granted on Oct. 5, 2006,
and payment was made during the quarter ended Dec. 30, 2006,
according 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 "Ann Coldiron v. Pizza Hut Inc., et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-05865-TJH-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Terry J. Hatter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bicvan T. Brown, Rex Hwang, Justian Jusuf, Gregory G.
         Petersen, and H. Ernie Nishii of Castle Petersen and
         Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250, Newport
         Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5600, E-mail:
         justian@cpk-law.com; and

     (2) Catherine Starr of Catherine Starr Law Offices, 24325
         Crenshaw Blvd, Suite 211, Torrance, CA 90505 Phone:
         310-539-4806, Fax: 310-539-2454.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Andra Barmash Greene, Layn R. Phillips, Henry Shields,
         Jr. and Bruce A. Wessell, Irell & Manella, 1800 Avenue
         of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276,
         Phone: 310-277-1010, fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail:
         lphillips@irell.com, hshields@irell.com or
         bwessell@irell.com; and

    (ii) George A. McNamee, III, Richard S. Ruben, Ellen
         Laguerta Uy, Paula Maxine Weber, Pillsbury Winthrop,
         725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-
         5406, Phone: 213-488-7100.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Ore. Court Abates Customers' Suit for One Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order of Abatement in
two class actions filed by electric service customers against
Portland General Electric Co., according to the company's March
2 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 17, 2003, two class actions were filed in Marion County
Circuit Court against Portland General on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers.

The suits are:

      -- "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
         General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court,
         Case No. 03C 10639;" and

      -- "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion
         County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640."

The Dreyer case seeks to represent current Portland General
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995 to Oct. 1, 2001 (Current Class) and the Morgan case seeks
to represent Portland General customers that were customers
during the period from April 1, 1995 to Oct. 1, 2001, but who
are no longer customers (Former Class, together with the Current
Class, the Class Action Plaintiffs).  

The suits seek damages of $190 million for the Current Class and
$70 million for the Former Class, from the inclusion of a return
on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the rates Portland
General charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and on July 30, 2004, Portland General also
moved for Summary Judgment in its favor on all of class action
plaintiffs' claims.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and partial summary judgment and denied
Portland General's motion for summary judgment.  Portland
General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on
Feb. 1, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court asking the Court to
take jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed.

On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court
seeking to overturn the class certification.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus
abating these class action proceedings.

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions for one year.

Portland General on the Net http://www.portlandgeneral.com.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Approval of Ill. FLSA Suits Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radioshack Corp. has yet to report court approval of settlements
it reached in suits alleging the company misclassified certain
RadioShack store managers as exempt from overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act or similar state laws.

The company has reached a tentative settlement with counsel for
the plaintiffs in "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack
Corp."  The suit was filed on Oct. 31, 2002 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

It also reached a settlement in four other wage-hour lawsuits
pending against it.  This global settlement would result in a
payment by the company of approximately $8.8 million, in the
aggregate, to resolve all five of the pending lawsuits.

Of this amount, a charge of $8.5 million was recognized during
the quarter ended June 30, 2006, with the balance recognized
during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.  The respective courts
will need to approve the tentative settlement.

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

The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C  
7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Timothy J. Touhy, Esq., Daniel K. Touhy, Esq., James B.  
         Zouras, Esq., and Ryan F. Stephan, Esq., of Touhy &  
         Touhy, LTD., 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210,  
         Chicago, Illinois 60601,Phone: (877) 372-2209, Fax:  
         (312) 456-3838, E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com Web site:  
         http://www.radioshackclassaction.com,and    

     (2) Peter M. Callahan, Esq., Robert W. Thompson, Esq. and  
         Lee A. Sherman, Esq. of Callahan, McCune & Willis, 111  
         Fashion Lane, Tustin, California, 92780, Phone: (714)  
         730-5700, Fax: (714) 730-1642, E-mail:  
         classaction@cmwlaw.net.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Edward W. Bergmann, Esq., Justin M. Crawford, Esq.,  
         Brian J. Hipp, Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe  
         Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, Phone:  
         (312) 346-8000, Fax: (312) 269-8869; and  

    (ii) Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq., Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., and  
         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq., of McKenna, Long & Aldridge,  
         LLP, 750 B Street, Suite 3300, San Diego, California,  
         92101, Phone: (619) 595-5400, Fax: (619) 595-5450, E-
         mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Ga. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted class-action status to a lawsuit against SunTrust Banks
Inc. that alleges the bank failed to re-pay adequate overtime to
certain of its technical support employees.

Willie Allen who at 47 is still a SunTrust employee and has
worked for the financial institution since April 1997 filed the
suit on Dec. 19, 2006.

Mr. Allen alleges that SunTrust violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act in denying him and others overtime pay when they
worked more than 40 hours in a week.

Representing the plaintiff in the case is The Garber Law Firm
P.C. of Marietta.  Alston & Bird LLP represents SunTrust.

According to the suit, SunTrust made its "client technology
specialists" eligible for overtime last fall, announcing the
move in a Sept. 28, 2006 employee conference call.  

By Oct. 13, 2006, the bank began paying employees on an hourly
basis.  And at the end of month, SunTrust paid the plaintiff and
other support employees two years of overtime wages.

However, the suit contends that SunTrust should have paid three
years' worth of wages at a higher rate, and additional damages
for the mistake.  It claims that before the switch by SunTrust,
technical support employees were paid a flat salary.

As "client technology specialists" the plaintiff and others with
the job title at SunTrust, fixed computers, printers and fax
machines as part of the bank's support staff.

With the granting of class-action status -- inherently opening
the case up to as many as 200 current and former SunTrust
employees to join in the class action -- both sides have until
June 11 to gather their evidence before a civil trial will
proceed.

Also with the ruling, current and former employees will have 60
days to decide whether they want to join the class action.  Alan
H. Garber of The Garber Law Firm P.C. says that nine people,
including four from Virginia, three from Florida and two from
Maryland, are joining as plaintiffs, in addition to Mr. Allen.

The suit is "Allen v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
03075-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.

Representing the plaintiffs is Alan Howard Garber of The Garber
Law Firm, P.C., Suite 14, 4994 Lower Roswell Road, NE, Marietta,
GA 30068, Phone: 404-523-0296, Fax: 404-523-1545, Web site:
ahgarber@garberlaw.net.

Representing the defendants is Glenn G. Patton of Alston & Bird,
1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA
30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, E-mail: gpatton@alston.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: La. Suit Over Secondhand Smoke Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case "Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc." remains stayed in
Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, 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 case, filed in November 1997, is an environmental tobacco
smoke class action against 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 suit was filed on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who,
though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the
defendants, and who suffer injury as a result of that exposure.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial
court stayed this case pending the outcome of the appeal in
"Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc."


TOSHIBA OF CANADA: Suit by Satellite Notebook Owners Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice John Brockenshire of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice certified as a class action a suit commenced on behalf
of Canadians who own Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Notebook
Computers, the Toronto Star reports.

The judge accepted a plan by Windsor law firm Sutts Strosberg
LLP to pursue a complaint that the machines would lock up, stall
and perform sluggishly.

The lawsuit was filed in 2006.  Plaintiffs are seeking
compensation as a result of alleged defects in the Satellite Pro
6100 Computers (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006).

The claim alleged that Toshiba was negligent in the design of
the Satellite Pro 6100 Computers, and that Toshiba knew or ought
to have known of the inherent defects in the computers' design
but nevertheless sold, marketed and distributed the computers in
Canada.  

As alleged in the claim, the fundamental problem with the
Satellite Pro 6100 Computers involves design defects that make
the computers unreasonably susceptible to premature motherboard
and video graphics array failures.

The failures involving the Satellite Pro 6100 Computers often
occur outside of the warranty period, and therefore, owners of
these computers have spent hundreds of dollars in replacing the
motherboard and/or hard drives at their own expense.  

Further, these owners are unable to use their computer for
extended periods of time because of the premature
failures/unexpected shutdowns.

Toshiba is one of Canada's leading manufacturers of computers
and computer products.  Toshiba began to design and manufacture
the Satellite Pro 6100 in 2002 as a line of portable computer
notebooks.


TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles Suit Over Call Billing Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TracFone Wireless Inc. agreed to settle a class action filed by
consumers alleging fraud in the company's billing, The
Cincinnati Post reports.

The settlement will entitle customers who used the company's
services from Feb. 21, 2001 to June 13, 2006 to an additional 20
units of airtime.  The settlement is estimated to cost up to $70
million, and to benefit 12 million to 13 million customers.

TracFone also agreed it would warn customers that local calls
could be billed for roaming charges because of the nature of
cell-phone systems.

Boone (Ky.) Circuit Judge Tony Frohlich has given preliminary
approval to the settlement.  He is expected to hold a fairness
hearing on the proposed settlement on April 27 in a Burlington
state court.

The suit was filed by Jeanette Wagner of Walton.  One of the
plaintiff's attorney is Jeff Harris at Statman, Harris, Siegel &
Eyrich, LLC, 441 Vine Street, Suite 3700, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202-3009 (Hamilton Co.), Phone: 513-621-2666, Facsimile: 513-
587-4477.


U-HAUL CO: Supreme Court Issues "Grant and Hold" Order in Konig
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court granted a petition to review a Court of Appeal
decision in "Konig v. U-Haul Co., Case no. 149883," that upholds
a no-class-action arbitration clause in U-Haul's policy,
according to a weblog by Kimberly A. Kralowec at
http://www.uclpractitioner.com/.

                       Case Background

On June 15, 2005, plaintiff Ron Konig, a former employee, filed
a proposed class action for unpaid wages and unfair business
practices against U-Haul.  The complaint, which contained five
causes of action, alleged various violations of the Labor Code
and the Business and Professions Code.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, defendant failed to
pay its employees overtime and accrued vacation.  It allegedly
improperly classified servicing of clientele as sales so as to
call these members of the class, outside sales persons and
classify them as exempt employees.  

"Each and every one of the members of the class named herein who
were customarily and regularly required to discharge their
duties in the course and in excess of, forty hours in a week
and/or eight hours in a day without the appropriate
compensation," according to the complaint.

Defendant is further alleged to have falsely disseminated
information among its employees that the employees were not
entitled to overtime compensation under California law and
defendant's policies.  The complaint further alleged that the
defendant did not allow its employees to take meal and rest
breaks.  

Plaintiff sought damages on behalf of himself and defendant's
similarly situated current and former employees.  Plaintiff
explicitly alleged his claims were typical of all other class
members.  At oral argument, plaintiff conceded his causes of
action would be cognizable as general jurisdiction claims.  That
is, his own personal damage claim exceeds $25,000.  

On Nov. 7, 2005, defendant moved to compel arbitration, to stay
the action, and for dismissal of the class action claims.  
Defendant argued that the claims raised in the lawsuit are
exclusively subject to final and binding arbitration by
defendant's arbitration policy, which was acknowledged and
signed by plaintiff.  

In support of the motion to compel, defendant argued that the
arbitration agreement was enforceable under the U.S. Arbitration
Act or alternatively under the California Arbitration Act.  

In support of the arbitration motion, defendant presented
evidence that plaintiff was hired as a general manager in April
1986 and was subsequently promoted to the position of Area Field
Manager.  Defendant asserted that plaintiff had "accepted the
written terms" [of the U-Haul Arbitration Policy] as a
"condition of his employment" in July 2003.  Defendant
terminated plaintiff in July 2004.  Plaintiff then filed a
complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in
which he alleged that he was terminated for complaining about
harassment and unprofessional behavior in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel arbitration on the
grounds: he never executed the arbitration agreement; his
alleged signature on the July 2003 document was a forgery; the
standard arbitration agreement drafted by defendant is
procedurally unconscionable; and the arbitration agreement is
substantively unconscionable in that it prohibits class actions,
lacks mutuality, and requires employees to pay fees.  

Plaintiff also argued that the case was controlled by "Discover
Bank v. Superior Court," supra, 36 Cal.4th at pages 156-174,
which concluded the U.S. Arbitration Act did not preempt a
finding that the arbitration provision is unconscionable.

In reply, defendant argued plaintiff's claims regarding his
signature lacked merit.  Defendant contended that, even if
plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement, he consented
to its terms by electing to accept the benefits of employment,
with knowledge that it was a condition of his continued
employment.  

Defendant further argued:  California law does not favor class
actions; Discover Bank did not resolve issues related to
employment agreements; the arbitration agreement is not
substantively unconscionable because it satisfies the
requirements of "Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare
Services (2000)"; the arbitration agreement is mutual; and
arbitration agreements are favored in California.

At the initial hearing, the trial court requested supplemental
briefing on class action waivers in the employment context.  In
the interim, on Jan. 19, 2006, the Court of Appeal decided
"Gentry v. Superior Court (2006)."

The Supreme Court granted review of Gentry on April 26, 2006.
Earlier though, on March 24, 2006, the trial court ruled that
the arbitration agreement was enforceable under federal law.  

Citing Gentry, the trial court ruled that a class action waiver
in and of itself did not render the arbitration agreement or
unconscionable.  The trial court found that plaintiff had failed
to establish the infirmities that led to Discover Bank's
conclusion that the consumer contract waiver was substantively
unconscionable.  

Specifically, the trial court ruled plaintiff did not prove that
there were predictably amounts of damages plus a negative impact
on his ability to pursue his statutory claims such that the
arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable.

On April 14, 2006, plaintiff filed an appeal from the order
compelling arbitration and dismissing his putative class claims.  
The appeal from the order compelling arbitration of plaintiff's
individual claims is not appealable.  

In December 2006, the Court of Appeal (2nd Appellate District,
Division Five) published a decision upholding Mr. Konig's class
action waiver in arbitration with the company.  It held that "no
class action" arbitration provision in an employment contract
was enforceable under Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005)."  
Plaintiff filed to establish "predictably . . . small amounts"
of damages payable to class members."

Early in March 2007, the Supreme Court granted a petition to
review the ruling.  It deferred further action in Konig is
pending consideration and disposition of "Gentry v. Superior
Court, S141502," or pending further order of the court.  
Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules
of Court, is deferred pending further order of the court.


UNITED STATES: Agencies Face Calif. Suit Over Special Visas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, and Secretary Michael Chertoff were named
as defendants in a lawsuit alleging that the agencies failed to
issue special protective visas that were approved by Congress
more than six years ago.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March
6 on behalf of undocumented immigrants who are the victims of
violent crimes.

The law at issue is known as the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act.  The 2000 law created visa category
allowing crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement to
remain in the country, and eventually apply for permanent
residency.  It authorized up to 10,000 of the special visas
every year.  

However, as of mid-2006, there were more than 5,800 potential
applicants who had obtained initial approval for the visas, but
they continue to wait for completion of the process.

Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law Foundation in Los Angeles, is the lead
counsel for the case.

Plaintiffs in the case include undocumented immigrants living in
California, Arizona, Kentucky, Texas and New York who have been
victims of domestic violence, attempted murder, aggravated
assault and other crimes.  Often, their cooperation with police
has led to successful prosecution, plaintiffs' attorneys said.

In 2005, Mr. Schey's group sued over the law's enactment, but
they withdrew the case after Congress gave the agency until July
2006 to finalize its rules for employing the so-called U visas.  

The three-year visas can lead eventually to permanent residence
in the U.S.  As of the moment though there are no regulations,
and there's no way to apply for the visas.  That's because the
law involves many levels of government and a long list of
eligible crimes, according to Sharon Rummery, a U.S. immigration
services spokeswoman in San Francisco.

Ms. Rummery pointed out that the law is unusually complex
especially with its involvement of federal law enforcement
branches and state and local law enforcement agencies.  

She maintains that the agencies involved want "the final
regulations to be well thought-out and to reflect law
enforcement needs as well as to offer some protection to
victims."

The suit is "Catholic Charities CYO et al. v. Chertoff et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01307-PJH"filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter A. Schey of The Center for
Human Rights & Constitutional Law, 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Los
Angeles, CA 90057, Phone: 213-388-8693, Fax: 213-386-9484, E-
mail: mail@centerforhumanrights.org, Web site:
http://centerforhumanrights.org/.


WALGREEN CO: EEOC Files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. is facing allegations of racial bias against
thousands of African-American workers in a suit filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois,
reports say.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that the
Deerfield, Ill.-based national drugstore chain assigns managers,
management trainees and pharmacists to low-performing stores and
to stores in African-American communities because of their race.

Additionally, the EEOC alleges that Walgreen denies these
managers and professionals promotional opportunities based on
race -- all in violation of federal law.

Walgreen's actions were investigated by the St. Louis and Miami
district offices of the EEOC after more than 20 current and
former employees from around the country complained to the
federal agency, according to the release.

Walgreen released a statement saying it is committed to
"fairness, diversity and opportunity" and that it was "saddened
and disappointed" by the EEOC action.

"Our commitment is to providing opportunity to all employees -
not only because it is the right thing to do but because our
business was built on this principle," the statement said.

Walgreen said it is the "nation's best represented retailer in
urban areas," and that "managers of all backgrounds are promoted
to senior levels from those locations."

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walgreen
Co., Case No. 3:07-cv-00172-MJR-CJP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge Michael
J. Reagan, with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrea G. Baran of the Equal Employment Opportunity
         Commission - Kansas City, 400 State Avenue, Suite 905
         Kansas City, KS 66101, Phone: 913-551-5848, E-mail:
         andrea.baran@eeoc.gov;

     (2) Robert G. Johnson and Barbara A. Seely, both of the
         Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis,
         MO, 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100, St. Louis, MO
         63103, Phone: 314-539-7915 or 314-539-7800, E-mail:
         robert.johnson@eeoc.gov; and

     (3) Jean P. Kamp of the Equal Employment Opportunity
         Commission, Cook County, 500 West Madison Street, Suite
         2800, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: 312-353-7525.


WEBER-STEPHEN: Recalls Gas Grills with Hoses that Can Break
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weber-Stephen Products Co., of Palatine, Illinois, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 14,000 Weber Genesis 320 Series Gas Grills.

The company said the gas hose attached to the side burner of the
grill can crack or break off during shipping, causing it to leak
gas when in use, which poses a fire hazard to consumers.

Weber has received 49 reports of hose damage or gas leaks.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Weber Genesis 320 Series gas grills that
are designed to be used with either natural gas or with liquid
propane gas tanks, and are equipped with a flush-mounted side
burner accessory.

The gas hose is made of stainless steel.  The grills are sold in
stainless steel and in black, blue or green porcelain enamel.  
All serial numbers begin with the prefix "DI".  The model and
serial number are located on the tank blocker/drip pan holder
located inside the storage cart.

The product names and model numbers included in this recall are:

     Product Name          Model Numbers
     
     Genesis E-320         3751001; 3757001; 3758001; 3851001
   
     Genesis S-320         3780001; 3880001

     Genesis EP-320        3751301; 3752301; 3757301; 3758301;
                           3851301

     Genesis ESP-320       3750101; 3750201; 3850101

     Genesis CEP-320       (Sold in Canada Only)
                           3751701; 3752701; 3851701

These recalled gas grills were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sole at Home Depot, Ace Hardware and Home Centers, Tru-
Serve, Do-It Best, and other home improvement and hardware
stores nationwide from November 2006 through February 2007 for
between $450 to $770.

Picture of recalled gas grills:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07122.jpg

Consumers should stop using the gas grill immediately and
contact Weber-Stephen to obtain a free replacement gas hose and
schedule a free installation.

For more information, call Weber-Stephen toll-free at (866) 249-
3237 between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.weberrecall.com.


WEST AMERICAN: Opposes Certification of Suit by Motorists
---------------------------------------------------------
West American Insurance Co. is appealing the certification of a
suit alleging it improperly charged for uninsured motorists
coverage.

A proceeding entitled "Carol Lazarus v. the Group" was brought
against West American in the Court of Common Pleas Cuyahoga
County, Ohio on Oct. 25, 1999.  The Court ordered the case to
proceed solely against West American on July 10, 2003.

The complaint alleges West American improperly charged for
uninsured motorists coverage following an October 1994 decision
of the Supreme Court of Ohio in "Martin v. Midwestern Insurance
Co."  The Martin decision was overruled legislatively in
September 1997.  

The Court on April 13, 2006 granted a motion for class
certification requested by Carol Lazarus and denied West
American's motion for summary judgment.  West American has
appealed the decision granting class certification to the Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Product Liability Suit in Ark. Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. is facing a class action alleging that the
company's side-by-side refrigerators were defective in design,
Lawyers and Settlements reports.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas.  It makes claims on behalf of all persons
in the U.S. who purchased a side-by-side refrigerator
manufactured by Whirlpool since 2000 and sold under the
Whirlpool, Kitchen Aid and Roper brand names.

Plaintiffs allege that the ice machines in the refrigerators
didn't work and the temperature controls fluctuated, causing
flooding and water and property damage to their homes.

The suit further alleges that Whirlpool knew, or should have
known, that the side-by-side refrigerators were defective in
design, were not fit for their ordinary or intended use, and did
not perform in accordance with their advertisements or
warranties.

The class action is seeking $5 million, exclusive of interest
and costs.

To date, Whirlpool has not recognized consumer requests to
repair or replace the defective product, nor has it planned to
reimburse customers for damages when the refrigerators are
outside the warranty period.

The suit is "Rush et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-
02022-RTD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas under Judge Robert T. Dawson.

Representing plaintiffs is Bruce L. Mulkey of The Mulkey
Attorneys Group P.A., 1039 W. Walnut Suite 3, Rogers, AR 72756,
Phone: (479) 631-0481, Fax: (479) 631-5994, E-mail:
bruce@mulkeylaw.com.


WINDOW ROCK: Faces Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Bogus Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Window Rock Health Laboratories is accused of defrauding
consumers in its sale of "stress-relief" product CortiStress and
weight-loss product CortiSlim, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

In a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 7, 2007, plaintiffs
allege that the company falsely claims that its drugs reduce the
risk of osteoporosis, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer and
cardiovascular disease.

The practice dates back since at least August 2003.

Questions of law and fact common to class include:

     (a) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of CortiSlim and
         CortiStress were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any
         respect, there violating California's Unfair
         Competition Law, California bus. & Prof. Code Section
         17200 et seq.;

     (b) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of CortSlim and
         CortiStress were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any
         respect, thereby violating California's False
         Advertising Law, California Bus. & Prof. Code Section
         17500 et seq.;

     (c) whether defendant's practices and representation made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of CortiSlim and
         CortiStress were false and/or misleading;

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

    (e) whether the defendants have violated California's CLRA,
        California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq., by the
        practices and representations made in connection with
        the labeling, advertising, marketing, promotion and
        sales of CortiSlim and CortiStress 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 to each cause of action as
follows:

     -- for an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as 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 an actual and punitive damages under the Consumers
        Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including any damages as maybe provided for by
        statute upon the filing of an amended complaint should
        the demanded corrections not take place within the
        thirty-day notice period;

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

     -- for an 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?1b04

The suit is "Wilkinson v. Window Rock Enterprises Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-00427-JAH-LSP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, under Judge John A. Houston,
with referral to Judge Leo S. Papas.

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.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


ALVARION LTD: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
securities class action has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the common stock Alvarion, Ltd.
between Nov. 3, 2004 and May 12, 2006, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Alvarion.

For more information, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire, both of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 (toll
free), E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


ALVARION LTD: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Alvarion, Ltd.
common stock between Nov. 3, 2004 and May 12, 2006, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint charges Alvarion and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
company represented that its success was dependent, in
substantial part, upon a "large operator in Latin America" --
which was known to be Telmex, Mexico's leading
telecommunications company.

The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors,
and despite assurances from defendants to the contrary,
Alvarion's sales to Telmex were rapidly decreasing.

As this previously undisclosed information became known to the
public in disclosures made on July 5, 2005, Aug. 3, 2005 and May
12, 2006, shares of Alvarion stock declined.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of Alvarion during the Class Period.  

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

The company describes itself as the "world's leading provider of
innovative wireless broadband network solutions enabling
Personal Broadband to improve lifestyles and productivity with
portable and mobile data, Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VoIP),
video and other services."

For more information, contact William Lerach, Samuel H. Rudman
and David A. Rosenfeld, all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com.


HCC INSURANCE: Brualdi Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm announces that a securities class action
has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of HCC Insurance
Holdings, Inc. between May 3, 2005 and Nov. 17, 2006, and
shareholders of record on April 3, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b),
20(a) and 14(a) of the U.S. 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 company's granting practices in the
         company's financial reports were untrue;

     (2) the company'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 financial reports were not presented in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and were artificially inflated and did not
         accurately present the company'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
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
March 8, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Tali Leger, Director of
Shareholder Relations at The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, Phone: (877) 495-1877
(toll free) or (212) 952-0602, E-mail:
tleger@brualdilawfirm.com, Website:
http://www.brualdilawfirm.com.


HCC INSURANCE: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. between May 3, 2005
and Nov. 17, 2006, inclusive.  

Also included are all shareholders of record on April 3, 2006
and all those who purchased in the Secondary Offering on or
around Nov. 18, 2005.

The complaint alleges that HCC and certain of its officers and
directors violated Federal Securities laws.  Specifically, stock
option grants were backdated such that the description of the
company's granting practices in the company's financial reports
were untrue.

As a result, during the Class Period, HCC's reported earnings
and shareholders' equity were artificially inflated in each of
its financial reports due to understated compensation expenses.

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
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and disseminated to
investors in press releases.

On this news, the price of HCC stock dropped 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%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 7, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A.
Kulesa, both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: firm@snlaw.net, Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Suit in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Harwood Feffer LLP commenced a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
against NovaStar Financial, Inc. on behalf of those who
purchased NovaStar stock from May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20, 2007.

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

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

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

Additionally, it was discovered defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded:

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

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

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

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

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

    (iv) that, as a result of the adverse conditions set forth
         above, NovaStar could not reasonably expect to report
         taxable income for the period 2007 through 2011, thus
         endangering the company's dividend and continued status
         as a REIT.
  
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 24,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Craig Lowther of Harwood Feffer
LLP - Shareholder Relations Dept., 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
clowther@hfesq.com, Website: http://www.hfesq.com.


NUVELO INC: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of NUVELO, Inc. securities during the
class period between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006, including
purchasers in Nuvelo's Jan. 30, 2006 $119 million follow-on
offering who have been damaged thereby.

The action is pending against:

     -- Nuvelo, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company engaged in
        the development and commercialization of acute
        cardiovascular and cancer therapies;

     -- Ted W. Love, chief executive officerl;

     -- Gary S. Titus, vice president of finance and chief
        accounting officer; and

     -- Shelly D. Guyer, Vice President of Business  
        Development and Investor Relations.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

It alleges that during the class period defendants
misrepresented its chances of obtaining U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval of alfimeprase, a purported new blood
clot dissolver.

Despite the fact that 80% of Nuvelo's value was attributed to
this drug, the company's top officers concealed that their own
clinical data demonstrated alfimeprase was ineffective in
dissolving blood clots.

On Dec. 14, 2005, the company announced it had received a
Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreement from the FDA,
claiming that the SPA would solidify the regulatory pathway to
approval for alfimeprase.  Defendants also stated their "power
calculations" demonstrated alfimeprase's efficacy as a drug
candidate.

During a Jan. 5, 2006 conference call, defendants confirmed they
believed alfimeprase would reach the U.S. consumer market by
2008 and that alfimeprase would generate $500 million in annual
sales in the U.S. alone.

The complaint alleges Nuvelo's stock price surged on this news
and remained inflated throughout the Class Period while Nuvelo
issued and sold 7.5 million shares of its common stock in an
offering on Jan. 30, 2006, receiving over $119 million in
proceeds.

Then on Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo disclosed that alfimeprase had
completely failed its clinical trials.  During the conference
call following the announcement, Nuvelo's chief executive
admitted that alfimeprase failed to perform better than placebos
and that previously reported positive results were due to drug
injections washing clots away rather than dissolving them.

On this news the company's stock fell 80%, erasing over $800
million in market capitalization.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were that:

     (1) Nuvelo had no reliable clinical data suggesting that
         alfimeprase "dissolved" blood clots when applied to
         them through a catheter, other than physically washing
         them away;

     (2) Nuvelo had no "power calculations" suggesting
         alfimeprase would out-perform a placebo as required to
         demonstrate the efficacy the FDA would demand; and

     (3) defendants knew the decision of Amgen, the drug's
         original developer, to walk away in December 2004 based
         on Amgen's educated suspicion (based on clinical data
         also known to defendants) that alfimeprase would likely
         not pass FSA must and thus was not a commercially
         viable drug candidate.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

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

For more information, contact the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross,
P.C., Phone: 215-561-3600 or 866-561-3600.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of
Powerwave Technologies Inc. common stock purchasers during the
period May 2, 2005 through Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive, for
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
participated in an illicit scheme to artificially inflate the
value of Powerwave stock, based on false and misleading
representations of the company's true business prospects.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants were aware or consciously and
recklessly disregarded the fact that the wayward execution of
their acquisition and business integration strategies, in
combination with the company's flawed and defective processes
and system, would likely result in lackluster revenue growth,
and that, in order to falsely portray positive business
prospects, defendants resorted to the manipulation of its key
accounting practices, in violation of generally accepted
accounting practices, serving to actively conceal otherwise
unexpected and disturbingly high business integration costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants' active concealment of
these facts served to artificially inflate the price of
Powerwave stock, allowing company insiders to sell Powerwave
stock for improper insider trading proceeds and also allowed the
company to pursue an alleged wayward acquisition strategy, if
only for the purpose of convincing investors of defendants'
purportedly promising growth strategy.

Defendants' conduct was revealed on Oct. 9, 2006, when the
investment community learned that the "one-time" occurrences of
problems due to "seasonality" and other factors were linked to
deeply entrenched problems with the company's alleged wayward
internal controls and practices.

As a result of defendants' shocking announcement, on Oct. 9,
2006, the next trading day, Powerwave's stock price tumbled
$0.98 or 12.5%, closing at $6.42 per share, on extraordinarily
heavy volume of 18.3 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800)
404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *